Sparks vs. Bentley

Sparks is a lot like me, not too well informed on some issues. I figure somebody else is behind him. Won't vote for him.

I'm not happy with either but I will be voting for Bentley.

Man I know I sure would hate to pay a little in taxes to help people out. I mean if they don't have money for health insurance that's their fault! It's not like other countries that have similar health care programs have lower mortality rates, lower infant mortality, and higher life expectancy.

As explained about 25 times by myself and others on this forum, the statistics are not equally based.

The US has an higher infant mortality rate as doctors try to save premies at an earlier delivery date than any other nation. Thus, resulting in more premies registered as dead, which would not be so in other nations. Germany does not list an infant brought to term, but dying 24 hours later as an infant mortality. I suppose we could stop saving premies and bring our infant mortality rate down. Of course, the result would be more dead babies.

As to long life expectancy, much of its genetic. Japanese have longer life spans and will do so even if they more to other nations.

In case, you haven't noticed, the other nations with national healthcare are severely limiting their budgets. Germany means tested theirs and kicked many high earners out. The UK is shutting down many facilities. Canada is considering private insurance. Get really sick in France, you really wouldn't like the results.
I lived there for 15 months.

I had not made up my mind which to vote for til the ad about the billion dollars in uncollected tax came out. I don't know just where the uncollected taxes or from but Colbert County had more than $50,000 property taxes uncollected last year. That is for approximately 200 properties. Mobil County has over 4000 properties that taxes were not collected. this is just for information purposes so you can understand that the Billion Bentley refers to could very well be real. For Sparks to then say that collecting these taxes is raising your taxes showed me that he is not someone I want in any Government office.

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:
As explained about 25 times by myself and others on this forum, the statistics are not equally based.

The US has an higher infant mortality rate as doctors try to save premies at an earlier delivery date than any other nation. Thus, resulting in more premies registered as dead, which would not be so in other nations. Germany does not list an infant brought to term, but dying 24 hours later as an infant mortality. I suppose we could stop saving premies and bring our infant mortality rate down. Of course, the result would be more dead babies.

As to long life expectancy, much of its genetic. Japanese have longer life spans and will do so even if they more to other nations.

In case, you haven't noticed, the other nations with national healthcare are severely limiting their budgets. Germany means tested theirs and kicked many high earners out. The UK is shutting down many facilities. Canada is considering private insurance. Get really sick in France, you really wouldn't like the results.
I lived there for 15 months.

Well you would be right... except for the fact that the WHO has a standardized definition for the calculation of infant mortality. Which is funny considering that infant mortality is deaths during the first year. Not at birth, look at the WHO statistics. Where they are not measured differently by the WHO. So for comparison purposes, the same standard definition is used, therefore it does not matter how the country calculates its data.

quote:

Originally posted by Caduceus:

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:
As explained about 25 times by myself and others on this forum, the statistics are not equally based.

The US has an higher infant mortality rate as doctors try to save premies at an earlier delivery date than any other nation. Thus, resulting in more premies registered as dead, which would not be so in other nations. Germany does not list an infant brought to term, but dying 24 hours later as an infant mortality. I suppose we could stop saving premies and bring our infant mortality rate down. Of course, the result would be more dead babies.

As to long life expectancy, much of its genetic. Japanese have longer life spans and will do so even if they more to other nations.

In case, you haven't noticed, the other nations with national healthcare are severely limiting their budgets. Germany means tested theirs and kicked many high earners out. The UK is shutting down many facilities. Canada is considering private insurance. Get really sick in France, you really wouldn't like the results.
I lived there for 15 months.

Well you would be right... except for the fact that the WHO has a standardized definition for the calculation of infant mortality. Which is funny considering that infant mortality is deaths during the first year. Not at birth, look at the WHO statistics. Where they are not measured differently by the WHO. So for comparison purposes, the same standard definition is used, therefore it does not matter how the country calculates its data.

The WHO statistics only reports what is given to them. There is no standardization of the records which are kept. The reporting organizations only report what they recieve and collate. We cannot even get hospitals in this country to collate and replicate successfully these types of records. It is ludicrous to try.
The problem comes with the actual true determination of death. The death certificates are used for record keeping. Until recently there was no real methodology for filling these things out. For years we labored under the illusion that 90% of people were dying from cardiac deaths, because in the death certificate the doctor of note would write "cardiac arrest". Well I got news for you, every death is a cardiac arrest, because when you stop breathing and the heart stops beating, you are dead. It is the events leading to that point that make thebiggest difference in determining the true cause of death.
Contrary to your statement, there is no international standardization of records, and you are in fact comparing apples to darian fruits.

The exact method of data collection may differ, but how much impact on the rate/1000 does that difference actually make??? Among developed nations, with modern, available care, the US is not the best, and there must be some underlying reasons. The rate in the UK is 15-20% better than the US.

Even in the US, the rate for African/black deaths is twice the rate of white or Hispanic.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.htm
Darian fruits you say? Not so says the CDC. Read and learn

After watching the debate on APT, I'm leaning toward Sparks. On the healthcare issue, while I don't like Sparks' stand, I haven't heard Bentley lay out any plan to fight it from the state level. He opposes it, but doesn't seem to have any intention to fight it. So for all practical purposes, neither candidate will likely have any impact on that front.

Sparks, meanwhile, is actively trying to move forward to legalize gambling, which I support. Overall, Sparks seems to have a plan of action, while Bentley seems to have a plan of rhetoric.

quote:

Originally posted by JuanHunt:
The exact method of data collection may differ, but how much impact on the rate/1000 does that difference actually make??? Among developed nations, with modern, available care, the US is not the best, and there must be some underlying reasons. The rate in the UK is 15-20% better than the US.

Even in the US, the rate for African/black deaths is twice the rate of white or Hispanic.

yes there are plentyof reasons which have little to do with healthcare delivery. First off, we are the richest nation on the Earth. Even the poorest of our people have more than most people in the world. We eat richer fattier foods. We all drive vehicles, and not small little subcompacts, but large powerful vehicles. We ride ATVs and go-karts. We ride jet skis.Most people in this country don't do any physical labor, and in reality live what most would call a life of luxury.We live under the false assumption that everything can be cured with a pill or a shot. We don't condone wide spread birth control. We regulate the heck out of every drug on the market to the point where some useful drugs are not used because a trial lawyer is just waiting to jump on that wagon.
There are also gentics involved. Southerners love the fatty foods, not necessarily because they are cheaper but because they taste good and we grew up eating them. Blacks tend to have a high rate of hypertension and with that comes kidney disease. Though we never hear much about it any more, sickle cell disease was once pretty prevelant in the southern states as well.
No, it is not all about healthcare delivery.

quote:

Originally posted by Caduceus:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.htm
Darian fruits you say? Not so says the CDC. Read and learn

There is also much to argue in that report. For instance, according to them the numbers are fairly close if you include preterm, but it does not show how the preterm is measured in Europe. Here, we include all babies greater than 20 weeks.
like I said the data is only as good as those collecting it. You can make the numbers say anything you want.

quote:

Originally posted by teyates:

quote:

Originally posted by JuanHunt:
The exact method of data collection may differ, but how much impact on the rate/1000 does that difference actually make??? Among developed nations, with modern, available care, the US is not the best, and there must be some underlying reasons. The rate in the UK is 15-20% better than the US.

Even in the US, the rate for African/black deaths is twice the rate of white or Hispanic.

yes there are plentyof reasons which have little to do with healthcare delivery. First off, we are the richest nation on the Earth. Even the poorest of our people have more than most people in the world. We eat richer fattier foods. We all drive vehicles, and not small little subcompacts, but large powerful vehicles. We ride ATVs and go-karts. We ride jet skis.Most people in this country don't do any physical labor, and in reality live what most would call a life of luxury.We live under the false assumption that everything can be cured with a pill or a shot. We don't condone wide spread birth control. We regulate the heck out of every drug on the market to the point where some useful drugs are not used because a trial lawyer is just waiting to jump on that wagon.
There are also gentics involved. Southerners love the fatty foods, not necessarily because they are cheaper but because they taste good and we grew up eating them. Blacks tend to have a high rate of hypertension and with that comes kidney disease. Though we never hear much about it any more, sickle cell disease was once pretty prevelant in the southern states as well.
No, it is not all about healthcare delivery.

Infants, at least in most parts of AlObama, dont drive.

The infant mortality in AlObama and Mississippi is about 2X the national rate.

quote:

Originally posted by teyates:

quote:

Originally posted by Caduceus:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.htm
Darian fruits you say? Not so says the CDC. Read and learn

There is also much to argue in that report. For instance, according to them the numbers are fairly close if you include preterm, but it does not show how the preterm is measured in Europe. Here, we include all babies greater than 20 weeks.
like I said the data is only as good as those collecting it. You can make the numbers say anything you want.

So, the data collected by the CDC isn't valid? I would trust the CDC over whatever talking head pundit you are listening to. Is it just a conspiracy to make the US look worse than it really is or something? You have to admit our health standards are pretty terrible. ESPECIALLY in Alabama where the IMR is almost 9.

I did not say I did not trust the data from the CDC, I said that data in other countries, which is what the report is based upon can and will be flawed. I have worked for almost 20 years in reviewing that type of data in a critical format, and the people who trained me will tell you that you can make statistics say anything you want. Unless there is international standardization of the collection of the data it makes no difference. The CDC can only base its report upon data which is collected OUTSIDE of its umbrella and reported back to them. They are then collating it and writing a report.
Unless the data collectors are all trained in the same format or use the same method to retrieve the data, it makes no difference how you collate it.
I won't argue with you, but ask yourself this. if you are in a car accident this afternoon and can be sent any where in the world to be treated where you want them to take you? Houston or Mexico City? New York or Paris? Atlanta or Bangladesh?
As to the smart comment about babies not driving in Alabama.....the original post that the smart alec comment was directed at was about healthcare in general.
In the US we do have a higher level of premature births, but there is nothing much that has been found that will prevent premature births. A great number of these are also associated with smoking, diet, drug use, and other activites, again which may or may not be related to how we live.
BTW, nothing in ObamaCare addresses these items.

quote:

Originally posted by teyates:
I did not say I did not trust the data from the CDC, I said that data in other countries, which is what the report is based upon can and will be flawed. I have worked for almost 20 years in reviewing that type of data in a critical format, and the people who trained me will tell you that you can make statistics say anything you want. Unless there is international standardization of the collection of the data it makes no difference. The CDC can only base its report upon data which is collected OUTSIDE of its umbrella and reported back to them. They are then collating it and writing a report.
Unless the data collectors are all trained in the same format or use the same method to retrieve the data, it makes no difference how you collate it.
I won't argue with you, but ask yourself this. if you are in a car accident this afternoon and can be sent any where in the world to be treated where you want them to take you? Houston or Mexico City? New York or Paris? Atlanta or Bangladesh?
As to the smart comment about babies not driving in Alabama.....the original post that the smart alec comment was directed at was about healthcare in general.
In the US we do have a higher level of premature births, but there is nothing much that has been found that will prevent premature births. A great number of these are also associated with smoking, diet, drug use, and other activites, again which may or may not be related to how we live.
BTW, nothing in ObamaCare addresses these items.

Every country has premature births. The rate of infant mortality is higher in the US than in the UK, where they have communist medicine, but still use the same data collection criteria as the US. You dont get to just refudiate the numbers when they dont match your preconceived notions.

If you dpont see the need for improvements in the US system, your are willfully ignoring obvious issues. DemoCare is a start, and now that its the law, it will either succeed or be replaced.

quote:

Originally posted by dolemitejb:
Overall, Sparks seems to have a plan of action, while Bentley seems to have a plan of rhetoric.

"Sparks said the only thing about the spending relationship he would change would be to work to get $1.76 back for every dollar, instead of $1.66."


That is really the deal breaker for me...of course there are particular issues one candidate will seem better at than the other.

But this is fantasyland and one of the core problems facing the entire union...Will Bentley be better...probably not...but I cannot support someone who openly campaigns on such a irresponsible economic policy.

Renegade-

I agree that as a national issue what you have cited is a major problem. I've even pointed out, on these forums, the irony of "conservative" politicians in the states that have a net gain from federal taxes. I wouldn't be supporting Sparks were he running for federal office for that very reason. As governor, however, he will have very little impact on federal funds made available to the states. What he can impact is how much our state receives.

It's a Catch 22. I want less federal funding to the states, but I don't want Alabama to leave money on the table out of principle. Even if I did, Bentley won't attempt to reduce the $1.66 figure. That leaves me reluctantly supporting the guy who seems to have the better of two less than desirable plans.

quote:

Originally posted by dolemitejb:
Renegade-

I agree that as a national issue what you have cited is a major problem. I've even pointed out, on these forums, the irony of "conservative" politicians in the states that have a net gain from federal taxes. I wouldn't be supporting Sparks were he running for federal office for that very reason. As governor, however, he will have very little impact on federal funds made available to the states. What he can impact is how much our state receives.

It's a Catch 22. I want less federal funding to the states, but I don't want Alabama to leave money on the table out of principle. Even if I did, Bentley won't attempt to reduce the $1.66 figure. That leaves me reluctantly supporting the guy who seems to have the better of two less than desirable plans.

You are correct...all though I don't know if I totally agree with the assessment "as a national issue"...I do believe a governor could have a big impact...Could...unlikely that ours or any other will.

I'm under no illusions of what Bentley would do or not do. I don't think a vote for Bentley means a reduction in AL's federal money. I'm not even certain I'll be voting for him, I don't know where that leaves me...

The problem is with all of the states that have a net gain...and the fact that the money is sent to the feds in the first place...one governor and one state is not going to change that.

But I can't give a vote to openly continue that idea and attitude..."the federal government's largesse should be welcomed, especially on issues such as food safety, farm subsidies, military bases, Medicaid, education and highways.".

I don't welcome it...collectively nationwide as states and congressional districts, this attitude is one of the main problems.

The problem is as old as government. Recently, when Kyl was criticizing the Stimulus bill, Obama offered to remove Arizona from eligibility for funds, which of course Kyl and the AZ governor immediately rejected. Our own Bob Riley submitted a budget that included a few hundred million extra in extra Medicaid funding from the feds, a measure which had not passed the Congress at the time, and ultimately passed with all of the AlObama reps voting against the measure, except Davis. THis is not a problem that will be solved by a single election cycle, but will take some sort of global financial collapse and rebirth of government over hundreds of years. In the meantime, Sarah Palin thanks for making her a millionaire.

I am forced to agree with Juan on this issue.

I, perhaps unfairly, place the blame for this primarily on the Republicans. We know Democrats will vote for government spending. Republicans are the ones who are supposed to be against it. They are the ones who are supposed to represent voters who are against large government. They have failed, and as a result, voters are left with fewer options. No matter who they vote for, they're voting for a candidate who will increase the size of government. Maybe I should blame the supposed party of big government - the Democrats, but I have a hard time faulting them for doing what they said they would do. I don't have a hard time faulting Republicans for giving voters hope and failing to deliver.

Here in District 5, Mo Brooks took to the campaign trail rallying against earmarks and pork spending. Raby accurately pointed out that much of that funding is what drives Huntsville's economy. Brooks immediately announced that he didn't consider that government spending to be pork and would continue to support it. I have no option in the District 5 race who will actually try and reduce government spending as a result.

quote:

Every country has premature births. The rate of infant mortality is higher in the US than in the UK, where they have communist medicine, but still use the same data collection criteria as the US. You dont get to just refudiate the numbers when they dont match your preconceived notions.

If you dpont see the need for improvements in the US system, your are willfully ignoring obvious issues. DemoCare is a start, and now that its the law, it will either succeed or be replaced.

You must remember that the methodology varies between nations.

quote:

Nov. 3, 2009 -- The high percentage of preterm babies is the main cause of the high infant mortality rate in the U.S., the CDC says in a new report.

The U.S. “does a good job of saving babies when they are born preterm,” Marian F. MacDorman, PhD, of the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, tells WebMD. “The problem we have is prevention, preventing that preterm birth, and that’s where we are in trouble, I think.”

Based on 2005 data, one in eight births in the U.S. was preterm, compared with one in 18 in Ireland and Finland, says the report in the CDC’s NCHS Data Brief No. 23.

http://www.webmd.com/baby/news...nfant-mortality-rate

quote:

The exclusion of any high-risk infants from the denominator or numerator in reported IMRs can be problematic for comparisons. Many countries, including the United States, Sweden or Germany, count an infant exhibiting any sign of life as alive, no matter the month of gestation or the size, but according to United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) researchers,[6] some other countries differ in these practices. All of the countries named adopted the WHO definitions in the late 1980s or early 1990s,[7] which are used throughout the European Union.[8] However, in 2009, the US CDC issued a report that stated that the American rates of infant mortality were affected by the United States' high rates of premature babies compared to European countries. It also outlined the differences in reporting requirements between the United States and Europe, noting that France, the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Poland do not report all live births of babies under 500 g and/or 22 weeks of gestation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...ty#cite_note-webmd-5

Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, ****ed lies and statistics."
- Mark Twain

quote:

Originally posted by dolemitejb:
I am forced to agree with Juan on this issue.

quote:

Originally posted by JuanHunt:
The problem is as old as government...THis is not a problem that will be solved by a single election cycle, but will take some sort of global financial collapse and rebirth of government over hundreds of years...

Once again...you are correct in principle. But yes, you do "perhaps unfairly, place the blame for this primarily on the Republicans"...the enormity of the problem you and Juan are addressing most certainly goes beyond a single party.


"The problem is as old as government."

Yes it is. And I know this is going to sound naive, simplistic, etc and probably like a broken record to some. But that is exactly what the founding generation fought against and warned future generations about...the nature of government is to expand.

As originally understood and accepted, the Constitution is a document that limits and chains the power of the central government. Not as we have today...legalistic gymnastics that twist the Constitution into a rubber stamp for ever expanding federal power.

But you seem to be saying that "I'm against big government and the republicans piss me off because they misrepresent, so I'm voting for the guy that is defininetly going to grow government".

I think many more people, including me, have come to realize we usually have terrible choices each election.

"but will take some sort of global financial collapse and rebirth of government over hundreds of years

If Juan thinks it's going to take "hundreds of years"...I sincerely believe he is mistaken. With the overwhelming federal debt...that at this point today can not be paid off...we have at the most "decades".

And back to more on point of "Sparks vs. Bentely"...If we just keep putting people in office because they are the "lesser of two evils" despite their open acceptance of "the federal government's largesse should be welcomed, especially on issues such as food safety, farm subsidies, military bases, Medicaid, education and highways."...we have a lot less time than that.

And at that point; republican/democrat, left/right, small government/big government...it won't matter because the checks from the feds will bounce...and whether you're a supporter of state sovereignty or not, that's who'll be responsible.

So after all that, my statement in the original post is still the same...whether it makes a difference in the "big" picture or not. I can't vote for a guy that makes statements like that about "federal government's largesse" and actively seeking to make us more beholden to the federal government.

quote:

.the enormity of the problem you and Juan are addressing most certainly goes beyond a single party.

This is, of course, true. I'm not really saying the Republicans are the problem, just that they are misrepresenting the solution. I realize I'm not being perfectly fair since Democrats don't even offer a reasonable solution, but I personally would rather know where a candidate stands than be lead to believe they want to do something that they never will.

quote:

But you seem to be saying that "I'm against big government and the republicans piss me off because they misrepresent, so I'm voting for the guy that is defininetly going to grow government".

Not really. I vote, especially in federal elections, for third party candidates as often as good ones are available. My criticism may be more directed at Republicans, but I haven't voted for Democrats as a result.

quote:

And back to more on point of "Sparks vs. Bentely"...If we just keep putting people in office because they are the "lesser of two evils" despite their open acceptance of "the federal government's largesse should be welcomed, especially on issues such as food safety, farm subsidies, military bases, Medicaid, education and highways."...we have a lot less time than that.

Other than not voting, which I'm not opposed to, I don't know of a third option for governor. Has a third candidate achieved ballot access? Between the two, I will be voting for the "lesser of two evils," which seems so far to be Sparks, even though I don't approve of the statement you have quoted.

The winner of the AlObama goobernatorial election will have less than zero impact on fedgov policies because AlObama is clearly a welfare state. The state cannot provide even the most basic of services without the fedgov input, and therefore will always defer to the fedgov on all matters of policy that impact eligibility for fedgov dollars. Whats interesting is that AlObama is not an economic drag, having a gross state product ranking smewhere near 25th.

quote:

Originally posted by dolemitejb:
Other than not voting, which I'm not opposed to, I don't know of a third option for governor. Has a third candidate achieved ballot access? Between the two, I will be voting for the "lesser of two evils," which seems so far to be Sparks, even though I don't approve of the statement you have quoted.

I understand and respect your position. I've actually been considering not voting for governor. My plan in recent elections is to vote libertarian/3rd party when I can and anti-incumbent when that's not available...all though I will admit I wussed out on that in '08.

But that leaves me with no options for governor...so I'm not sure yet.

My question, knowing you hold a somewhat libertarian view...how do you reconcile yourself "principally" to Sparks' "federal government's largesse" statements?

quote:

My question, knowing you hold a somewhat libertarian view...how do you reconcile yourself "principally" to Sparks' "federal government's largesse" statements?

I don't really. I'm picking what I believe to be the lesser of two evils, so I'm going to pick a candidate that I disagree with on some things.

quote:

Originally posted by dolemitejb:

quote:

My question, knowing you hold a somewhat libertarian view...how do you reconcile yourself "principally" to Sparks' "federal government's largesse" statements?

I don't really. I'm picking what I believe to be the lesser of two evils, so I'm going to pick a candidate that I disagree with on some things.

OK...but that's a pretty fundamental "issue" for libertarian philosophy.

quote:

OK...but that's a pretty fundamental "issue" for libertarian philosophy.

Well, the spending certainly is, but fighting for the funds isn't as much. Ron Paul is easily the most libertarian member of Congress, and he participates in the earmark process. He votes against the spending bills, but makes sure his district will get a peice of the spending if the bill is passed. I don't wish to see our state dependent on federal money to get by, but I also don't want our state officials to pass opportunities for us to receive funding.

I would never in a million years vote for Bentley BECAUSE he is against the healthcare reform package. His solution for those who have no way to pay for healthcare is to rely on friends, family, and church and that's near-direct a quote. It's okay to ask for a handout from those groups but not to expect the government to whom you've paid in many dollars in taxes to help you out during a low period in your life? That is illogical.

quote:

Originally posted by dolemitejb:
I am forced to agree with Juan on this issue.

I, perhaps unfairly, place the blame for this primarily on the Republicans. We know Democrats will vote for government spending. Republicans are the ones who are supposed to be against it. They are the ones who are supposed to represent voters who are against large government. They have failed, and as a result, voters are left with fewer options. No matter who they vote for, they're voting for a candidate who will increase the size of government. Maybe I should blame the supposed party of big government - the Democrats, but I have a hard time faulting them for doing what they said they would do. I don't have a hard time faulting Republicans for giving voters hope and failing to deliver.

Here in District 5, Mo Brooks took to the campaign trail rallying against earmarks and pork spending. Raby accurately pointed out that much of that funding is what drives Huntsville's economy. Brooks immediately announced that he didn't consider that government spending to be pork and would continue to support it. I have no option in the District 5 race who will actually try and reduce government spending as a result.

That's the problem with federal dollars. Everyone wants to cut but "don't cut mine". It's redistributing the wealth on a national level.

quote:

Originally posted by SashaFarce:
I would never in a million years vote for Bentley BECAUSE he is against the healthcare reform package. His solution for those who have no way to pay for healthcare is to rely on friends, family, and church and that's near-direct a quote. It's okay to ask for a handout from those groups but not to expect the government to whom you've paid in many dollars in taxes to help you out during a low period in your life? That is illogical.

Your way of thinking is what's wrong with our country. Maybe you should try Europe, Russia, or China. It is not the role of government to take of your every need.

quote:

Originally posted by ferrellj:

quote:

Originally posted by SashaFarce:
I would never in a million years vote for Bentley BECAUSE he is against the healthcare reform package. His solution for those who have no way to pay for healthcare is to rely on friends, family, and church and that's near-direct a quote. It's okay to ask for a handout from those groups but not to expect the government to whom you've paid in many dollars in taxes to help you out during a low period in your life? That is illogical.

Your way of thinking is what's wrong with our country. Maybe you should try Europe, Russia, or China. It is not the role of government to take of your every need.

Nobody is asking government to take care of their every need. Is it not better for us to pool our resources a bit to help one another out? Or is it too much to ask for a few dollars more in taxes? They certainly seem happy in Scandinavia.

quote:

Originally posted by Caduceus:

quote:

Originally posted by ferrellj:

quote:

Originally posted by SashaFarce:
I would never in a million years vote for Bentley BECAUSE he is against the healthcare reform package. His solution for those who have no way to pay for healthcare is to rely on friends, family, and church and that's near-direct a quote. It's okay to ask for a handout from those groups but not to expect the government to whom you've paid in many dollars in taxes to help you out during a low period in your life? That is illogical.

Your way of thinking is what's wrong with our country. Maybe you should try Europe, Russia, or China. It is not the role of government to take of your every need.

Nobody is asking government to take care of their every need. Is it not better for us to pool our resources a bit to help one another out? Or is it too much to ask for a few dollars more in taxes? They certainly seem happy in Scandinavia.

First! Actually, they aren't! Second! To compare a large federal republic with a heterogeneous population of 305 million with a small nation with an almost homogeneous population of about 8 million is good comparison.

To elucidate:

Sweden was rich before she went socialist. Then, slowly lost much of that wealth. Seeing the PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain) try socialism as poor nations, sent a shock thru the Swedish citizenry.

Thus:

Recently, Sweden scored as the second most competitive nation, after Switzerland. The US came in fourth, I believe. How was this achieved in a socialist, welfare state? By transitioning to a free market state, that's how! Still a long way from Hong Kong or Singapore, but impressive.
While they are going to the right, the US is being dragged to the left.

"There is something about Sweden that provokes a mix of envy, horror, and bewilderment among American observers. Liberals have traditionally celebrated its cradle-to-grave safety net, while conservatives have disparaged its high taxes and centralized health-care regime. Yet both groups have generally agreed that Swedish-style socialism is a far cry from rough-and-tumble U.S. capitalism.

In fact, contemporary Sweden is much less socialist than many Americans realize. Since the early 1990s, when it suffered a painful financial crisis, the Scandinavian country has deregulated key industries (such as airlines, telecommunications, and electricity), lowered its overall tax burden, established universal school vouchers, partially privatized its pension system, abolished certain government monopolies, sold a number of state-owned enterprises (including the parent company of Absolut vodka), and trimmed public spending. Several years ago, it eliminated gift and inheritance taxes. The World Economic Forum now ranks Sweden as the second-most competitive economy on earth, behind only Switzerland. According to the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom (compiled by the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation), Sweden offers greater business freedom, trade freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, freedom from corruption, and property-rights protection than does the United States."

More at: http://www.nationalreview.com/...lution-duncan-currie

As for healthcare in particular:

I suggest the article:

"Lessons from Sweden’s Universal Health System: Tales from the Health-care Crypt"

at: http://www.jpands.org/vol13no1/larson.pdf

Because of the long wait times cited, a private hospital for children was recently constructed.

Scandinavia is transitioning away from the left, as Obama tries to drag the US to the left.

Did y’all catch the debate last night? The Auburn moderator said [in jest] the only question not open to debate was the BCS poll. Maybe it should have been. The State of Alabama would finally be ranked right at the top.

Sparks still doesn’t understand the difference between collecting taxes owed and raising taxes.

Bentley, the Republican, takes money from the AEA under the table and yet announces he wants to get rid of substandard teachers. The only other politician to take money from a teacher’s union then call for getting rid of non-productive teachers is a Democrat. Obama.

Evaluating teachers wasn't on the table for debate, so when Bentley had the nerve to bring it up, Sparks didn’t respond even though the CEO of his party supports it. Instead, Sparks went for the "throw money at it approach" with the lottery to fund a college education for all children but leaving out his attack ad position ridiculing Bentley’s notion that some kids are not college material which would include subpar academic achievement. And just as surprisingly, Bentley passed on the opportunity to call Sparks' hand on it.

So how exactly do we raise the academic standards in the classroom without raising the standards of the teachers? More money from the lottery for better salaries would certainly be an incentive for the good ones, but what about the ones Bentley and Obama want to get rid of? The candidate that’s pro-lottery doesn’t support firing bad teachers and the one who supports culling the unqualified isn’t fired up about the lottery.

Let us vote on the education lottery, don’t raise our taxes, do collect back taxes, and fire bad teachers. What’s so hard about that?