NationStates Jolt Archive

There was a flood in Mississippi in 1927. It was devastating, and the federal government certainly didn't break the spine of their chequebooks trying to help out after the event. People didn't stand for lassaiz faire governement then, and after the events of Katrina, I don't think they'll stand for it now either. The rallying cry of the reigning right for decades has been small government. They think that government can't make a difference in people's lives. That national problems do not have national solutions. The time for those views have passed. It was washed away into the swamps of Louisiana.

It is not useful to try to apportion blame for this tragedy. However it is essential that we redefine the role of the government that rules us.

The first duty of the government is to its citizens. First and foremost of course this must mean protecting their lives. That is why a properly run health service with equality of access to all people should not be a priority of the government, it should be the priority of the government.

The importance of protecting the country from terrorism cannot be overstated, but it must not come at too high a cost. If the government scares its own population, they're doing the job of the terrorists already. For sure you must be vigilant, but you can't be afraid to go and get the mail, or ride the subway. You can't ask people to live like that. Similarly, a country is a collection of values just as much as it is a group of people, or the land contained within its borders. No one would conceed land to the Taliban for a cesation of violence, and no one would kill their own people to stop Al Qaeda from doing it, so why would you trade the essential values of the nation in exchange for such temporary security?

Second of all, the duty of the government to its citizens must be to their welfare. There are thousands of displaced schoolchildren right now, and when they next see the inside of a classroom it has to be absolutely certain that it was worth our while trying to get them back there. The first step is as simple as making sure there are enough textbooks in the schools, that there are enough teachers in the schools, that there is comprehensive support for the students and that violence and mayhem does not cross the threshold of the school gates. The second step is harder. We have to be sure that schools prepare students for all aspects of life, and this includes sexual education. While in an ideal world the responsibility for this would be on the parents, when fifteen year olds are pregnant, its clear that the parents aren't doing it right, and when that means students have to take whole terms off of their education it very definately becomes the school's concern.

Thirdly, a big government cannot ignore the effects we are having on the environment. It would be fallacious to suggest that hurricanes are caused by human actions, but it would be equally absurd to fail to acknowledge the effect that mankind has had on the environment it lives in. It cannot be permitted for us to hand on a broken planet to our children, a planet raped of its resources and low on breatheable air. If you think oil prices are high right now, you're just getting a taster of what it'll be like when the well really runs dry.

Shut up and buy insurance.

Shut up and buy insurance.
Shut up and come up with an actual argument.

That doesn't work. Government is staggeringly corrupt, incompetent, and inefficent. A publicly run health service would raise taxes, create a massive web of federal bureaucracy, eliminate competition (which is in itself devastating to the quality and effectiveness of any service...think of the Post Office), lower the earning potential and opportunity of doctors, reduce the quality of personnel by making it impossible to fire them (as per government procedure). Top all this off with a weaker economy due to the taxes, and it would ruin our country. The private sector runs everything the best.

Government run education is a disaster if there isn't any parental responsibility. You can't screw up and then expect to dump the problem on the school; that's not fair to the students or the people who work there. Furthermore, there isn't any accountability, which results in corruption, waste, and red tape that stifles change.

In order to improve the educational, and entire government system, there needs to be accountability and real competition. Throwing money at the problem didn't, isn't, and won't work.

Shut up and buy insurance.
Aflac is really Anthrax.

I have said it once and I shall say it again: a healthcare system belongs neither in the hands of an individualistic, materialistic private sector nor those of a corrupt, individualistic bureaucracy; sadly however, we must pick one.

That doesn't work. Government is staggeringly corrupt, incompetent, and inefficent. A publicly run health service would raise taxes, create a massive web of federal bureaucracy, eliminate competition (which is in itself devastating to the quality and effectiveness of any service...think of the Post Office), lower the earning potential and opportunity of doctors, reduce the quality of personnel by making it impossible to fire them (as per government procedure). Top all this off with a weaker economy due to the taxes, and it would ruin our country. The private sector runs everything the best.

Government run education is a disaster if there isn't any parental responsibility. You can't screw up and then expect to dump the problem on the school; that's not fair to the students or the people who work there. Furthermore, there isn't any accountability, which results in corruption, waste, and red tape that stifles change.

In order to improve the educational, and entire government system, there needs to be accountability and real competition. Throwing money at the problem didn't, isn't, and won't work.I agree. Governement does not run programs as efficiently as private enterprise, its a Darwinian thing. But the problem is, private companies which run healthcare or education do so at an enormous cost to the poor who can't afford it. In short, competition for essential services is good for the well off, but devastating to those who can't afford it.

Similarly for education. A parent is overwhelmingly better equipped to deal with issues of morality, sex, drugs and all the rest than the school is, but too many parents fail to do so. I don't honestly believe that a truly responsible parent will say "I'm not gonna bother teaching little Jimmy about rubber jonnies, he can learn it at school", but a school program for sex education will provide a safety net for those students who's parents won't otherwise teach them the facts of life.

Aflac is really Anthrax.

I have said it once and I shall say it again: a healthcare system belongs neither in the hands of an individualistic, materialistic private sector nor those of a corrupt, individualistic bureaucracy; sadly however, we must pick one.
Some have also suggested the third possiblity, the public-private partnership. However in almost every field where its been attempted, its usually ended up with the worst of both worlds, spiraling costs being passed on to the people at the point of use, massive decline in quality of service and safety (trains in the UK for example)

Bush's FY 2005 budget proposed a 49% increase in federal funding for Louisiana which would receive more than $282 million in Title I funding. If his budget proposals were not approved and the funds recieved by Louisiana were not used by the Louisiana government to reinforce levies and safeguard its citizens, then the citizens of Louisiana and the United States need to look to their federal representatives and ask "Why Not?"

There was a flood in Mississippi in 1927. It was devastating, and the federal government certainly didn't break the spine of their chequebooks trying to help out after the event. People didn't stand for lassaiz faire governement then, and after the events of Katrina, I don't think they'll stand for it now either. The rallying cry of the reigning right for decades has been small government. They think that government can't make a difference in people's lives. That national problems do not have national solutions. The time for those views have passed. It was washed away into the swamps of Louisiana.

It is not useful to try to apportion blame for this tragedy. However it is essential that we redefine the role of the government that rules us.

The first duty of the government is to its citizens. First and foremost of course this must mean protecting their lives. That is why a properly run health service with equality of access to all people should not be a priority of the government, it should be the priority of the government.

The importance of protecting the country from terrorism cannot be overstated, but it must not come at too high a cost. If the government scares its own population, they're doing the job of the terrorists already. For sure you must be vigilant, but you can't be afraid to go and get the mail, or ride the subway. You can't ask people to live like that. Similarly, a country is a collection of values just as much as it is a group of people, or the land contained within its borders. No one would conceed land to the Taliban for a cesation of violence, and no one would kill their own people to stop Al Qaeda from doing it, so why would you trade the essential values of the nation in exchange for such temporary security?

Second of all, the duty of the government to its citizens must be to their welfare. There are thousands of displaced schoolchildren right now, and when they next see the inside of a classroom it has to be absolutely certain that it was worth our while trying to get them back there. The first step is as simple as making sure there are enough textbooks in the schools, that there are enough teachers in the schools, that there is comprehensive support for the students and that violence and mayhem does not cross the threshold of the school gates. The second step is harder. We have to be sure that schools prepare students for all aspects of life, and this includes sexual education. While in an ideal world the responsibility for this would be on the parents, when fifteen year olds are pregnant, its clear that the parents aren't doing it right, and when that means students have to take whole terms off of their education it very definately becomes the school's concern.

Thirdly, a big government cannot ignore the effects we are having on the environment. It would be fallacious to suggest that hurricanes are caused by human actions, but it would be equally absurd to fail to acknowledge the effect that mankind has had on the environment it lives in. It cannot be permitted for us to hand on a broken planet to our children, a planet raped of its resources and low on breatheable air. If you think oil prices are high right now, you're just getting a taster of what it'll be like when the well really runs dry.

Initially I didn't respond because this post was composed entirely of idiocy and naivete, which seldom merits response, but in this case it appears that some people may actually agree with this nonsense, and I will do my best to save you from that eventuality. Not only is he wrong in what he thinks the government should do, he is wrong in what it can do, and wrong in thinking that it can even try.

First of all, hardly any elected politicians proclaim a doctrine of small government, Republican politicians like their offices far too much to piss of the groups of their constituents by cutting programs or spending that these special interest groups(to use the cliche), and while they might be a little more conservative when it comes to increasing spending, when push comes to shove they almost always give in. There is NO powerful entity in the American government that is trying to limit government.

Secondly, the government cannot do anything efficiently. It cannot protect us efficiently, it cannot feed us efficiently, it cannot heal us efficiently. It lacks free market mechanisms to motivate people to use resources efficiently, and it is generally organized in a way that discourages ideas and achievement. You can't solve a government failure like the education system in New Orleans with more government.

Thirdly, when you are talking about the government you are really talking about the people. The government's sole source of revenue is theft, do you really think the government should steal money from people who would use it efficiently and use it inefficiently to the ends of their neighbors? Do I have a right to decide what happens to your property? Should I?

Lastly, the way our elected officials function guaruntees that things will be done in as half-hearted a way as possible, while appearing to be done with all the vigour of an outraged idealist.

Political solutions to real problems almost never work, and when the do they don't work well, and they cause far more harm than they do good. To use an act of god to justify further acts of state is a dispicable attempt by those in power and those they have decieved to extend their influence further into society.

Initially I didn't respond because this post was composed entirely of idiocy and naivete, which seldom merits response, but in this case it appears that some people may actually agree with this nonsense, and I will do my best to save you from that eventuality.
Compare my first paragraph in this thread to yours. Is mine deliberately, or even accidentally for that matter, offensive to anyone? Does it show contempt, or a lack of respect for anyone who's willing to seriously try to debate the issues? Keep reading the rest of my comments. Do any of the rest do any of these things? Now please, stop, take a minute, and reassess whether the post you just made was really a justifiable response to any part of this thread. Feel free to edit your post if you so wish, or simply post a fresh response and I will do my best to reply to it in a measured, considered and serious manner.

Its fine for you to disagree with me, but there's no reason to be unpleasant when you do so.

bump

http://www.fema.gov/areyouready/hurricanes.shtm
http://www.fema.gov/areyouready/flood.shtm
http://www.fema.gov/areyouready/fire.shtm

Now, I agree, the Federal Government should be involved with helping these people out, but can't these people at least meet the government half way? FEMA researched what was necessary to do in case of emergencies, and posted all this info on their website. No one paid attention though...

Sure, it would've been bad either way, but had people paid attention to FEMA's advice at least a little bit before hand, FEMA's job would be much easier now, and there'd be far fewer casualties now.

The US is too big for a national healthcare service.

Now, hear me out, this may just be my quasi-drunk, tired state me, but it seems to make sense.

The places where nationalised healthcare systems work the best and are most efficient are the small scandinavian countries, right? Well, how about other countries, bigger countries like France, Germany, the UK and Italy? They have notable problems with their systems, but the problems aren't so severe to keep the systems from running. I suggest that a national healthcare system would NOT work in the US because the US is too big.

So, why would this be? Pretty simple, a nightmarish bureaucratic dogpile. When there's less to administrate,there are fewer nonmedical bureaucrats. But as more comes into play, more oversight is required, more laws are passed, more logistical planning and support is involved from the top down, and it eventually becomes a big pile of mess that barely works.

Just my two cents, split them if you'd like :D

The first duty of the government is to its citizens. First and foremost of course this must mean protecting their lives. That is why a properly run health service with equality of access to all people should not be a priority of the government, it should be the priority of the government.


1) Define "life"

2) Life for the sake of life is meaningless. Labelling this as the priority of a government is not always right.
Government should strive to create healthy people, not just living ones.

http://www.fema.gov/areyouready/hurricanes.shtm
http://www.fema.gov/areyouready/flood.shtm
http://www.fema.gov/areyouready/fire.shtm

Now, I agree, the Federal Government should be involved with helping these people out, but can't these people at least meet the government half way? FEMA researched what was necessary to do in case of emergencies, and posted all this info on their website. No one paid attention though...

Sure, it would've been bad either way, but had people paid attention to FEMA's advice at least a little bit before hand, FEMA's job would be much easier now, and there'd be far fewer casualties now.

A lot of good FEMA's advice posted on the internet will do for those who don't have internet access. :rolleyes:

Many (if not most) of the people who couldn't afford to leave New Orleans on a whim did exactly what they were told to do--they went to the "shelters of last resort" such as the Superdome. And they still got screwed because none of the powers-that-be* actually thought that supplies, in bulk quantities, such as food and water might be helpful until well after the hurricane made landfall.

I am disgusted at the "blame the victim" mentality that seems so prevalent now.

*Disaster management officials responsible for contingency planning. Think FEMA.

Look, I drew a picture of my theory! Look, clicky cliky!

http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/4621/healthcare8xi.jpg

The US is too big for a national healthcare service.

Now, hear me out, this may just be my quasi-drunk, tired state me, but it seems to make sense.

The places where nationalised healthcare systems work the best and are most efficient are the small scandinavian countries, right? Well, how about other countries, bigger countries like France, Germany, the UK and Italy? They have notable problems with their systems, but the problems aren't so severe to keep the systems from running. I suggest that a national healthcare system would NOT work in the US because the US is too big.

So, why would this be? Pretty simple, a nightmarish bureaucratic dogpile. When there's less to administrate,there are fewer nonmedical bureaucrats. But as more comes into play, more oversight is required, more laws are passed, more logistical planning and support is involved from the top down, and it eventually becomes a big pile of mess that barely works.

Just my two cents, split them if you'd like :D
Here's the thing though. Yes, the US is very large, but its also very experienced at working various government programs at the state level. Now, a lot of the states are going to fall into roughly the same population size as at least one country with a strong health service. I would say that probably the biggest problem for healthcare in the US is the population density. Large chunks of poor people live in rural areas, small towns, etc etc, and its hard to get good medical care to rural areas, just cos the number of patients per square mile means that its proportionately more expensive.

All this is a little off the point though, because all I'm calling for at the moment is for the will to change, I'm not claiming I know exactly how it'll work. But this is the thing isn't it, you identify a problem that requires a solution, then because you have to solve it, you just do.

Life for the sake of life is meaningless. Labelling this as the priority of a government is not always right.
Government should strive to create healthy people, not just living ones.
Absolutely. And healthcare accessable to all is a vital component of that goal.

Look, I drew a picture of my theory! Look, clicky cliky!

http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/4621/healthcare8xi.jpg
LOL. Nice graph.

Seriously though, why would it be worse if it were run by the government than by corporations? I'm sure that anyone who's ever worked in middle management knows that there's plenty of fat that can be trimmed at various levels of major corporations as well.

A lot of good FEMA's advice posted on the internet will do for those who don't have internet access. :rolleyes:

Many (if not most) of the people who couldn't afford to leave New Orleans on a whim did exactly what they were told to do--they went to the "shelters of last resort" such as the Superdome. And they still got screwed because none of the powers-that-be* actually thought that supplies, in bulk quantities, such as food and water might be helpful until well after the hurricane made landfall.

I am disgusted at the "blame the victim" mentality that seems so prevalent now.

*Disaster management officials responsible for contingency planning. Think FEMA.Like I said at the start, I think its unhelpful to try to assign blame. Especially to the victims. The problem is that from time to time, everything just seems to go wrong at once. If the victims hadn't done x, then it wouldn't have mattered that FEMA didn't do y, but then why didn't FEMA do y, was it because Washington didn't do z? And so on round the posts. Its a worthy discussion for sure, but right now, I'm talking about things more fundamental.

That is why a properly run health service with equality of access to all people should not be a priority of the government, it should be the priority of the government.

But here you sound like merely having "Health Care" service is the priority of the government. When I think Health Care, I think doctors, surgeries etc. But this is, as I said before, not the priority. Doctors can make people live, but the entire community makes people healthy.

Then again, maybe it doesn't...

But here you sound like merely having "Health Care" service is the priority of the government. When I think Health Care, I think doctors, surgeries etc. But this is, as I said before, not the priority. Doctors can make people live, but the entire community makes people healthy.

Then again, maybe it doesn't...
I'm not quite sure in this context what you mean by "healthy". I take it as meaning free from disease and injury. Though there was a bit in the "Supersize Me" film that made a lot of sense to me where a gym teacher made a distinction between "sick-care" (doctors and hospitals) and "health care", which to his mind doesn't yet exist, but would include high levels of programs for fitness, eating healthily and the like.

I think this sums Katrina up...

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/gras.html

That cartoon raised a question to me. Why was it that the maintainance of the levee was under the purview of the Army Engineers, but the relief effort was taken care of by NGOs? Surely it makes more sense to have the guard do the relief effort, and subcontract the levee to a corporation. I mean, if nothing else, should the construction/ maintainance be sub-par, you'd have someone you could sue for the damages. Does this make sense to anyone except me?

I'm not quite sure in this context what you mean by "healthy". I take it as meaning free from disease and injury. Though there was a bit in the "Supersize Me" film that made a lot of sense to me where a gym teacher made a distinction between "sick-care" (doctors and hospitals) and "health care", which to his mind doesn't yet exist, but would include high levels of programs for fitness, eating healthily and the like.

Difference is between merely being alive and being healthy. Health not only meaning all body functions are well, but in a healthy state of mind, which cannot be accomplished with doctors, "health" programs, and not eating McDonalds. Not accomplished through passive learning of public education and religious groups. Not accomplished by beinh knowledgible in all things political. To be healthy is much more than this.

What has happened down here is the wind have changed
Clouds roll in from the north and it started to rain
Rained real hard and rained for a real long time
Six feet of water in the streets of Evangeline

The river rose all day
The river rose all night
Some people got lost in the flood
Some people got away alright
The river have busted through clear down to Plaquemines
Six feet of water in the streets of Evangeline

Louisiana, Louisiana
They're tryin' to wash us away
They're tryin' to wash us away
Louisiana, Louisiana
They're tryin' to wash us away
They're tryin' to wash us away

President Coolidge came down in a railroad train
With a little fat man with a note-pad in his hand
The President say, "Little fat man isn't it a shame what the river has done
To this poor crackers land."

Louisiana, Louisiana
They're tyrin' to wash us away
They're tryin' to wash us away
Louisiana, Louisiana
They're tryin' to wash us away
They're tryin' to wash us away


Randy Newman

There was a flood in Mississippi in 1927. It was devastating, and the federal government certainly didn't break the spine of their chequebooks trying to help out after the event. People didn't stand for lassaiz faire governement then, and after the events of Katrina, I don't think they'll stand for it now either. The rallying cry of the reigning right for decades has been small government. They think that government can't make a difference in people's lives. That national problems do not have national solutions. The time for those views have passed. It was washed away into the swamps of Louisiana.

It is not useful to try to apportion blame for this tragedy. However it is essential that we redefine the role of the government that rules us.

The first duty of the government is to its citizens. First and foremost of course this must mean protecting their lives. That is why a properly run health service with equality of access to all people should not be a priority of the government, it should be the priority of the government.

The importance of protecting the country from terrorism cannot be overstated, but it must not come at too high a cost. If the government scares its own population, they're doing the job of the terrorists already. For sure you must be vigilant, but you can't be afraid to go and get the mail, or ride the subway. You can't ask people to live like that. Similarly, a country is a collection of values just as much as it is a group of people, or the land contained within its borders. No one would conceed land to the Taliban for a cesation of violence, and no one would kill their own people to stop Al Qaeda from doing it, so why would you trade the essential values of the nation in exchange for such temporary security?

Second of all, the duty of the government to its citizens must be to their welfare. There are thousands of displaced schoolchildren right now, and when they next see the inside of a classroom it has to be absolutely certain that it was worth our while trying to get them back there. The first step is as simple as making sure there are enough textbooks in the schools, that there are enough teachers in the schools, that there is comprehensive support for the students and that violence and mayhem does not cross the threshold of the school gates. The second step is harder. We have to be sure that schools prepare students for all aspects of life, and this includes sexual education. While in an ideal world the responsibility for this would be on the parents, when fifteen year olds are pregnant, its clear that the parents aren't doing it right, and when that means students have to take whole terms off of their education it very definately becomes the school's concern.

Thirdly, a big government cannot ignore the effects we are having on the environment. It would be fallacious to suggest that hurricanes are caused by human actions, but it would be equally absurd to fail to acknowledge the effect that mankind has had on the environment it lives in. It cannot be permitted for us to hand on a broken planet to our children, a planet raped of its resources and low on breatheable air. If you think oil prices are high right now, you're just getting a taster of what it'll be like when the well really runs dry.

#1 I Love America. (as those who have read my posts know)

#2 This Government is not what was intended when it was founded I do not believe. Career politicians are the biggest problem. 1 term limits need to be set for all elected spots. And if no one goes for the jobs then, we institute drafting for it :) Oh, and also outlaw Lawyers becoming politicians since all they live for is screwing people over and lieing.

That doesn't work. Government is staggeringly corrupt, incompetent, and inefficent.Well then, here's a new and innovative idea.

Vote for someone who isn't staggeringly corrupt, incompetent and inefficient.

Well then, here's a new and innovative idea.

Vote for someone who isn't staggeringly corrupt, incompetent and inefficient.

Agree there, so how do you choose one ? Someone who is not a career politician

There was a flood in Mississippi in 1927. It was devastating, and the federal government certainly didn't break the spine of their chequebooks trying to help out after the event. People didn't stand for lassaiz faire governement then, and after the events of Katrina, I don't think they'll stand for it now either. The rallying cry of the reigning right for decades has been small government. They think that government can't make a difference in people's lives. That national problems do not have national solutions. The time for those views have passed. It was washed away into the swamps of Louisiana.

It is not useful to try to apportion blame for this tragedy. However it is essential that we redefine the role of the government that rules us.

The first duty of the government is to its citizens. First and foremost of course this must mean protecting their lives. That is why a properly run health service with equality of access to all people should not be a priority of the government, it should be the priority of the government.

The importance of protecting the country from terrorism cannot be overstated, but it must not come at too high a cost. If the government scares its own population, they're doing the job of the terrorists already. For sure you must be vigilant, but you can't be afraid to go and get the mail, or ride the subway. You can't ask people to live like that. Similarly, a country is a collection of values just as much as it is a group of people, or the land contained within its borders. No one would conceed land to the Taliban for a cesation of violence, and no one would kill their own people to stop Al Qaeda from doing it, so why would you trade the essential values of the nation in exchange for such temporary security?

Second of all, the duty of the government to its citizens must be to their welfare. There are thousands of displaced schoolchildren right now, and when they next see the inside of a classroom it has to be absolutely certain that it was worth our while trying to get them back there. The first step is as simple as making sure there are enough textbooks in the schools, that there are enough teachers in the schools, that there is comprehensive support for the students and that violence and mayhem does not cross the threshold of the school gates. The second step is harder. We have to be sure that schools prepare students for all aspects of life, and this includes sexual education. While in an ideal world the responsibility for this would be on the parents, when fifteen year olds are pregnant, its clear that the parents aren't doing it right, and when that means students have to take whole terms off of their education it very definately becomes the school's concern.

Thirdly, a big government cannot ignore the effects we are having on the environment. It would be fallacious to suggest that hurricanes are caused by human actions, but it would be equally absurd to fail to acknowledge the effect that mankind has had on the environment it lives in. It cannot be permitted for us to hand on a broken planet to our children, a planet raped of its resources and low on breatheable air. If you think oil prices are high right now, you're just getting a taster of what it'll be like when the well really runs dry.
*claps*

bravo!!

The US is too big for a national healthcare service.

Now, hear me out, this may just be my quasi-drunk, tired state me, but it seems to make sense.

The places where nationalised healthcare systems work the best and are most efficient are the small scandinavian countries, right? Well, how about other countries, bigger countries like France, Germany, the UK and Italy? They have notable problems with their systems, but the problems aren't so severe to keep the systems from running. I suggest that a national healthcare system would NOT work in the US because the US is too big.

So, why would this be? Pretty simple, a nightmarish bureaucratic dogpile. When there's less to administrate,there are fewer nonmedical bureaucrats. But as more comes into play, more oversight is required, more laws are passed, more logistical planning and support is involved from the top down, and it eventually becomes a big pile of mess that barely works.

Just my two cents, split them if you'd like :D
well firstly i can't speak for the other countries you mentioned, but the UK's problems witht the NHS stem mostly from about 16 years of massive underfunding and cuts in spending from the tory government of the 80s. if that funding hadn't been cut we'd still have a decent system and not one still in need of repair (though it is getting better)

but secondly, correct me if i'm wrong but you americans often seem to run national or federal projects at state level... so what would be wrong with running or managing an american NHS at state level but with federal funding? your counterarguement is "bureaucracy" but there are measures that can be taken to reduce this if it becomes a problem. for example have each healthcare trust managed at (small) county level, and a state overseeing body channeling federal money. thats pretty much how it works in the UK nowadays in that there are small-scale NHS trusts that get their money from a local governing body, which just channels government funds to where they are needed. its quite efficient - although managers' salaries have risen a shitload more than everyone else's :rolleyes:

basically what i'm saying is if it doesn't work on the big scale, break it down into smaller, more manageable scales :)

#1 I Love America. (as those who have read my posts know)

#2 This Government is not what was intended when it was founded I do not believe. Career politicians are the biggest problem. 1 term limits need to be set for all elected spots. And if no one goes for the jobs then, we institute drafting for it :) Oh, and also outlaw Lawyers becoming politicians since all they live for is screwing people over and lieing.
Yeah, the problem is though that being a lawyer is really the main thing that gives you a working knowledge of the law, which is sorta what government is about. And 1 term limits would only work if the terms were longer, thus enabling people to try to do more without worrying about reelection.

Agree there, so how do you choose one ? Someone who is not a career politician
I think it would be great to try and draft national heroes and icons into politics.

A lot of people liked the idea of Oprah runnning for president last time around.

Spoffin, your name is funny.

*claps*

bravo!!
Thank you.

Spoffin, your name is funny.
Erm, thank you?

what would be wrong with running or managing an american NHS at state level but with federal funding?
...basically what i'm saying is if it doesn't work on the big scale, break it down into smaller, more manageable scales :)

First off, if a state recieves federal funding for any project then it must adhere to the federal rules. Every state has different priorities so no one set of rules will work for the whole nation. Plus, the smaller the scale the larger the bureaucracy becomes. Can you imagine, one national level, 50 state level and 50 to over a 100 county level authorities for each state.

We do have two examples of a national health system here in this country, one works relatively well and the other is a bureaucratic nightmare. I'm speaking of the Military healthcare system and the Veteran Administration Health system. Our military system is fantastic and mostly because the doctors and nurses have limited, but comfortable salaries which include full miltary benefits plus they are free from paying malpractice insurance and from being sued. The VA system, wich was modeled after the military system, does not have the safeguards from civil action. Doctors must pay for malpractice insurance and the system must be suplemented with private sector insurance. The commonality between the VA system and the private system we have is the problems associated with private sector health insurance.

And 1 term limits would only work if the terms were longer, thus enabling people to try to do more without worrying about reelection.

I would think that having term limits would empower and encourage one to do more with the time he/she has in office without the worry of reelection, because there would be no reelection.

I would think that having term limits would empower and encourage one to do more with the time he/she has in office without the worry of reelection, because there would be no reelection.
That's what I said, wasn't it?