The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

It's a lot tougher for cities and states, who don't have the same leeway to spend money they don't have. They actually have to make difficult cuts.

It's not particularly amazing that citizens are a little weary of corrupt/ineffective governments taking more of their money when they've so horribly mishandled the money they've already taken. It's also not surprising that people are wary of property tax increases when so many are having trouble getting by on their mortgages as is.

Hopefully the people in this city will help with the parks. That's a much better solution for everyone than having to collectively pay for such services way above actual cost.

As for the police/firefighters - those positions have been shredded all across the U.S. We've had a pretty bad recession. I think Colorado Springs can get by without flowers for a while.

I respect these city leaders for bothering to make the tough decisions. The President and Congress could learn a lot from this example.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

that's going to be an effing disaster i predict

Perhaps it's better to deal with an effing disaster now than to deal with an ineffable disaster in a few years?

[molson]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Perhaps it's better to deal with an effing disaster now than to deal with an ineffable disaster in a few years?

And whether its better or not - they don't even have a choice. There's way less money coming in so they have to make cuts.

[flere-imsaho]

Wait, I thought Colorado Springs was the communist, hippie city of Colorado? Or is that another city?

[albionmoonlight]

It's kind of a facinating experiment. The people with money will still have access to private recreation opportunities and private schooing and private security. I've never heard of private fire suppression, but it isn't hard to imagine ADT starting to offer that service as well.

Basically, this is kind of what the libertarians say will work best. Personally, I have my doubts, but I also figure that, since these people have managed to get themselves into this mess, we should try and glean what we can from the experiment. Will the sinking tide (lower standard of public services) lower all ships (rich folks and poor folks)? Will businesses be attracted by the low taxes, or repelled by the lack of street lights and high crime? Will the market step in and provide creatitive and efficient solutions like co-op parks and quasi-public security firms? Will volunteers still be mowing the grass three years from now when the novelty has worn off? Will people become more engaged in civic life when keeping the town clean and safe is seen as a true community effort and not the job of some migrant worker making $12/hour working for Parks & Rec?

We will, of course, get enough mixed messages from this experiment that those who were in favor of it from the start will say it worked great and those opposed to it from the start will say it worked horribly. But, for those of us who actually approach an issue like this and say, "I don't know what is best," it might provide some interesting data.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

That's Boulder. But, I guess it was too much to ask for the conservatives to understand why the above is a bad thing. After all, those silly things like parks and bus lines help the community, not just themselves. They got a gun and a SUV, who do they need cops or mass transit?

Even cities and states with high taxes have to cut things during a massive recession (we just had a thread about brutal education cuts in San Fransisco). I'm not sure why you're so resentful of this particular city, except that it gives you another chance to get on your soap box. About what I'm not sure. And I'm not sure why you're so upset about what another community is doing to get through this. I've cut back on a few things myself. Are you mad at me too?

I guess you're arguing that in a recession, cities/states should just continuously raise taxes so they don't ever have to cut anything. Even the flower budget. Is there any city/state that's actually trying this? Not even San Francisco is.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

That's Boulder. But, I guess it was too much to ask for the conservatives to understand why the above is a bad thing. After all, those silly things like parks and bus lines help the community, not just themselves. They got a gun and a SUV, who do they need cops or mass transit?

The question is, what services are they leaving intact? 2 decades ago I watched Tampa Florida ask for a sales tax increase to cover fire and police protection while they were finding room in the budget for a convention center. This is the same reason that teaching positions get cut before administration: if you cut the basics, people think they need a tax increase.

So what programs are Colorado Springs leaving intact while cutting these to try and get the tax increase through?

It's possible they are already cut to the bone, but I'm skeptical based on past and current experience.

[molson]

I'm glad I live in a conservative western state when it comes to budget stuff. It's definitely gotten ugly, but we're at least always "caught up". In the middle of a fiscal year, if revenues are trailing projections, every agency has to cut during the fiscal year so we can always be balanced. That way, it's been a relatively softer decline, compared to things I hear about in other states (of course, that's also helped by lower taxes/smaller government - you really don't have to cut THAT much. We're down to what the budget was in 2006, which has required cuts, but hasn't changed peoples' lives to any great degree)

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

It's kind of a facinating experiment. The people with money will still have access to private recreation opportunities and private schooing and private security. I've never heard of private fire suppression, but it isn't hard to imagine ADT starting to offer that service as well.

Basically, this is kind of what the libertarians say will work best. Personally, I have my doubts, but I also figure that, since these people have managed to get themselves into this mess, we should try and glean what we can from the experiment. Will the sinking tide (lower standard of public services) lower all ships (rich folks and poor folks)? Will businesses be attracted by the low taxes, or repelled by the lack of street lights and high crime? Will the market step in and provide creatitive and efficient solutions like co-op parks and quasi-public security firms? Will volunteers still be mowing the grass three years from now when the novelty has worn off? Will people become more engaged in civic life when keeping the town clean and safe is seen as a true community effort and not the job of some migrant worker making $12/hour working for Parks & Rec?

We will, of course, get enough mixed messages from this experiment that those who were in favor of it from the start will say it worked great and those opposed to it from the start will say it worked horribly. But, for those of us who actually approach an issue like this and say, "I don't know what is best," it might provide some interesting data.

My understanding is municipal fire departments came about after private fire companies failed in the nineteenth century. Abuses like charging double before putting out the fire tended to turn people off.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm glad I live in a conservative western state when it comes to budget stuff. It's definitely gotten ugly, but we're at least always "caught up". In the middle of a fiscal year, if revenues are trailing projections, every agency has to cut during the fiscal year so we can always be balanced. That way, it's been a relatively softer decline, compared to things I hear about in other states (of course, that's also helped by lower taxes/smaller government - you really don't have to cut THAT much. We're down to what the budget was in 2006, which has required cuts, but hasn't changed peoples' lives to any great degree)

I wouldn't argue that politics has nothing to do with it, but demographics play a large role. States with large urban areas need more services and more tax dollars to pay for them.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Also, I can guarantee whichever state Molson lives in gets more in federal spending in his state than it pays in taxes largely because the federal government owns large chunks of a lot of the Western states.

Oh it absolutely does, no doubt. But wherever your money comes from, that's all you have as a state/city.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

Oh it absolutely does, no doubt. But wherever your money comes from, that's all you have as a state/city.

methinks you are missing the point

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

methinks you are missing the point

Perhaps. I'm just not getting the criticism of a town cutting its budget during a recession. Apparently that's bad if its a "conservative" city. I also disagree with the implied contention that a city or state should make up any budget shortfall by taking money from citizens.

[RainMaker]

There is a balancing act though with services. If Colorado Springs chooses to cut back too much and their parks look like shit, mass transit is bad, and other basic city ammenities fall apart, it could hurt them more. So you save some money on these things in the short term, but if it hurts tourism and commerce, it can cost the people of the city more in terms of jobs and lower revenue. Is the cut worth potentially seeing your property value fall because the normally beautiful parks in the area now look like shit? Or because crime goes up in areas?

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

There is a balancing act though with services. If Colorado Springs chooses to cut back too much and their parks look like shit, mass transit is bad, and other basic city ammenities fall apart, it could hurt them more. So you save some money on these things in the short term, but if it hurts tourism and commerce, it can cost the people of the city more in terms of jobs and lower revenue. Is the cut worth potentially seeing your property value fall because the normally beautiful parks in the area now look like shit?

At the city/state level, it's not about choosing whether to cut, its about choosing what to cut.

Maybe they should have cut teachers instead of police. Or more firefighters instead of the budget for flowers. That's the balancing act.

What city or state out there has made up their entire budget shortfall through increased taxation?? Definitely not San Francisco, or Massachusetts. Everybody's cutting.

It sucks, but I would definitely cut the flower budget before I cut a lot of other things. If people are concerned about property values, they can definitely take maintenance into their own hands to some extent. They can't replace other services as easily.

[molson]

Oh, and a quick Google search shows that even a liberal paradise like Massachusetts had to cut MBTA service. That's apparently not as bad - I guess because of the political views of that state? Why didn't MA just tax the rich to make up the difference, if that's the best way to do things? There's plenty of rich people there.

All I'm saying is that the need to cut budgets at the city/state level isn't an exclusively "conservative/SUV/gun" issue. That's the only thing that bugged me. And I'm tired of the criticisms of states/cities cutting stuff, when they have absolutely no choice.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Looks like the carbon tax may not happen.

Obama: Senate Might Drop Carbon Cap | Mother Jones

[Flasch186]

Loved Michelle Bachman's speech she gave where she implied the reason to be against Health Care reform was because in Japan people are in fear of speaking out against their Health Care there due to the gov't then adding them to a list resulting in them being refused treatment for ailments. We wouldnt want that here would we, you know the Government cracking down due to your opinion.

Bachmann: Criticize health care plan and forget about being treated | StarTribune.com

Now I know she's a quack but lets see what a Google search brings up:



Classic.

[RainMaker]

People in Japan live over 4 years longer than the average American, and females like Bachman live 6 years longer than the average American female.

Japan has the highest life expectancy in the world. I'm sure the people over there are up in arms over that.

[Flasch186]

oh, and in other news, I'd expect all the pols who decried the handling of the Christmas day bomber as being poor because he was read his Miranda rights and therefore wasnt talking, to be lining up to admit to being wrong since the bomber is spilling the beans so to speak. I'm going to Tivo CNN all day to watch them all come out and backtrack.

Rainmaker, that may be true but ONLY if you dont talk bad about the Health Care system. If you do, you die!

..and as an aside, I saw the other day that somewhere an "abstinence only" mantra that was taught, experimentally, devoid of any religious mantra at all was deemed successful. The mantra spoke on the positives and negatives of sex, the repurcussions, etc. and had a much greater success rate than that which is built upon a religious foundation....so I wonder if the churches are going to embrace this line of thought since the end goal is the same.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I'm going to Tivo CNN all day to watch them all come out and backtrack.

Judging from the January ratings numbers, CNN appreciates any help you can give them. Heavy losses for MSNBC and CNN in viewership.

Still Rolling: Fox News Has Its Best January Ever | TV | Mediaite

[Flasch186]

I was kidding.

CNN is frickin' terrible.

[RainMaker]

CNN actually went to try and cover news in January which is suicide for a cable "news" network.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I was kidding.

CNN is frickin' terrible.

I'd agree, which makes it all the more interesting that they passed MSNBC in last month's ratings. As a news network, it's no small feat to fall below CNN, which is merely a shell of its former self.

[RainMaker]

Was CNN's ratings ever really high? Not counting special events, but just on a daily basis in a normal news cycle.

I think CNN is just seeing the same effect that other traditional news media are seeing. People are not getting their news from your average news broadcast but instead from the internet. I wouldn't call them a shell of their former selves since I do think their access to news is strong (just watch their Haiti coverage), it's just that people aren't tuning in for that as they can get it from the web. In that regard, CNN crushed Fox News, MSNBC, and just about every other news outlet in web traffic.

[Flasch186]

For me, its their attempt to integrate the social networking into their newscasts that is laborious and makes me want to vomit up my innards. Im doing better, thanks for asking.

[flere-imsaho]

In the race to take Obama's former Senate seat, Mark Kirk won the GOP nomination 56% to 19% over the (I think) conservative purportedly set up by the teabaggers to oppose him.

On the Democrat side, Alexi Giannoulias overcame a late surge by challenger Hoffman to win a 3-way race (with the 4th dropping out on Sunday) 39% to 34% (or thereabouts).

Starting with their victory speeches, the race has already turned ugly. Giannoulias is going to cast Kirk as a Washington insider who's not so much a moderate as a rank-and-file GOP soldier. Both claims are certainly true, as Kirk's represented the 10th district for 9 years now and was a staff member to the previous Congressman who held the district for ages and ages. Plus, Kirk rarely bucks his party except for on a few pet issues.

Kirk, on the other hand, has all sorts of ammunition to use against Giannoulias. First of all, he's 33. Second of all, he's treasurer of a state with the 2nd-worst fiscal situation in the country (after California). Third, he's a big Friend of Obama (which is either a positive or a negative, depending on how you look at it). Fourth, and this is what gained Hoffman ground, the bank Giannoulias worked at prior to becoming Treasurer of the state, is in some serious financial difficulty, and it appears a lot of this stems from policy changes that happened during Giannoulias' tenure.

Specifically, Giannoulias worked first as a loan officer, and then as a vice president in charge of that business unit. During his tenure the bank went from a conservative standpoint on this business to delving deeply into risky loans, which (like many other banks) has plunged them into serious trouble. All of which creates an impression of Giannoulias as an aggressive risk taker probably routinely in over his head.


In my opinion, they're both slimes. Kirk will say and do anything to get or stay elected and it's unclear what, exactly, he really believes in. Giannoulias is an arrogant young man in a hurry who couldn't care less about the long-term ramifications of his decisions, as long as it continues to propel him to bigger and better things.


In good news, however, current Cook County Board President (and only slightly more competent than a demented walrus) Todd Stroger got hammered in the Democratic primary, coming fourth out of four candidates (let that sink in for a moment), so we'll definitely see a new Board President come the fall. The likely winner is the winner of the Democratic Primary, Alderman Toni Preckwinkle, who (in my opinion) was the least worst of the options. But honestly, even if the GOP nominee wins I won't shed a tear since in my opinion the entire organization needs to be scrapped and rebuilt.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

People in Japan live over 4 years longer than the average American, and females like Bachman live 6 years longer than the average American female.

Japan has the highest life expectancy in the world. I'm sure the people over there are up in arms over that.

If only Americans would eat less McDonalds and more healthy seafood/starches like the Japanese, they might live 4 years longer. Not sure what "health care plan" prevents people from eating fast food, though...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

In that regard, CNN crushed Fox News, MSNBC, and just about every other news outlet in web traffic.

I don't know if 'crushed' is the word I'd use. CNN is the 60th rated site, FoxNews is 208th, and MSNBC is 2,400+. I'd also note that the average user browses the FoxNews site longer than the other two sites (Fox has about 6 minutes per user, CNN is 5 minute, and MSNBC is 2-3 minutes). There's a lot of things that should be considered in the web wars. Traffic is a quick measure, but there's a lot more that goes into the actual analysis. I'd suggest using Alexa.com if you've got some time to burn and want to dig a bit more.

[DaddyTorgo]

[miked]

Every time Michele Bachmann speaks, a pony kills a kitten.

[SportsDino]

I think most cities could do with massive cuts, starting with their administration first. Since there are a lot less things being done now in Colorado Springs, maybe they don't need so many managers who are managing nothing, and elected councils and other positions that have a lot less to govern.

More and more I'm thinking dictatorship at the municipal level makes sense. Of course, if I get to pick the dictator, I'd approve of it at the national level as well (I'd make a good dictator, I promises!).

I look at all the city services being cut, and yet the size of the main administration costs of the city staying relatively flat (slight cuts). Its simple economics, if you are doing less real work, you need less executive 'brainpower' doing it. Some cities should just start forming 'do-nothing' parties and trying to corner a city election on a platform of 'less bureaucratic costs'. Now would be an excellent time to do so, help with the current budget crisis and help people really see where the fat is in the budget now that it is under stress... and where the necessary meat of the budget resides (police/fire/sanitation/health).

Maybe get some liberal support from stopping the education bloodbath in the budget wars.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I don't know if 'crushed' is the word I'd use. CNN is the 60th rated site, FoxNews is 208th, and MSNBC is 2,400+. I'd also note that the average user browses the FoxNews site longer than the other two sites (Fox has about 6 minutes per user, CNN is 5 minute, and MSNBC is 2-3 minutes). There's a lot of things that should be considered in the web wars. Traffic is a quick measure, but there's a lot more that goes into the actual analysis. I'd suggest using Alexa.com if you've got some time to burn and want to dig a bit more.

I'm well versed in Alexa although there are some better analytical tools out there. There is a huge difference in the 60th and 208th ranked site. CNN does double and sometimes triple the amount of daily visitors Fox News does.

MSNBC actually does better than Fox News. They just run most of their media through the MSN.com domain so it's tougher to track using something like Alexa. ComScore gives better data in that regard. You also could factor CNBC into MSNBC's totals as CNN runs their money news through their primary domain.

In any event, I'm just pointing out why CNN is hurting. Their evening shows are primarily news based and not entertainment shows like the other networks. Many people are finding their news online instead of through a newscast. The CPM across all the sites is actually quite similar.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I don't know if 'crushed' is the word I'd use. CNN is the 60th rated site, FoxNews is 208th, and MSNBC is 2,400+. I'd also note that the average user browses the FoxNews site longer than the other two sites (Fox has about 6 minutes per user, CNN is 5 minute, and MSNBC is 2-3 minutes). There's a lot of things that should be considered in the web wars. Traffic is a quick measure, but there's a lot more that goes into the actual analysis. I'd suggest using Alexa.com if you've got some time to burn and want to dig a bit more.

I still havnt figured out when it's ok to use the word 'vast' in the MBBF dictionary.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

In any event, I'm just pointing out why CNN is hurting. Their evening shows are primarily news based and not entertainment shows like the other networks. Many people are finding their news online instead of through a newscast. The CPM across all the sites is actually quite similar.

Really? I'd say just the opposite. Larry King and Nancy Grace are far more entertainment based than the O'Reilly/Hannity and Olbermann/Maddow shows. Larry King regularly rolls in celebrities and Nancy Grace is rarely addressing the news topic of the day. The other two channels and their hosts are much more news focused than CNN. I'd argue that's why CNN is struggling in the evening. People want focus on current events far more than they want to hear interviews by King or Grace. Anderson is the only real news covering person in the evening on CNN and he's sandwiched by a couple of goofballs.

[DaddyTorgo]

I'd actually agree with MBBF on that (*shudders*). I never bother with Larry King and Nancy Grace because they're all interviews of celebrities and crap.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Fox has about 6 minutes per user, CNN is 5 minute

Is that because Fox News viewers aren't good at reading?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

If only Americans would eat less McDonalds and more healthy seafood/starches like the Japanese, they might live 4 years longer. Not sure what "health care plan" prevents people from eating fast food, though...

Yes, because we our genetically predisposed to crave fried foods. It has nothing to do with how the health care systems are setup or what the primary focuses are. The fact that Japan has a system built around keeping obesity at low levels is surely not the reason they live so much longer than us.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Is that because Fox News viewers aren't good at reading?

I was thinking it was because they were trying to decide whether to click on the 'Lose 30 pounds in 7 days!' advertisement. It's a difficult decision.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Really? I'd say just the opposite. Larry King and Nancy Grace are far more entertainment based than the O'Reilly/Hannity and Olbermann/Maddow shows. Larry King regularly rolls in celebrities and Nancy Grace is rarely addressing the news topic of the day. The other two channels and their hosts are much more news focused than CNN. I'd argue that's why CNN is struggling in the evening. People want focus on current events far more than they want to hear interviews by King or Grace. Anderson is the only real news covering person in the evening on CNN and he's sandwiched by a couple of goofballs.

Isnt Nancy Grace on a different CNN channel? Youre combining them in your comparison? The only entertainment shows at night on CNN is King right? You meant to delineate that right? I mean you wouldnt blend CNN and then a totally different CNN channel together would you for your narrative?

I mean Disney owns a lot of channels but you wouldnt blend those together would you? MSNBC and CNBC you want to combine? As Keyshawn would say, "C'mon man."

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Really? I'd say just the opposite. Larry King and Nancy Grace are far more entertainment based than the O'Reilly/Hannity and Olbermann/Maddow shows. Larry King regularly rolls in celebrities and Nancy Grace is rarely addressing the news topic of the day. The other two channels and their hosts are much more news focused than CNN. I'd argue that's why CNN is struggling in the evening. People want focus on current events far more than they want to hear interviews by King or Grace. Anderson is the only real news covering person in the evening on CNN and he's sandwiched by a couple of goofballs.

Nancy Grace is not on CNN. Larry King makes up one hour of television a night for the network.

From 5pm-Midnight, CNN runs news programs 6 of the 7 hours (with the exception of Larry King). Fox News has a news program for 2 of the 7 hours, while MSNBC runs 0 news shows in those 7 hours.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yes, because we our genetically predisposed to crave fried foods. It has nothing to do with how the health care systems are setup or what the primary focuses are. The fact that Japan has a system built around keeping obesity at low levels is surely not the reason they live so much longer than us.

Lifestyle choices does not equal quality of Health Care. You can have a free pass to the Mayo Clinic, but if you eat big macs for every meal and don't exercise, you will have a much lower quality of health than some Japanese fisherman who doesn't even have an HMO

The biggest issue for our health care system is lifestyle choices. That's the only reason we lag behind other countries when it comes to measurable health items. If people chose to eat less fast food, exercise more and watch less TV (like most countries do), we would be much healthier - and that's without one more person covered or one penny spent on improving health insurance. The problem is that we actually allow people to make broad choices on their lifestyle and many choose some that don't positively impact their health.

No government program (outside of fascism) is going to change that.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Arles

Lifestyle choices does not equal quality of Health Care. You can have a free pass to the Mayo Clinic, but if you eat big macs for every meal and don't exercise, you will have a much lower quality of health than some Japanese fisherman who doesn't even have an HMO

The biggest issue for our health care system is lifestyle choices. That's the only reason we lag behind other countries when it comes to measurable health items. If people chose to eat less fast food, exercise more and watch less TV (like most countries do), we would be much healthier - and that's without one more person covered or one penny spent on improving health insurance. The problem is that we actually allow people to make broad choices on their lifestyle and many choose some that don't positively impact their health.

No government program (outside of fascism) is going to change that.

I agree with Arles on this. I'm required to pay for someone else's inability to turn down a Big Mac. Now that's real freedom. In other news, looks like Las Vegas is mad at Obama...again.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_las_vegas

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

Lifestyle choices does not equal quality of Health Care. You can have a free pass to the Mayo Clinic, but if you eat big macs for every meal and don't exercise, you will have a much lower quality of health than some Japanese fisherman who doesn't even have an HMO

The biggest issue for our health care system is lifestyle choices. That's the only reason we lag behind other countries when it comes to measurable health items. If people chose to eat less fast food, exercise more and watch less TV (like most countries do), we would be much healthier - and that's without one more person covered or one penny spent on improving health insurance. The problem is that we actually allow people to make broad choices on their lifestyle and many choose some that don't positively impact their health.

No government program (outside of fascism) is going to change that.

Japan citizens are free to make the same lifestyle choices Americans are. They are free to eat crappy fried foods filled with sugar all they want. Somewhere along the line there is a difference between ourselves and all these other countries.

I do think education of citizens is part of any health care plan and vital to lowering obesity rates. I think a big reason our obesity rates are high is because of bad information our government gave out over decades that have carried with people to this day.

Countries with national health care systems also have obesity and weight loss programs in place that are covered by their tax dollars. That is something few health care plans allow these days in the United States.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ace1914

I agree with Arles on this. I'm required to pay for someone else's inability to turn down a Big Mac. Now that's real freedom. In other news, looks like Las Vegas is mad at Obama...again.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_las_vegas

You are not required to pay for anyone's inability to turn down a Big Mac.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

Lifestyle choices does not equal quality of Health Care. You can have a free pass to the Mayo Clinic, but if you eat big macs for every meal and don't exercise, you will have a much lower quality of health than some Japanese fisherman who doesn't even have an HMO

The biggest issue for our health care system is lifestyle choices. That's the only reason we lag behind other countries when it comes to measurable health items. If people chose to eat less fast food, exercise more and watch less TV (like most countries do), we would be much healthier - and that's without one more person covered or one penny spent on improving health insurance. The problem is that we actually allow people to make broad choices on their lifestyle and many choose some that don't positively impact their health.

No government program (outside of fascism) is going to change that.

Since so many people believe quality of healthcare doesn't effect life expectancy why don't we just shut down all our healthcare and save a shit ton of money? Afterall we'll live just as long without it, right?

[Flasch186]

well the GOP says they have a plan that can cover 40million more Americans and it wont cost a thing {shrug}

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Since so many people believe quality of healthcare doesn't effect life expectancy why don't we just shut down all our healthcare and save a shit ton of money? Afterall we'll live just as long without it, right?

I think either taking the federal government completely out of health care, or having a one-payer system, would be an improvement. Both would lower costs.

Costs are really the issue. The European systems everybody loves cost less than half (both per person costs, and health spending as a % of GDP) of what our system costs now, and probably way less than half of what any new system will cost here. Everything in the U.S. has to be a jumbled, administrative, corrupt, nightmare.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Nancy Grace is not on CNN. Larry King makes up one hour of television a night for the network.

From 5pm-Midnight, CNN runs news programs 6 of the 7 hours (with the exception of Larry King). Fox News has a news program for 2 of the 7 hours, while MSNBC runs 0 news shows in those 7 hours.

My bad. Thought Grace was part of that lineup.

I would disagree with your characterization that there are no news shows on MSNBC and 2 on Fox. All of those shows deal directly with the current news. Just because there is some opinions voiced in regards to that news doesn't mean that they don't cover news.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Japan citizens are free to make the same lifestyle choices Americans are. They are free to eat crappy fried foods filled with sugar all they want. Somewhere along the line there is a difference between ourselves and all these other countries.

Yes, it's our culture and the history of freedom in all choices we have. The Japanese haven't had fast food joints on every corner for the past 30 years. Their culture involves more focus on preparing fresh food and cooking meals. Our culture is an instant gratification one that wants to drive through a taco bell or McDonalds each night so that we don't have to cook and miss our favorite prime time TV show.

The same goes with many places in Europe that focus on street side markets, daily grocery shopping and preparing their own meals.

I do think education of citizens is part of any health care plan and vital to lowering obesity rates. I think a big reason our obesity rates are high is because of bad information our government gave out over decades that have carried with people to this day.

Education is fine, but it's not enough. That's like saying we can end crime in inner cities by simply improving the "crime is bad" education in local schools and boys clubs in those cities. We need to change our priorities to value preparing and using fresh food (and taking more time to make dinner) instead of just grabbing fast food because we're too tired/don't want to cook. It's ingrained in our culture and priorities right now.

Countries with national health care systems also have obesity and weight loss programs in place that are covered by their tax dollars. That is something few health care plans allow these days in the United States.

Honestly, the only way to change it is to penalize people who are obese. Maybe charge a higher health insurance rate if you have a BMI over a certain number. I know it's not fair and many people have legitimate issues that cause their obesity, but unless people pay more for their health care - they won't care about changing it.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Since so many people believe quality of healthcare doesn't effect life expectancy why don't we just shut down all our healthcare and save a shit ton of money? Afterall we'll live just as long without it, right?

That's a bit of a scarecrow. No one is saying that quality of healthcare doesn't effect life expectancy, I was saying that it's just not the only variable - which is something I would hope you would agree with.

You can have a high quality of health care services and a crappy lifestyle and have lower life expectancy. You can also be like some of the underdeveloped nations and have a very active lifestyle, but crappy health care services and still have lower life expectancy. I would say that Japan has one of the better combinations of healthy lifestyle and quality of health care, so it makes sense that they have a high life expectancy. However, that doesn't mean that the US can achieve that same level by simply pumping money into the health care system. There are major lifestyle choices that would need to change in this country before we can even think of reaching their level in some areas.

We have fundamental flaw in the US of thinking that if we spend tons of money time perfecting a re-occurring hang nail on our right finger, it will make up for the massive, untreated knife wound on our other arm. The only way to see real improvements in health care in the US is lifestyle changes - but that's an issue no politician wants to admit or try to deal with.