That gov't run Interstate Highway System - what a disaster. We should turn that into a toll system run by private companies for profit. Who cares if they start charging you $50 to get to work? It will create jobs because all that money generate will trickle back down to you when their CEO hires your kid to cut their lawn.
incapable of thinking for themselves, mental midgets can only parrot meaningless rhetoric for-profit co, it is all about the bottom line. they will hire the lowest-paid laborers, buy the lowest-cost material to build the infrastructure, they will out-source most of the work outside of the US
You're not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you? Who do you think builds these roads? Government employees?
The wealthy should pay half their yearly earnings to cover for this. Meaning the top 1% should pay 50%. All corporate taxes will be reduced so all off shore accounts move back home to cover some more of the costs.
The gov't decides what road will be build and how it will be maintained, contractors only do the construction. If you were to privatize the Interstate system, the company would close down highways based on profit motives as their intention is not the public good. To control traffic they would merely charge a toll and thus increase profits. They would have little incentive to build new roads.
By pulling our of or demanding payment for protection of South Korea, Japan and Germany? Great idea, I don't think our current leaders can make great deals like this though.
Has anyone tried short term health insurance? Its not ACA approved (meaning you will still need to pay the fine) and it does not cover pre-existing conditions. The coverage is good for 1 year. If it works like it says, this would be great for those w/out any medical issues. I can pay $85.00 a month and not needlessly dump $350.00 a month for something I am not getting coverage for. This doesn't bode well for Obamacare if the healthy crowd ops for this instead of needlessly subsidizing Obamacare. https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/short-term-health-insurance This is the way it should be.
I have a lot of clients who use short term (cheap plug, email if you are interested!) but it does have the issue that it doesn't cover pre-x and you get hit with the penalty still. It works fine as long as you understand that. Unfortunately most people don't.
The road network is a natural monopoly, much like electricity distribution. In many parts of the country, we've privatized electric utility service by having an investor-owned utility company that is regulated by a state commission. Every few years, the utility will submit a rate case that details all their expenses, all their contemplated capital improvements, and what they intend to charge ratepayers. They go back and forth with the commission until they settle on a plan. In return for being highly regulated, the utility gets some investment safety -- the rate cases generally target a very safe and strong ~10% returns for the investor, though there can be some variance (usually upside) depending on execution performance. You could apply this some model to the roadways. Investor-owned road companies can be heavily regulated by a state (or federal) commission that has a defined set of performance requirements, a defined pot of capital investments, and a defined remuneration from the community that is served. How exactly that's funded -- the state pays from taxes, the user pays from tolls, or some other mechanism -- can be worked out by the parties. Like electricity distribution, the costs are mostly fixed upfront capital costs, with some variable costs for operation and maintenance that depends on usage. Probably the funding mechanism should reflect that with a large fixed fee on per person access (which I think should be paid from the general fund), and a smaller fee the reflects your usage (tolls or maybe gas tax), and a different pricing scheme for businesses who after all are using the system for commerce. Ta da, private ownership. Why is this better? This model has been very good at assuring very high levels of reliability of electrical service. I believe it could produce equally high levels of high quality road maintenance. It also puts the onus and risk of raising capital on the private investment community -- though granted the customer will ultimately pay in the end. And, while not as good as a competitive marketplace for driving efficiency, it is a better model to drive efficiency than municipal or state ownership. And, it can incentivize innovation as an ecosystem of service companies emerges to serve the regulated companies -- those regulated companies are looking for additional investments to spend money on (to earn a return), whereas the government looks only to minimize capital spend. The downside is that it'll cost more -- if you're getting more investment, a higher grade product, and more innovation, that costs money to the customer. But, it will be more efficiently spent money, even if the total is bigger.
One of the issues I see with this is the re-distribution of wealth to things which you may not agree with. That's why a lot of the churches and conservatives fought some of the ACA insurance stuff right? Besides abortion birth control, now you're also going to have the surgeries from a man to become a woman, or vice versa. Would that be covered under single payer? Just thinking outloud. I've never had an issue with healthcare as an adult, but I've always worked for large employers. I'm sure if I worked for a small company or was self-employed this would be a bigger issue for me. Like my mom for example, who can't afford insurance because the premiums and deductibles are too high (she was always on my dad's insurance, up until he passed away). Something like this would be great for her (she's opposes ACA though, because she feels like she would have been able to get insurance previously on her own, and she doesn't qualify for the subsidized plans). I do think though, the budget is bloated in other areas, and perhaps that's where you could figure out how to pay for healthcare. It is not always about raising taxes to be able to fix the budget, sometimes you could simply stop spending so much.
https://newrepublic.com/article/117774/obamacare-cost-benefit-analysis-saving-lives-just-part-it http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4046470.html http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ck-obama-says-health-care-law-has-led-50000-/ [youtube]gKxsLxM7abA[/youtube] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/high-blood-pressure-deaths-should-plummet-under-obamacare-study/ http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/2...tection-is-linked-to-affordable-care-act.html
No Preexisting conditions, out of pocket cap alone make Obama care worth keeping, if you want to make it better, try to make sensible changes, not repeal it and then do nothing like what Republicans want to do.
Yep. I still chuckle at the Republican war with this legislation, especially given that ObamaCare is essentially RomneyCare/NixonCare/HeritageFoundationCare. Instead of fighting for political points, just do what is best for our country and it's citizens by coming up with a better plan.
And I still chuckle now that Obamacare is falling apart, liberals are once again blaming the Republicans. Regardless of who's idea, the Obama administration forced a policy that was blatantly flawed.
