Jim

This is the worst possible solution. Forcing people to buy somethign from a private company is bullshit. Talk about taking away your freedoms. Tax credits are a boon doggle. EIC is already in place for people who wouldn't be able to afford insurance. The only way for these people to get healthcare is if the tax credits were to pay them significantly more than they paid in the first place. Even then, the financial burden wouldn't be manageable. They wouldn't get that money back until their tax returns were filed. Hillary has sold her soul to the insurance companies. I don't see anything different from the front-runners either. Not because the public doesn't want a change, but because the insurance companies have their thumb on the politicians and they're scared of the media tactics that will be used against them. Here's a recent poll on the issue. Notice a good majority are in favor of univeral health care: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/opinion/polls/main2528357.shtml SHOULD GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE HEALTH INSURANCE FOR ALL? Yes 64% No 27% WHICH IS MORE SERIOUS? Providing health insurance for all 65% Keeping health care costs down 31%

Oh Jesus. He's talking about that hack, John Stossel, of ABC. This guy is such a snake oil salesman. On a special about the myth of global warming he interviewed novelist Michael Crichton as a global warming expert. Here's a reveiew of his most recent trash show about medical care: http://mediamatters.org/items/200709160003?f=h_top

Third Pillar of Dana - Sierra

sounds like she is making that choice - not to get the money for this surgery. Yeah, she is "choosing" to suffer a life of disability rather than trot on down to the magic money tree and pick a few $10k bills off the low-hanging branches. If I was in that position I'd find a way to pay for the surgery. Actually, I'd never let myself get into that position in the first place. With our system, even if you have insurance, the only thing you have going over someone else is luck. Wait until you or a relative come down with some odd cancer and you have to fight the insurance company for what you thought you paid for.

So if you can afford the $20k for a operation ok, if not then buck up? The issue is not just with folks that have no insurance, but even with folks who do and the insurance companies are denying their requests for operations just to insure a higher profit. A friend and ex-logger I know outside of Forks had insurance. He hurt himself in a limbing operation. Broken back. Has had to fight tooth and nail to get what is owed him. Eventually had to declare bankrupcy, thank god it was before the recent revisions in bankrupcy law. In general he is not getting proper health care. He doesn't expect to be pampered, just given some basic help. Our health care system is just lame.

Actually took my father-in-law recently to get his medications and a hearing aid. It was a snap and about 25% of the costs through private insurance.

Silly response - yes. Silly question - no. Why not eliminate the private market for food and place it in the hands of the government? The arguments used to justify nationalizing healthcare apply equally well to food. If you want the government to be responsible for paying for, administering, and distributing all goods and services in the healthcare market on the grounds that the private sector is incapable of doing so efficiently, how is it that the same government could not execute the same tasks just as well when it comes to producing and distributing food? Seriously. Because the market is working well with food production - relatively - if you can ignore the subsidies and such. There is no food production shortage. And because of the range of producers the profit margin is relatively low and competition high. With public services it is different. The market just does not do well with addressing health care. We have 25 million that are not covered. The data is there -we're getting scalped via profits, advertisements, and inefficiencies. We provide police service quite well in the public sector, libraries, schools, and emergency services. Other countries are doing health care for much cheaper and with better results, and covering all their citizens. If the food production network was as broken as the health care network you might have a point. But not so.

You mean like providing subsidized water for wetland crops in the CA desert or price guarantees for wheat or cotton, or maybe getting paid to not grow something? Silly question dude.

Well you're being quite clear in your preferences anyway. I'm just willing to give it a go now given the current state of affairs.

Here's a decent general media article that spells it out http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19886686/site/newsweek/page/1/

Well if you look at the current statistics it IS evident compared to the market sector that the public sector is more efficient. We have ample evidence that the current market sector is not addressing the needs of 25 million Americans without health care, the costs are outpacing inflation 4 to 1, and we pay more per capita for less health care than all other industrialized countries. Why the preference for supporting the profit-motive companies that are goughing us? Seriously?

"Though Greenspan's book is largely silent about Iraq, it is sharply critical of Bush and fellow Republicans on other matters, denouncing in particular what Greenspan calls the president's lack of fiscal discipline and the "dysfunctional government" he has presided over. In the interview, Greenspan said he had previously told Bush and Cheney of his critique. "They're not surprised by my conclusions," he said." -----Good thing the invasion idea has worked out so well.

Had a shoulder operation and hernia done together. If they are both relative minor surgeries, ask the doctor, and if they agree go for it. ---Less time under anthesia and shorter healing time. Likely you have some work considerations as well. Best of luck.

I'll have what he is having. Must be the painkillers

Seems to work quite well for all other industrialized countries and the two largest sectors of government health care, the VA and medicare, are far more efficient deliverers of health care than any private sector insurance company. The public sector effeciently provides other resources, emergency care, police, fire protection, schooling. You can spend your money proping up the profit and advertisement sector, or you can actually spend it more efficiently on health care. I haven't read Ms. Clinton's proposal yet - but I bet it is a half step. She has too much money from the insurance companies now to try anything creative.

and who controlled the purse strings under Clinton during those glory years of fiscal constraint (and one must not forget that those budgets had an influx of cash from a huge tax hike)? hmmm? Well having a Rep administration and Congress in charge for the last 6 years seems to have heightened the efficiencies I see.

healthy According to Greenspan the only recent president with any success with the federal budget and economy was Clinton. Given the current state of affairs how could anyone do worse, Rep or Dem. Anyone will look intelligent by default following this two term mess.

I'm not sure where the idea that Republicans = fical conservatives even comes from; they've been breaking the bank since the '60s. Also noted in Greenspan's book is his biggest concern - our debt level and the squeeze it will put on us when things get tight. Excellent fical constraint over the past 6 years guys.

Consumption tax above some minimum?

If we can come up with ideas to limit our use of foreign fossil fuels now, instead of waiting for some passive market response at some future date, why not do it? The marketplace has us going backwards regarding fuel efficiency - and that means greater oil imports. The CAFE standards are way overdue for a major overhaul. I'd have to agree with Jay about the ethanol thing - that's a big energy sink and is being pushed along by the corn-states. Another dead end.

Why not adopt a good idea that would get us away from relying on the middle east oil scene? It doesn't mean you have to eat foie gras or steak tartare.

The world will produce 118 million barrels of oil a day, up from its current 85 million barrels per day, just to satisfy projected demand by 2030, according to the Energy Information Agency. "That's never going to happen," said Richard Heinberg, a research fellow at the Post Carbon Institute and author of three books on peak oil. -----seems that coming up with that much new oil is unlikely. An interesting statistic I recently read - if the US adopted EU milage standards we could cut our oil imports to near zero. Now that seems like a good idea.

So...back to orginal premise. It may be true, but I can't find a correlation in your link. Waz up? In fact there's no data on economic growth by state, just employment statictics. Got another link maybe?

Another PP non-related linky link. Good dodge. First make a sweeping generalization and then back it up with a data site not related to the generalization. Excellent. Oh and thanks for the Forbes link - you have to pay for it to see the article.

Where exactly in that mound of data is a comparison of state's national election voting record vs economic growth?