Member since 3 years ago
6 ideas posted
1 comment 155 votes
153 votes
I disagreeWe were all sold snake oil recently with the so-called government financial bail-out. The main reason stated for this bail out was that some companies are just "too large to let fail". WELL, if that is true, then these companies MUST be broken up into smaller pieces.
Companies need to be limited in size and scope so that if they fail they will not "bring down the whole system".
46 votes
I disagreeIn the past, people paid health care providers directly. Then some companies got in the middle between the patients and the providers and "handled the money". I don't call this a healthcare system. I see no reason for there to be any middlemen (or middle companies) involved in healthcare. This is not like auto or home insurance where some people will never use it. Health care is something that every person will ...more »
In the past, people paid health care providers directly. Then some companies got in the middle between the patients and the providers and "handled the money". I don't call this a healthcare system.
I see no reason for there to be any middlemen (or middle companies) involved in healthcare. This is not like auto or home insurance where some people will never use it. Health care is something that every person will use sooner or later (although some use it more).
What we need is negotiated fair prices for all health-related services. There would be no "health insurance companies" making profits off of sick people. The government already provides health care "insurance" to its workers (elected officials) and to the poor and retired (MediCal or MedicAid), it should really provide services to all who desire them. Certainly, wealthy people may still obtain services however they desire.
« less full details »
11 votes
I disagreeWe elect officials to represent us. We pay them a pretty good salary, plus an expense acount. They are paid for travel and have their own heath care and retirement plans. If that is not enough, they also have multiple offices and hire lots of staff. In other words, just having all of these elected officials cost each and every one of us a pretty penny. When the economy slows, they always scare us with laying off ...more »
We elect officials to represent us. We pay them a pretty good salary, plus an expense acount. They are paid for travel and have their own heath care and retirement plans. If that is not enough, they also have multiple offices and hire lots of staff.
In other words, just having all of these elected officials cost each and every one of us a pretty penny. When the economy slows, they always scare us with laying off police & fire fighters, closing libraries, schools & parks. There is something VERY wrong with that picture.
When there is not enough tax money coming in, the first thing that should go is legislative staff, offices and/or budgets. The last thing to go should be education and public safety.
« less full details »
351 votes
I disagreeThe USA government should at the very least be embarassed by its attempt to prohibit certain activities and the use of so-called "controlled substances". Not only is the War on drugs a war they have lost, but it is one that the government can not win. It must end now. Legislators seem to have a mentality that just because they pass a law which bans something, that people will obey. Reality is often the opposite. ...more »
The USA government should at the very least be embarassed by its attempt to prohibit certain activities and the use of so-called "controlled substances". Not only is the War on drugs a war they have lost, but it is one that the government can not win. It must end now.
Legislators seem to have a mentality that just because they pass a law which bans something, that people will obey. Reality is often the opposite. Look back at the Prohibition of Alcohol and it seems obvious why that was later overturned. I just wonder why no one is smart enough to stop the stupid prohibition we have going on now.
« less full details »
5 votes
I disagreeBack when the USA was being formed, it was really just a bunch of INDIVIDUAL states that wanted strength and protection from outsiders (other countries). The original idea was to let each state "do its own thing" with little intervention from a single Federal government. When did things go so wrong? Currently there are dozens (hundreds?) of Federal Laws that are essentially similar to, or even often contradict, state ...more »
Back when the USA was being formed, it was really just a bunch of INDIVIDUAL states that wanted strength and protection from outsiders (other countries). The original idea was to let each state "do its own thing" with little intervention from a single Federal government. When did things go so wrong?
Currently there are dozens (hundreds?) of Federal Laws that are essentially similar to, or even often contradict, state laws. This is a total waste of taxpayer money and government effort. One quick example I'll give pertains to marijuana - voted legal for medicinal use in California yet still against Federal Law.
The Federal laws which contradict state & local laws must be abolished. The Federal Government needs to do the things it does best, or the states can not do (protect our country/borders, provide social security, provide health care, etc) and stop interfering with the states.
« less full details »
20 votes
I disagreeSlowly, government agencies all over the USA are switching to digital and often encrypted radio transmissions. The use of encryption and non-monitorable radio systems by government agencies must end. In many communities, police, fire and other emergency radio signals have been monitored by reporters, private citizens and other government employees since they started to be used. Now there are several radio systems ...more »
Slowly, government agencies all over the USA are switching to digital and often encrypted radio transmissions. The use of encryption and non-monitorable radio systems by government agencies must end.
In many communities, police, fire and other emergency radio signals have been monitored by reporters, private citizens and other government employees since they started to be used. Now there are several radio systems in use by public agencies that "can not" be monitored (typically they are proprietary and techical information is not available) or they have switched to digitally encrypted signals. Federal law prohibits monitoring encrypted signals.
To make this situation even worse; billions of taxpayer money is being used (even during this poor economy) to purchase and install these overly complex radio systems.
« less full details »
Copyright © 2013 IdeaScaleFeedback Software
| Widget | IdeaScale Privacy Policy
Powered by IdeaScale
Social Web