Wednesday, August 1, 2007

"Healthy Wisconsin" Gets National Exposure

The American Prospect magazine runs a piece on the Wisconsin health care reform plan that has passed the State Senate.

In the long effort to bring sanity and fairness to the country's health care chaos, Wisconsin's initiative is playing a valuable role.


Anonymous said...

National exposure in a LIBERAL magazine. The people who commented on the article think the plan is not liberal enough. It seems that to a liberal wealth redistribution and income limits are a good thing. Those evil rich. We liberals know what to do with your money better than you.

James Rowen said...

Liberals can have national magazines, too, my friend.

And liberals have given you programs that you or your family have or will benefit from - - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the minimum wage, rural electrification, public health departments, elimination of child labot, and so on.

Anonymous said...

Let us see, social security is in financial trouble as is Medicare and Medicaid. Should I go on?

James Rowen said...

These programs can be easily straightened out with a smaller military budget - - $12 billion a month to Iraq and Afghanistan, a trillion bucks eventually to these battlefields, and some modest means-testing for eligibility.

Anonymous said...

What is modest means testing? Basically, if I make I should contribute more, if I make too much and be eligible for less benefit when it is my turn. What is modest to a liberal?

James Rowen said...

Modest is what is is. It's ultimately a political calculation, by Congress. Plenty of programs are means-tested.

Does it make sense for retirees who have a million-dollar annual income to receive Social Security?

Couldn't Medicare have means-tested levels of co-payment?

Do you want to work towards solutions, Anony, or just argue?

Anonymous said...

I do have solutions, the first being to change the "tomb to Womb" entitlement mentality that we have in this county. I will concede that a retiree who has a $1 million a year in income should not be receiving social security, but that is NOT going to be the threshold and you know it.

I agree we should be spending less on the war, but their is a whole mess of domestic spending that can be cut to pay for social security and medicare.

Social security was never meant to be someones primary source for retirement income like it is now. That is the problem.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I meant "womb to tomb", I do not think we can go the other way yet :)

James Rowen said...

I know no one who uses Social Security as a sole source of retirement income.

Some boomers did well with 401-k investments, and will barely touch their Social Security, but there are many blue-collar workers, or others at jobs that did not come with paid 401-k or retirement plans, who did not and will not retire with ease.

And the job market is hostile to older workers.

It's interesting to me that you think the revenue for what you call entitlements should come from other domestic programs.

Like, what? Ag payments to farmers. Benefits to Vets?

Or are you after programs that work - - food stamps and school meal programs that get low-income kids better nutrition, so they will earn more and be less dependent on other programs you don't like?

James Rowen said...

I was too much of a gentleman to mock you for your tomb-to-womb goof.

That can happen when you fire off emails driven by ideology and anger.

Take a breath. Stop ragging on poor people. If you're doing OK, or are well off, be grateful. It's a nice day outside. I think I'm going to go enjoy it, and I offer you the same suggestion.

Anonymous said...

You must be kidding me, you do not anybody who uses social security as their primary retirement income? Well I have seen plenty.

AG payments to farmers that truly need it is fine, but not to corporate farms or wealthy farmers.

What about all of the pork projects that both the Dems and Reps have engaged in.

No I do not want to cut benefits to people who actually NEED it. However, we should be spending money on programs to get people more self-sufficient, so they are not, or not as dependent on Goverment. We need to look at Government programs for any duplication of services, we need to cut the "fat" out of programs. We need programs that are held accountable, if they are not working then they get cut.

I also think that charties do a much better job at helping people than the govenment does. I would rather give my money to charity than pay more in taxes.

The Government just screws things up

Anonymous said...

I am not angry, and I am thankful for everything that I have. I worked hard, and I give a lot to charity.

I think the poor should be helped, but they should be given the tools to help them get out of poverty.

For example, I would be fine with the Government paying poor children, some dollar amount for every letter grade higher than a "C".