View Full Version : Making America "great" again??
So...if the new administration held a contest with large prizes offered to the best ideas for making America great again, what would you propose?
iris lilies
12-29-16, 3:19pm
Ideas in themselves arent very impressive. There are no new ideas. Ideas that work and that have measurable, excellent results, are the deal.
I would continue to do my work that I am already doing, running after school programs in low income areas to address a variety of issues like obesity, achievement gap, unsupervised kids, supporting families to work, and building community. I hope that the programs I work with will still have what we need over the next 4 years.
So...if the new administration held a contest with large prizes offered to the best ideas for making America great again, what would you propose?
Cut military spending 50% over the next 4 years.
Increase federal spending on critical infrastructure - highways, bridges, railways, airports, ports, ...
Increase efforts in early childhood education/nutrition/healthcare.
Cease selling off our national forests, minerals, and other such things for pennies-on-the-dollar - reorganize the system to charge a fair price that sustainably manages our public lands and resources.
Implement a reasonable guest-worker and immigration policy. None of this "build-a-wall" nonsense.
Scale down the "war on drugs", get nonviolent offenders out of prison - our prison population levels are just silly.
...
Bae, you hit it right out of the ballpark. Absolutely.
I would love to see an efficient nationwide rail system.
flowerseverywhere
12-29-16, 10:06pm
Cut military spending 50% over the next 4 years.
Increase federal spending on critical infrastructure - highways, bridges, railways, airports, ports, ...
Increase efforts in early childhood education/nutrition/healthcare.
Cease selling off our national forests, minerals, and other such things for pennies-on-the-dollar - reorganize the system to charge a fair price that sustainably manages our public lands and resources.
Implement a reasonable guest-worker and immigration policy. None of this "build-a-wall" nonsense.
Scale down the "war on drugs", get nonviolent offenders out of prison - our prison population levels are just silly.
...
wow, real ideas.
A question, where would the military cuts come from? Closing foreign bases? Equipment? I don't know enough about our militaries' structure to have a good overview.
wow, real ideas.
A question, where would the military cuts come from? Closing foreign bases? Equipment? I don't know enough about our militaries' structure to have a good overview.
I'd simply ask the SecDef to present several proposals, give him/her a 30-day deadline to come up with them. With the Damocles Sword of "Plan B: a simple across-the-board cut" as motivation, which is probably the wrong approach.
Still, we spend more on our "defense" than pretty much the rest of the planet combined, I'm sorta thinking there's wiggle room in there for cuts.
And if anyone whines about "losing jobs in the defense industry", I'd fire them on the spot - the Department of Defense isn't a job creation program. You want jobs, you can build bridges and roads and schools and hospitals and other stuff that has lasting value.
Putting it within the realm of what those driving the bus might actually accept eliminates the majority of my suggestions. I thought about it a while and didn't come up with much, other than Bae for president.
From your mouth to someone's ear....Bae! I have a brother in law and a nephew who work in the defense industries making money hand over fist. They are both engineers - one right out of Ga Tech and the father was an Asst. Sec. of the Navy but is now a "consultant". There is a LOT of room for cuts. Infrastructure, schools, are my top priorities. Seems all those defense jobs could be used in both those areas.
Bae for president.
Yeah, me too. And I don't even live there.
Miss Cellane
12-30-16, 10:05am
Define "great."
Until that happens, there's no way to plan for it.
Cut military spending 50% over the next 4 years.
Increase federal spending on critical infrastructure - highways, bridges, railways, airports, ports, ...
Increase efforts in early childhood education/nutrition/healthcare.
Cease selling off our national forests, minerals, and other such things for pennies-on-the-dollar - reorganize the system to charge a fair price that sustainably manages our public lands and resources.
Implement a reasonable guest-worker and immigration policy. None of this "build-a-wall" nonsense.
Scale down the "war on drugs", get nonviolent offenders out of prison - our prison population levels are just silly.
...
This, plus pinkytoe's rail system suggestion. End the undeclared wars in the Middle East. Stop selling weapons to Middle Eastern countries which further destabilizes the region. Stop building prisons, we have more than enough.
Redirect money to things like pre-K child care, and care for those with mental and physical disabilities, and science-based climate change efforts. Invest in renewable energy instead of subsidizing the nuclear and fossil fuel industries.
The money is there, we need the political will.
Define "great."
Until that happens, there's no way to plan for it.
It's really simple - just note which years America was great and that's what you shoot for. But nobody does that. And that's how you know it's just an empty meme.
Bae's suggestions sound great - but that's not "great again" - it's "boldly going where we've never gone before".
Miss Cellane
12-30-16, 12:38pm
It's really simple - just note which years America was great and that's what you shoot for. But nobody does that. And that's how you know it's just an empty meme.
Bae's suggestions sound great - but that's not "great again" - it's "boldly going where we've never gone before".
But still, what's "great?"
When most women stayed home and kept house and men went out to work?
When the US had an isolationist policy?
When the economy was good? (And then you need to define "good economy.")
A particular decade that a lot of people liked?
When the US isn't at war?
When minorities, women, and LGBTIQ people didn't demand equal rights, pay, and opportunities?
Is "greatness" defined by power in the world, military might, education, income levels, lack of poverty, innovation, space travel, reduced violence, overall health of the population, or something else?
People on this forum are great at giving this sort of thing some serious thought, but out there in the world, the vision of "greatness" seems to take the view that we need to retreat to the 1950s and 1960s. There's the Trump/Republican view of greatness, and then there's what people actually want. Never, in the whole campaign, did I hear what "make America great again" really meant to anyone who used the phrase.
ApatheticNoMore
12-30-16, 12:58pm
But still, what's "great?"
When most women stayed home and kept house and men went out to work?
I wonder if this was ever the case? Working class people have always worked I think. I suspect being able to have one spouse not work ALWAYS represented a certain amount of privilege (middle class privilege) and was never available to a decent chunk of the population. But suppose it was - this is perhaps no better though no worse than it is now. Now women and men work insecure often horrible jobs (or in some cases not even a job, but multiple low wage jobs and "gigs" for money to survive).
When the US had an isolationist policy?
this is generally good yes, it's not most of U.S. history especially not in over 100 years. The U.S. has long had designs to be an empire.
When the economy was good? (And then you need to define "good economy.")
how about: ability to easily get a job? Even more if it's one that pays enough to live on. Certainly not true now. But there was a time when jobs were easily hiring. But I suspect it never lasted all that long.
When the US isn't at war?
this is good yes,
---------------
The cynical part of me says the only way to make America great again is to give it back to the natives (native Americans). :)
My thinking of GREAT is when every person is treated with respect, has all they NEED- home, health care, education, work. As a country we have never cared for the people. Just look at how the funding is in the budget....then look at the tax system. The tax system shows where our priorities are. Not in people or education or healthcare for all.
The cynical part of me says the only way to make America great again is to give it back to the natives (native Americans). :)
I hear this sort of thing a lot and it always makes me wonder. I think I'm a native American because I was born here, so mission accomplished.
As far as I can tell, the earliest humans in the Americas were migrants from Asia, so are we all interlopers, residing and laying claim to a country we have no right to call home?
greenclaire
12-30-16, 3:17pm
Give it back to Queen Lizzie....
iris lilies
12-30-16, 3:18pm
My thinking of GREAT is when every person is treated with respect, has all they NEED- home, health care, education, work. As a country we have never cared for the people. Just look at how the funding is in the budget....then look at the tax system. The tax system shows where our priorities are. Not in people or education or healthcare for all.
When I hear this, here is how I interpret it: Iris Lily, your annual donations via I.R.S to the welfare of the citizens of the U.S. are of NO VALUE. F$$k your contributions, they are worthless. No one in the U.S. gets any help, you are not giving enough, you are part of the problem and I want to solve it by getting more, more, more for my pet projects.
See how that doesnt make me want to work with you on making the country "great" again?
Oh Iris, I don't think taxes and your tax contribution in particular are worthless at all, just that the allocation is skewed toward defense and corporations and less toward human needs. I clearly struck a nerve.
Oh Iris, I don't think taxes and your tax contribution in particular are worthless at all, just that the allocation is skewed toward defense and corporations and less toward human needs. I clearly struck a nerve.
Defense is the primary function of the Federal Government so the skew is justified. Corporations are a necessary evil, incentivizing them seems like a good policy in most cases, so I have no problem with that either.
Teacher Terry
12-30-16, 4:26pm
Yes I agree that we should spend much less on defense and more on people and the infrastructure such as roads, bridges, etc. WE are taxed enough as an average person. The $ is just being spent incorrectly. Also the rich need to pay their fair share.
I only brought it up because I haven't a clue what Mr Donald means by using that slogan. I read a book recently though I don't recall the title regarding how things are done in Scandinavia. Although there are grumblers, the vast majority are content with all the social benefits that are provided there - child care, insurance, education, elder care etc.
Defense spending - Reminds me of a relative we have that is making dollars hands over fist as a contractor "rebuilding" all the regions we have blown up.
I always hated paying taxes to fund our outsize "defense" budget and felt the money could be better spent elsewhere, but in general, I don't begrudge the relatively small amount of federal taxes I pay--and the amount was much larger when I was working. I always felt, though, that I didn't get much in return for my outlay--especially when I compared our social programs with those in Europe.
Also the rich need to pay their fair share.
What would be "fair"?
iris lilies
12-30-16, 7:36pm
What would be "fair"?
Exactly.
Also the rich need to pay their fair share.
From CNBC: The top-earning 1 percent of Americans will pay nearly half of the federal income taxes for 2014, the largest share in at least three years, according to a study.
I hear this sort of thing a lot and it always makes me wonder. I think I'm a native American because I was born here, so mission accomplished.
And yet there are people who would like to end birthright citizenship in the US.
Generally my feeling is that we should have shut the door about five minutes before the family of anyone making an anti-immigrant argument got here.
Miss Cellane
12-30-16, 11:45pm
I only brought it up because I haven't a clue what Mr Donald means by using that slogan. I read a book recently though I don't recall the title regarding how things are done in Scandinavia. Although there are grumblers, the vast majority are content with all the social benefits that are provided there - child care, insurance, education, elder care etc.
I don't think Donald knows what it means. It sounded good, it got applause, he kept using it. It got him attention. He likes attention. He will use anything to get more attention.
If you really like the phrase, you can get an ornament: https://www.amazon.com/Trump-America-Great-Collectible-Ornament/dp/B01N67D8HO
It's on sale. I think before Christmas it was around $125. Some of the reviews are funny.
Generally my feeling is that we should have shut the door about five minutes before the family of anyone making an anti-immigrant argument got here.
*Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door,
and administer the ideological purity exam
to those we deem acceptable.
*Edited for modern sensibilities
JaneV2.0
12-31-16, 11:45am
From CNBC: The top-earning 1 percent of Americans will pay nearly half of the federal income taxes for 2014, the largest share in at least three years, according to a study.
It makes sense that they would pay more taxes; they have all the money. Back when America was great*, the tax rates were much higher. I think we should go back to that. I'd like a flat, graduated tax, but that will never fly, given the millions who are employed to deal with our ridiculously complicated tax system.
*"Great" meaning we had just won a war, jobs were plentiful, only one breadwinner was required per family, and we were respected in the world. In many other ways, we fell short.
iris lilies
12-31-16, 12:02pm
It makes sense that they would pay more taxes; they have all the money....
Haha, well, at least you've recognized they pay half of our federal tax.
Persnally, I always find that statistic astonishing, not fodder for more class warfare.
In a global sense i think American by traditional standards is already great. Americans tend to supersize everything and manage to consume a disproportionate amount of resources relative to our population. We could do better with how we handle health care, take care of the environment, and deal with the underemployed. All considered I think we are at a height of what ever greatness there is. I'd like to see a national happiness index.
I could live with a flat consumption tax and no write-offs or exemptions, but that's probably a dream and too complicated to pull off.
flowerseverywhere
12-31-16, 8:12pm
What would be "fair"?
most people I know think they pay too much and everyone else pays too little. The opposite of healthcare, where they think they pay too much and everyone else too little.
Taxes is are a funny thing, they sometimes are not fair but someone has to pay for roads, garbage pick up, education and so on. Personally after seeing all you do Bae for your community I think your contribution is far more than average and you are not wasting it on stupid stuff.
Our taxes are are lower than many in our income bracket as reported in articles we have read because we take advantage of how the tax laws are written. We surely pay taxes every year, but what we legally can avoid we do. Doesn't everybody?
Teacher Terry
1-1-17, 7:24pm
I was talking about the loopholes that protect some wealthy people from paying their fare share.
I was talking about the loopholes that protect some wealthy people from paying their fare share.
Such as?
gimmethesimplelife
1-1-17, 8:42pm
Cut military spending 50% over the next 4 years.
Increase federal spending on critical infrastructure - highways, bridges, railways, airports, ports, ...
Increase efforts in early childhood education/nutrition/healthcare.
Cease selling off our national forests, minerals, and other such things for pennies-on-the-dollar - reorganize the system to charge a fair price that sustainably manages our public lands and resources.
Implement a reasonable guest-worker and immigration policy. None of this "build-a-wall" nonsense.
Scale down the "war on drugs", get nonviolent offenders out of prison - our prison population levels are just silly.
...Bae, please don't be shocked but I agree that you hit it out of the ballpark here. I agree with everyth. Robing in your post. Rob
Haha, well, at least you've recognized they pay half of our federal tax.
Persnally, I always find that statistic astonishing, not fodder for more class warfare.
“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” --Warren Buffett
Is “greatness” something that can be achieved by a choice of officeholders or particular collection of policies? Or is it something that has to spring from a greater culture? So many of us seem to have decided that our commitment to family, tradition, community, faith, personal honor, or even basic truth are not worth the effort of maintaining. Too many of us then seem to try filling the void with mere politics. We ask too little of ourselves and too much of government. We even talk about concocting a “happiness index” so we can hold government responsible for our level of joy.
The degrading spectacle of Trump’s barroom politics against Clinton’s brothel politics have illustrated what happens when we view government as a mechanism for providing us with respect, revenge or material well-being. Can we realistically demand that the people we elect to office be better than we are?
I just came across a really interesting analysis of global prosperity (http://www.prosperity.com/application/files/1614/7809/7434/Legatum_Prosperity_Index_2016.pdf)--the 10th report by a London think tank. After looking at 174 countries across 8 sub-indices, they find that the US is 17th in terms of prosperity, and stagnating in some ways.
Canadians, you guys are much better off--5th in prosperity worldwide, but #1 in terms of personal freedom (http://www.upworthy.com/wheres-the-freest-place-in-the-world-a-london-think-tank-has-the-answer?c=ufb5). Congrats!
Americans, we have work to do. Skim the report--it's long but very insightful.
IshbelRobertson
1-2-17, 3:07pm
We're at 10.
iris lilies
1-2-17, 3:41pm
We're at 10.
That reminds me, I sent email to Theresa May at No. 10 today. She needed to hear my opinion on her proposal for Extreme Disruptive Orders. I wonder if she will pay attention to my opinion? haha.
LDAHL, your post is beautiful, both in your wording and your truth
IshbelRobertson
1-3-17, 6:28am
That reminds me, I sent email to Theresa May at No. 10 today. She needed to hear my opinion on her proposal for Extreme Disruptive Orders. I wonder if she will pay attention to my opinion? haha.
Of COURSE she will!
LDAHL, your post is beautiful, both in your wording and your truth
+1
stopbeingdumb
1-3-17, 5:09pm
I like pinkytoe's suggestion for a national rail system. If we have the unemployed citizens (who are able) work on the rail in their home state for an additional stipend above their unemployment check for 8 hours per week we'd have this thing built in no time. Too bad Trump's plans will drastically reduce unemployment... maybe just a pipe dream now.
At about 250,000 km, the US has the most extensive rail system in the world (China comes next at about 100,000). About 80% of that is freight. The US freight transport system is fairly well regarded, passenger rail not so much. Assuming we could tart up Amtrak enough to compete with the airlines, I'm not sure laying or improving a lot of passenger line track would create a lot of new jobs. Track-laying is a fairly mechanized process now. If you ever get the chance to watch the equipment in action, it's quite fascinating.
I could really support repairing/replacing some of our highway bridges before they drop into rivers and ravines, as seems to be happening these days. The local one on I5 that fell into the Skagit a couple years back produced a large economic impact on this part of the state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-5_Skagit_River_Bridge_collapse
Washington State has nearly 400 bridges that are in need of attention, as well as lots of other infrastructure problems. And we're doing pretty well, compare to many other states.
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/washington/wa-infrastructure/
I could really support repairing/replacing some of our highway bridges before they drop into rivers and ravines, as seems to be happening these days. The local one on I5 that fell into the Skagit a couple years back produced a large economic impact on this part of the state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-5_Skagit_River_Bridge_collapse
Washington State has nearly 400 bridges that are in need of attention, as well as lots of other infrastructure problems. And we're doing pretty well, compare to many other states.
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/washington/wa-infrastructure/
Every Friday, I have lunch with my friend who happens to be our County's chief engineer. He often rails (if you'll excuse the expression) on this very topic and quotes this very source. While there may be some element of asking the barber if you need a haircut, he's convinced me that bridges are indeed a high priority. We had a fairly major bridge over the Mississippi come down a few years ago. He also has some frightening things to say about our water-related infrastructure.
I agree that infrastructure is a major problem. It's very expensive to repair and not at all as flashy as a new stadium or whatever else the money is needed to do. It would be wonderful to have workers able to do some of the work...Works Project, but I imagine the skill level might need to be improved.
He also has some frightening things to say about our water-related infrastructure.
It brings to mind the fact that dams are part of our infrastructure too and have probably been ignored as much or more than roads and bridges.
ToomuchStuff
1-3-17, 7:35pm
This seems like a good thread for it.
Over the holiday's I watched some UK game shows I watch on Youtube occasionally. One of the guests on one, replied to a Trump tweet, asking what day will America be great again, as they are trying to book a trip and would like to do it early.:laff:
It brings to mind the fact that dams are part of our infrastructure too and have probably been ignored as much or more than roads and bridges.
Yup. I have our state's dam report somewhere here too. Scary stuff, especially if you live downhill from one of the ones on the list.
(*) My water association's dam got mistakenly placed on the list last year as a deathtrap, turns out it was a paperwork error on their end, but by that time regional media had already run with the story. Luckily only one fellow lives in our death zone, and we called him up and unruffled his feathers.
Dams are terrifying....
I don't know enough about the electrical grid to have a valid opinion, but it is another less obvious infrastructure problem. Seems like it could be vulnerable to all sorts of meddling or other failure, attack, or collapse.
Yup. I have our state's dam report somewhere here too. Scary stuff, especially if you live downhill from one of the ones on the list.
With so much deferred maintenance on things like that, it make me wonder why the feds want to spend so much on things like "high speed" rail that wouldn't seem to me to have the same priority.
Cut military spending 50% over the next 4 years.
Increase federal spending on critical infrastructure - highways, bridges, railways, airports, ports, ...
Increase efforts in early childhood education/nutrition/healthcare.
Cease selling off our national forests, minerals, and other such things for pennies-on-the-dollar - reorganize the system to charge a fair price that sustainably manages our public lands and resources.
Implement a reasonable guest-worker and immigration policy. None of this "build-a-wall" nonsense.
Scale down the "war on drugs", get nonviolent offenders out of prison - our prison population levels are just silly.
...
great list!!! + national heath care
great list!!! + national heath care
Yes, I think national health care would be a very important first step in making America great, period.
Yes, I think national health care would be a very important first step in making America great, period.
What would be your definition of "national health care"?
A sort of de facto nationalization through regulation of prices and services provided?
A subsidized "public option" health insurance program?
A "single payer" insurance system that outlaws private insurance?
A national health service approach that may or may not outlaw private providers?
"national health care" I'd be willing to try anything that works for other countries......Canada.....UK.....France I do not care if there is a "waiting" period. The insurance companies already determine when and what we can do..........
iris lilies
1-5-17, 11:25am
"national health care" I'd be willing to try anything that works for other countries......Canada.....UK.....France I do not care if there is a "waiting" period. The insurance companies already determine when and what we can do..........
But can I buy private insurance in your scenario, because I may not want to put up with the limitations of a public health system?
From my Canadian perspective...
National tax-funded universal healthcare should be for a basic death-defying care for everyone. Every MD and of whatever speciality should not be able to deny care by limiting the care to a limited number or a very restrictive HMO. If they do, the MD's should lose the right to practice. All MD's should be reimbursed at visible public standards at this basic tax-funded level of care. No insurance involved in any way.
Extended health premiums should be available to everyone to cover all else at different levels for optional choices.
What is actually happening is that everything but the kitchen sink is being included in Canada.
Canadians expect to have all their joints replaced, heart surgery repeated without a change in lifestyle such as the DASH diet that has reduced the need for heart surgery, and so on. It is now all free!!!
Prescriptions are handed out too easily and too often making the benefits wasted, excreted in urine polluting water supplies.
While it is tragic that some cannot conceive, it should be paid for by extended healthcare, premium based, not death-defying funding. It has been added to the universal coverage.
Doctors' offices are plugged with the lonely seeking some caring human contact. Pilot projects using paramedics making simple regular visits to the chronic visitors to emergency hospital care have shown huge drops in hospital usage. This could be widely expanded to the chronically ill getting away from insurance claims and MD control/billing. Use a national maintenance public health plan instead. RN's used to do this and do it well.
If you really want to see a universal care for the US, get the insurance companies and the MD's out of the final committee decision and control. They should be resources for info and that is it. My very humble opinion anyway.
What Canada has right now takes over half my provincial government's budget and is not sustainable.
Mental health issues are so complex but the current demands on the universal healthcare system are enormous with clamours to further increase it. It has not reduced the problems but expanded them with drug addictions.
But can I buy private insurance in your scenario, because I may not want to put up with the limitations of a public health system?
I think we should just expand Medicare to all ages - it would set a floor for care, and like Medicare you can add on additional insurance if you choose to.
What would be your definition of "national health care"?
A sort of de facto nationalization through regulation of prices and services provided?
A subsidized "public option" health insurance program?
A "single payer" insurance system that outlaws private insurance?
A national health service approach that may or may not outlaw private providers?
I have had some ideas for many years, however I am not in politics so I don't know if anyone is interested. My ideas would address people who work independently and have not had access and people on disability who cannot earn over a limit without losing essential medical benefits. It seems that the economy would benefit from people with disabilities or are caring for a disabled family member however are able to work in some way.
* a buy-in program on a sliding scale, not required but available based on income
* healthcare available to those on disabilities on a sliding scale when they exceed income limits
I have had experience with people in both situations, we had a swim coach with no access due to a previous stroke. He had gone through a program and had healed and was able to work, however was denied by insurance. Also a friend who had her premiums go to $1K a month after her husband passed away and she had very low income. She ended up losing her home and living with relatives. I also know that many of my families on assistance for childcare want to pay something, it builds some pride to be able to pay but full price was difficult as they were starting out in careers.
I wonder how some of the conservatives on the forums feel about this, I think it addresses some of the hand-out concerns.
iris lilies
1-5-17, 2:54pm
I have had some ideas for many years, however I am not in politics so I don't know if anyone is interested. My ideas would address people who work independently and have not had access and people on disability who cannot earn over a limit without losing essential medical benefits. It seems that the economy would benefit from people with disabilities or are caring for a disabled family member however are able to work in some way.
* a buy-in program on a sliding scale, not required but available based on income
* healthcare available to those on disabilities on a sliding scale when they exceed income limits
I have had experience with people in both situations, we had a swim coach with no access due to a previous stroke. He had gone through a program and had healed and was able to work, however was denied by insurance. Also a friend who had her premiums go to $1K a month after her husband passed away and she had very low income. She ended up losing her home and living with relatives. I also know that many of my families on assistance for childcare want to pay something, it builds some pride to be able to pay but full price was difficult as they were starting out in careers.
I wonder how some of the conservatives on the forums feel about this, I think it addresses some of the hand-out concerns.
ACA coverage gives subsidies based on a sliding scale.
Those "on disability" (do you mean SSDI?) qualify for Medicaid. Medicare.
edited to correct above:
[QUOTE=Teacher Terry;260626]...After a 2 year waiting period then people on
SSDI qualify for Medicare no matter their age...
The ACA system givws subsidies based on income.
This year I am paying basically $0 for our insurance, as our income is low enough to qualify for pretty heavy subsidies. I understand that Alan is paying for all of this.
This year I am paying basically $0 for our insurance, as our income is low enough to qualify for pretty heavy subsidies. I understand that Alan is paying for all of this.
Alan has a laudable compassion for the less fortunate.
Alan has a laudable compassion for the less fortunate.
That's true. I just wish I had been able to voluntarily foot the bill rather than having it forced upon me.
That's true. I just wish I had been able to voluntarily foot the bill rather than having it forced upon me.
Coerced generosity is the hallmark of our enlightened age. I'm sure BAE appreciates you paying "your fair share".
I had some hopes during the primary campaign that you would be covering my daughter's college tuition, but I guess I'll need to resort to the uncouth expedient of paying it myself.
ACA coverage gives subsidies based on a sliding scale.
Those "on disability" (do you mean SSDI?) qualify for Medicaid.
I am glad ADA is taking care of people more, and I am concerned about what will happen next. It is not perfect but has had an impact. The only issue with SSDI I think is that a few people I know have had to limit income to stay on it, maybe that has changed? And I wonder if the ADA program would take care of that issue? I should probably read up, if it survives the new administration.
iris lilies
1-5-17, 5:37pm
We jumped on Alan's teat in November. So glad his resources are vast and his generosity goes so wide!
iris lilies
1-5-17, 5:42pm
I am glad ADA is taking care of people more, and I am concerned about what will happen next. It is not perfect but has had an impact. The only issue with SSDI I think is that a few people I know have had to limit income to stay on it, maybe that has changed? And I wonder if the ADA program would take care of that issue? I should probably read up, if it survives the new administration.
The ACA is the Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare." The ADA is something else.
The limits on earned income you describe for SSDI recipients is certainly unfortunate, but most gubmnt programs have a cliff, thats one reason why a one-size -fits -all approach of Nanny G is not cool.
iris lilies
1-5-17, 5:54pm
From my Canadian perspective...
National tax-funded universal healthcare should be for a basic death-defying care for everyone. Every MD of whatever speciality should not be able to opt out of providing service or lose the right to practice at all and reimbursed at clear public standards. No insurance involved in any way beyond that.
Extended health premiums should be available at different levels for everything else.
What is actually happening is that everything but the kitchen sink is being included in Canada. Some situations are truly tragic but not a risk of death.
Canadians expect to have all their joints replaced, heart surgery repeated without a change in lifestyle such as the DASH diet that has reduced the need for heart surgery, and so on. It is now all free!!!
Prescriptions are handed out too easily and too often making the benefits wasted, excreted in urine polluting water supplies.
While it is tragic that some cannot conceive, it should be paid for by extended healthcare, premium based, not death-defying funding. It has been added to the universal coverage.
Doctors' offices are plugged with the lonely seeking some caring human contact. Pilot projects using paramedics making simple regular visits to the chronic visitors to emergency hospital care have shown huge drops in hospital usage. This could be widely expanded to the chronically ill getting away from insurance and MD control under a national maintenance public health plan. RN's used to do this and do it well.
If you really want to see a universal care for the US, get the insurance companies and the MD's out of the final committee decision and control. They should be resources for info and that is it. My very humble opinion anyway.
What Canada has right now takes over half my provincial government's budget and is not sustainable.
Mental health issues are so complex but the current demands on the universal healthcare system are enormous with clamours to further increase it. It has not reduced the problems but expanded them with drug addictions.
bolding mine.
I dont understand what you are saying. Physicians should be allowed, or should not be allowed, to practice medicine outside of the public system?
Or is this what you are talking about?
The ACA is the Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare." The ADA is something else.
The limits on earned income you describe for SSDI recipients is certainly unfortunate, but most gubmnt programs have a cliff, thats one reason why many why the one size fits all approach of Nanny G is not cool.
Oh doh, I just took a training on ADA and should know that.
We jumped on Alan's teat in November. So glad his resources are vast and his generosity goes so wide!
It is frustrating that my daughter's college is smarter than Alan, and looks at assets instead of income. She has roommates whose parents have second homes in the Hamptons that are getting nearly-free rides, while I have to just send in chests of gold bars to pay full freight. I probably shouldn't have done the YMOYL thing and been debt-free and had retirement assets in place.
Still, it makes it easy to arrange to go several years without any "income" so I can partake in Alan's patronage.
It is frustrating that my daughter's college is smarter than Alan, and looks at assets instead of income. She has roommates whose parents have second homes in the Hamptons that are getting nearly-free rides, while I have to just send in chests of gold bars to pay full freight. I probably shouldn't have done the YMOYL thing and been debt-free and had retirement assets in place.
Still, it makes it easy to arrange to go several years without any "income" so I can partake in Alan's patronage.
I know of a family who hired a consultant to assist them in arranging their finances in such a way to maximize college financial aid. Apparently, it works best if you start the process a few years out.
I know of a family who hired a consultant to assist them in arranging their finances in such a way to maximize college financial aid. Apparently, it works best if you start the process a few years out.
Ya. I thought about doing some clever juggling, but they gave me a mostly-free ride when I was a kid, so I figured it was reasonable payback.
bolding mine.
I dont understand what you are saying. Physicians should be allowed, or should not be allowed, to practice medicine outside of the public system?
Or is this what you are talking about?
I will go back and edit that.
What I am hearing is about different specialists choosing to being able to opt out of providing care by limiting which provider group (HMO) they belong to. If a patient is not a member of that provider group, care can be denied. If it is a death-defying problem, no one can opt out or choose not to provide. It is about equal access to care for the death defying situations. That should be universal care.
Hope that makes it clearer.
Teacher Terry
1-5-17, 8:28pm
People on SSDI do not qualify for Medicaid. People on SSI do ( poor, disabled people). After a 2 year waiting period then people on
SSDI qualify for Medicare no matter their age. SSI is for disabled people that do not qualify for SSDI based on their # of work quarters needed to qualify (40).
iris lilies
1-5-17, 10:05pm
People on SSDI do not qualify for Medicaid. People on SSI do ( poor, disabled people). After a 2 year waiting period then people on
SSDI qualify for Medicare no matter their age. SSI is for disabled people that do not qualify for SSDI based on their # of work quarters needed to qualify (40).
Ah, thank you. I will edit my previous post.
Miss Cellane
1-6-17, 10:12am
I have had some ideas for many years, however I am not in politics so I don't know if anyone is interested. My ideas would address people who work independently and have not had access and people on disability who cannot earn over a limit without losing essential medical benefits. It seems that the economy would benefit from people with disabilities or are caring for a disabled family member however are able to work in some way.
Here's an example of how the system affects people with disabilities.
My nephew is 17. He was born with several serious medical issues and several physical disabilities. He spent 6 months in NICU and came home with 16 hours a day of home nurses. He still has all the medical issues and physical disabilities. (If he had been born even 30 years ago, the likelihood of both Nephew and my sister-in-law dying in childbirth would have been very high, to put things in perspective.)
He is an incomplete quadriplegic. He has hypermobile joints, so the little muscle function he has doesn't work very well. His breathing is compromised. so he has a tracheostomy. He has a hearing loss, so he needs hearing aids.
He will always need a personal care attendant, either a family member or someone hired for the job. He will always need a power wheelchair. He will always need multiple doctor's visits every month, his 25-odd daily medications, electronic monitors at night to make sure he is breathing, oxygen when he has a cold or other breathing difficulty. Plus multiple assorted medical supplies that are used daily.
He's an expensive person.
He is also at the top of his class in school and ready to go to college next year--he's already been accepted by two colleges, one with a full scholarship and one with a scholarship that would cover half his tuition for the four years. He's bright and articulate and ready to make a difference in the world. He could do just about any desk job out there. If a company were willing to hire him (a completely separate issue, but an important one).
And if he has assets over $2000, he loses his Medicare.
If he gets a job, even if it has really good insurance, it would have to pay him a lot more than the average entry-level job to cover all his daily/weekly/monthly/yearly medical expenses, because he would loose Medicare. And insurance doesn't cover everything. He currently has his parents' insurance, Medicare, and the gaps are filled by a charitable foundation. And, of course, all the little things that his parents pay for out of pocket because none of the other sources will cover them--things that may not be medically necessary, but are necessary for him to function in the world--a special computer mouse, adaptations to things around the house so he can use them, etc.
So we have created a situation where many people with disabilities could work and could contribute at least a token amount to their care, but with the current approach, most can't afford to lose their benefits and therefore won't be able to work. The "sliding scale" slides people out of coverage way before their income can support them and their disability.
Ya. I thought about doing some clever juggling, but they gave me a mostly-free ride when I was a kid, so I figured it was reasonable payback.
I admire your integrity--a trait in very short supply these days.
Teacher Terry
1-6-17, 2:49pm
MC: this was my field for 25 years and it is a problem. For people on SSDI they are allowed to make a certain amount of $ to supplement and can keep all their benefits but unfortunately that won't apply to your nephew's situation.
I manage my son's funds - I have to make sure they are never over $2k at the end of the month.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.