I think my experience is not that unusual. I may have more personal contact but most people I know are much more satisfied with their local and state Gov. than with the Fed.

As far as efficiency in concerned. Cost is not my first concern as a consumer, product and customer service are.

I am a skeptic about all politicians. But I know that if I dont like one on a state or local level my efforts can truly effect his/her reelection. I can also effect legislation on the state and local level.

Tranfering power from the Federal level to the State and Local level would not increase the number of elected officials.

The best way we can help people is to take the power away from DC we then empower the individual. Yes we should cut many Fed programs. Leave it up to the states to fund them and administer them. The only place that really could not survive this change would be DC itself due to the massive poverty there.

Finally, politicians (Democrat or Republican) and “ethics” are a contradiction in terms. The changes proposed address the symptoms not the disease. The politicians always find a way to make it lucrative and we are no better off than when we started.

Evil
Here in the states the federal gov refers to the gov in DC.. That is why I avoid the “federalist” terminology it is too confusing.

I understand the concept “Federalism” and its differences with the “Federal” government, believe me. The “Federalism” concept isn’t exclusive from the USA and, in fact, it existed forever, though outside of America is known as “Nationalism”. The difference is that, in the USA, doesn’t exists a clear geographical separation between ethnics, or at least, not as defined and historical as is in Europe, Africa or Asia, simply because your country is a country of immigrants (and this isn’t an insult, simpy I’m stating a fact to make my explanation clearer). For references to what I’m speaking of, seek information sources about Irish, Armenian, or Flanders or Corsican autodetermination efforts. They want a “Federalist” government, because they think that they identity may be diluted if integrated in a greater country, without enough care for diversity.

I believe also that “local” government is good, but not to the extent the “Federalists” have in the USA, where you are eager to destroy working federal programs to redo them at a local level. That puts you in the hands of the Republicans that want to destroy the federal government and nothing else. And, reducing certain things to local level reduces its efficiency and increases the cost, and reduces your hability to influence the results locally because you increase the number of bureaucrats between you and the ones that have real power.

We would not have to change the laws, the laws already exist and have been ignored by the courts and elected officials. We need to elect leaders who understand that individual liberty has been diminished and is further threatened by the size and growth of the Federal government.

Comment by Troll — July 16, 2007 @ 4:05 pm

The difference between you and me is that you are skeptic about federal politicians, and I’m skeptic about all politicians. I’m not as naïf, but defunding federal programs, specially the ones that help people, isn’t the answer to more freedom. And, increasing the number of politicians and bureaucrats at localest levels, neither. With every one of them, you’re increasing the odds of having a corrupt one.

Comment by funky p — July 16, 2007 @ 4:07 pm

Comment by Troll — July 16, 2007 @ 4:21 pm

Start by helping the democrats in the ethics reforms, and fight for a profit-free campaigning. Now, the candidates are in the hands of the groups paying their bills. Abolish the “lobbyist donations” concept. Even the lobbyists. But cutting healhcare or student loands? This is far from your goals.

Comment by m12 — July 16, 2007 @ 4:11 pm

When Brazil decides to steal Aids drugs through a compulsory license, how is that fair to Merck, and the $800 million they poured into drug development?

Comment by Evil Spaniard — May 8, 2007 @ 3:47 pm

Therefore, no stealing, but a negotiation, where the Pharma industry keeps making millions. And a demonstration that development costs are payed the very first year. The rest is pure greed of the Pharma corporation, playing with the lives of people.

You operate under the foolish assertion that Pharma is somehow obligated to provide cures.

Enjoy.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html

“That analysis should have controlled Bowers, and it controls here. Bowers was not correct when it was decided, is not correct today, and is hereby overruled”

Regarding the
Comment by Moderation — July 16, 2007 @ 7:35 pm

Evil Spaniard should have seen this then he’d now why we scream communism everytime the Universal health care is discussed.

I do, in fact, think that Big Food + Profits = EVIL. Restaurants, grocers and the like? Oh, hell no. But if an entire industry (farming) REQUIRES government subsidies for their business to work AT ALL, it is in all likelihood a proper candidate for an industry that needs to be socialized.

Comment by Moderation — July 16, 2007 @ 7:35 pm”

A completely capitalistic system is the only system that WILL ever work. It is only after government gets involved that things get screwed up. When government tampers with one area of the economy, they unwittingly throw the entire system out of balance.

Just as when government tampers with nature, they ALWAYS cause an imbalance and unintended consequences, which then requires what? More government intervention.

When government got on the slippery slope of regulating one market, thinking they were doing it for the public good, they started a chain reaction that can eventually, if unchecked, destroy our nation.

It is only socialism that will ALWAYS surely fail. In socialism, one will NEVER find a “benevolent dictator”.

Looks like my comment is correct, otherwise, you wouldn’t object so strongly. Ha, gotcha with the truth. It is the “me” mentality that is quickly destroying our economy and our morality. It was never about “me” with Jesus. In fact, Jesus provided “free health care” to everyone that needed it. The “me” thinkers are selfish and are never truly happy. And they can never truly be followers of Jesus until they begin thinking about “we” instead of “me”.

Comment by Coffins draped with flags — July 16, 2007 @ 10:01 am”

Nope, your comment is a “load” because what is good for the individual IS good for the group. When one makes decisions with the individual in mind, rights are preserved. When one makes decisions based on the group mentality, someones rights get trampled.

The individual has a right to succeed or fail, the individual has the right to be happy or unhappy. The individual doesn’t much care about how his neighbor lives his personal life, as long as it doesn’t interfere with his.

It’s not the “me” mentality that is destroying our economy or out morality, it’s the folks who feel “it takes a village”.

Comment by Troll — July 16, 2007 @ 7:06 pm

Which is precisely why a completely Capitalist society will never, ever work. I have no problem with thousands upon thousands of racketeers (insurance salesmen and executives) lose their jobs and are required to find legitimate work. I do have a problem with our factory jobs and the like being outsourced. Any corporation who uses outsourced work to eliminate those jobs in America should have their products taxed in such a manner that the cost of their product is the same as it would have been if American workers had manufactured them.

I do, in fact, think that Big Food + Profits = EVIL. Restaurants, grocers and the like? Oh, hell no. But if an entire industry (farming) REQUIRES government subsidies for their business to work AT ALL, it is in all likelihood a proper candidate for an industry that needs to be socialized.

We already have socialized housing for the poor. It has been working pretty shitty, since, you know, certain groups of people (who just so happen to be more likely to be abundant landowners) do everything they possibly can to make sure that funding to such…projects. Hell, anyone making minimum wage in this country cannot afford to pay for the cheapest housing possible anyhow.

Profit + Housing != Evil, however.

“Two suicide bombers struck the volatile northern city of Kirkuk this morning, killing 73 people and wounding 178 more. … The death toll is expected to rise as rescuers frantically dig through concrete and rubble in hopes of finding survivors.”

Yeah you hope so TP.

I hope Dems are smart and vote for Kucinich and that Repubs are smart and vote for Paul.

That’s the best general election I could ever hope for.

How are these equations any different?

How about tens if not hundreds of thousands of average americans out of jobs= Evil

Comment by Evil Spaniard — July 16, 2007 @ 3:26 pm

There appear to be some grave misconceptions about how Universal Healthcare will play out, and be paid for, eh?

First and foremost, the massive bulk of the insurance industry will simply no longer exist. Period. That particular role will be assumed by the framework that is put into place in it’s stead. Some private insurers will still exist, providing the insurance for those who want to go all out with insurance for elective procedures and the like. This is a huge percentage of the money spent every year on healthcare in America.

Second, the removal of “for-profit” in Big Pharma and insurance companies alike doesn’t eliminate R&D costs. It simply eliminates the profits that must be made in order to pay out dividends to stockholders, the huge bonuses paid to CEOs, fleets of private limousines, fleets of private Lears, and other expenses normally reserved for “profit spending”. This is not to say that a pharma company cannot have cars or planes for its employees. It simply won’t have as nice a fleet of such vehicles. A huge amount of pharma research is done in the universities by advanced students as it is. All of those subsidies can be put back into the system, used to pay for our healthcare.

Finally, removing the “for-profit” motive from the healthcare business eliminates the fiduciary responsibility to continue to make profits. This means it will no longer be in a pharma company’s best interest to withhold a cure for a major disease. Currently, it is. If there were a cure for cancer, the multitude of drugs to stave of the cancer, the drugs to stave of the effects of chemotherapy, the drugs used to revitalize one’s appetite after such therapy, the drugs to stave off the side-effects of the other drugs used in the cancer therapy, and every other existing stream of revenue that Big Pharma receives in relationship to cancer treatment would dry up. No Big Pharma CEO that is doing his or her job correctly is meeting their fiduciary responsibility if they release a cure for a major disease that eliminates all that profit. Do you not see the conflict of interests presented to such a business? BY LAW, THEY HAVE TO MAINTAIN PROFITS. RELEASING A CURE ELIMINATES PROFITS, SO BY LAW THEY CANNOT RELEASE CURES.

Get it through your thick skulls. Universal Health Care is good for everyone except those corporations profiting off of the misery and misfortune of others in the medical field. Profit + Healthcare = HOLDING BACK CURES, and NOT PAYING OUT CLAIMS FOR TREATMENT. In other words, Profit + Healthcare = EVIL.

It is a big leap from taking care of the poor to universal Health care. That I am absolutely against on a nation level. However I may be open to state health care. The devil is in the details.

The turd Ginsberg also overturned precedents. Your point, exactly?

Comment by m12 — July 16, 2007 @ 4:10 pm

A supporting fact on the case(s)you cite re. Ginsburg would assist you in making your unsubstantiated point. Calling her a turd will not. However, the Clinton did it approach is juvenile, and assumes that I agree with the un-cited Ginsburg position. How can that be if even you do not know what that (those)decisions are? I am not going to debate you on this diversion from the topic under discussion.

As for Mr. Troll, unfortunately not everyone can afford health care, and more unfortunately, for the ones that can, we rank 37th in the world in overall satisfaction. And we spend way more for this dissatisfying outcome than the countries with good healthcare systems.
Liberal/progressive ideology is to care for the poor and sick and infirm among us. You clearly disagree that government, despite the preamble to the constitution, has any role to play.
The government, of by and for the people, is whatever we want it to be. Now, get the corporate greedy pigs in the insurance company off our backs. We do not need bureaucrats between doctors and patients.
Troll, you are just arguing for the sake of argument. You brought up that whole principle of subsidiarity, then disavowed its populist encyclical and moral/ethical imperatives. If you want to bring in the Catholic Church in support of your arguments, you cannot repudiate the teachings of Jesus in the same breath. (like taking care of those less fortunate)
It is inconsistent to argue positions of the church whilst denying for America the true underlying principles of Christianity.
He said blessed are the Peacemakers, not profit takers, and not war mongers.
I’m outta here.

“Zooey is right. You talk like someone either who is rich or has a good health plan, or both. ”

I know for some its hard to fathom but could it be that some things such as principles are more important than “me”.

Liberty or death.

“Get it straight. Your health and treatment should not depend on a for-profit system to see if you get treated.”

Why not? (Should or should not implies objective morals be careful) Government under our constitution has a contractual obligation to provide protection of our negative rights. The founding fathers who also lived in a business world and had many of these same debates chose not to provide possitive rights in the constitution. If you think we ought to have them state your case to the people and propose a constitutional amendment.

Funky
I agree that corporations also have impinged on liberty but the solution is not to run from the hands of one abusive master to another.

I argue that both the democrat and republican leadership have sold out to their corporate masters and play US against each other while they all get rich.
If what you say is true (fascism) then to feed the gov is to feed the corporations which is foolish.
The only solution is to take away the profit motive, the only way we can do this is to take the money out of DC put it back into the hands of American citizens who can dole it out as they see fit rather than corrupt politicians. Then politicians in DC will be more willing to act against the large corporations and special interests and make laws which will benefit small business and the individual.

Thank you.

Comment by Troll — July 16, 2007 @ 3:50 pm

Yeah, just not rich enough to get a finger reattached, even with insurance…like the guy is Sicko.
Or maybe you think a Dr. should have to get permission from a cost-cutting bureaucrat before performing a needed procedure on a sick patient. Zooey is right. You talk like someone either who is rich or has a good health plan, or both. Get it straight. Your health and treatment should not depend on a for-profit system to see if you get treated. Other counties do it, 36 of them better than we do, and it is as affordable as spending $12billion/month on Iraq. Thats above and beyond the cost of our regular Defense budget which strangely does not include Iraq!

You mean like how Brazil just decided to buy our AIDS drugs, which the US pharmaceuticals spent millions of dollars to develop?

Nope, they stole the formula!