Obama to Name Nobel Physicist to DOE Head

[ruotwocone]

The problem with the American healthcare system isn't the insurance companies, it's the drug companies. Drug companies charge sometimes as much as 10-20 times more for the same drug in the US as they do in other countries. Most of that cost is associated with maintaining their TV ad campaigns (because let's face it, ad campaigns are freakin' expensive). It's a bit of a catch 22 really for them though because if they didn't advertise, they wouldn't sell as many drugs.

The underlying problem is that the high cost of medication drives up the cost of health insurance. Because of that, americans have the fewest number of doctor visits per capita per annum of the developed world... meaning that drug companies need to advertise to get the word out about their drugs (they can't just rely on doctors) which drives the cost of health care up even more because they have to advertise now.

[Asherian]

That's an interesting label. Can you explain? I thought about trying to expunge what it means, but I don't want to make inferrences (I know what it could mean, I just want to hear your explanation).

Summing up what it means to me is that I think we should have as little legislation on the top end as possible. Federally should be in charge of things like war, standardized currency and keep laws(like murder). Then diplomacy between the states ectra. The states should be where most legislation and tax funds should be located. If you don't like the laws of your current state? Research and move to one with better fitting your needs. Over the last 3 or so decades this is becoming more and more a myth, with federal government even dictating what School Lunches contain across all of the states, using guess what, money as the motivator to comply. Do as we say or we cut all your funding to an unrelated topic.

I realize the whole globalization of the economy/world is semi-preventative of this. When you get down to it though democracy Always works better the smaller group you limit it to. County, State, Federal in that order for who's declaring laws and getting most of my tax money.

[ruotwocone]

That's an interesting label. Can you explain? I thought about trying to expunge what it means, but I don't want to make inferrences (I know what it could mean, I just want to hear your explanation).

Summing up what it means to me is that I think we should have as little legislation on the top end as possible. Federally should be in charge of things like war, standardized currency and keep laws(like murder). Then diplomacy between the states ectra. The states should be where most legislation and tax funds should be located. If you don't like the laws of your current state? Research and move to one with better fitting your needs. Over the last 3 or so decades this is becoming more and more a myth, with federal government even dictating what School Lunches contain across all of the states, using guess what, money as the motivator to comply. Do as we say or we cut all your funding to an unrelated topic.

I realize the whole globalization of the economy/world is semi-preventative of this. When you get down to it though democracy Always works better the smaller group you limit it to. County, State, Federal in that order for who's declaring laws and getting most of my tax money.

While I agree that spending efficiency improves the smaller the group that is spending it gets, I would argue that lowering federal taxes in favor of local ones would be a detriment to the parts of the country that are already the poorest. Most interior and southern states just don't have the population density to afford the infrastructure they require. This graphic shows how much each state pays in federal taxes for each dollar it receives in federal money with $1.00 meaning they spend exactly on federal taxes as they receive in federal money. As an overall trend it is the poorer interior and southern states that would lose out if federal money were cut.

I live in washington state which would make out like bandits if federal taxes were cut in favor of local ones, however as a card carrying bleeding heart, commie, baby-aborting, pinko, gay-loving, tax-and-spend, big government liberal i think it is my government's responsibility to help fund necessary programs that state's otherwise couldn't afford... and I am willing to open up my wallet and live a less extravagant life to pay for that.

[AHMETxRock]

Well, it gets down to what people want, and what things are right.

Marriage was recently defined as a heterosexual relationship only recently in some states. The weddings that took place were null and void.

Those that want gay and lesiab marriages to be accepted could go for state legislation, but this issue has gone back and forth. In the long run, making gay marriage either accepted or denied in federal court can stop this constand back and forth legislation. BAsically, in these states, the people firmly believe against gay marriage. They don't want to let gays marry, regardless of whether or not they should be able to. If banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, then regardless of what people feel, it needs to be enforced that it can be allowed.

Essentially, it gets down to opinions. Do we fear big government imposing rules on us that we don't want or need? Or do we fear the possiblility of local governments being swayed by a majority that is in the wrong?

I won't tell you which side is right, but I feel this is an important thing for people to understand when considering their politics.

[mountainmage]

I agree, poor people suck. Get rid of 'em all, I say!

[AHMETxRock]

This is a suprise, coming from a man who draws Lenin in his spare time.

[TwoBuy]

Summing up what it means to me is that I think we should have as little legislation on the top end as possible. Federally should be in charge of things like war, standardized currency and keep laws(like murder).

FYI, murder is not a federal crime. Almost ALL crime is state dictated.

[ruotwocone]

Summing up what it means to me is that I think we should have as little legislation on the top end as possible. Federally should be in charge of things like war, standardized currency and keep laws(like murder).

FYI, murder is not a federal crime. Almost ALL crime is state dictated.

yeah, but the feds will enforce it if they feel the state isn't doing a good enough job.

[Lethal Interjection]

That's an interesting label. Can you explain? I thought about trying to expunge what it means, but I don't want to make inferrences (I know what it could mean, I just want to hear your explanation).

Summing up what it means to me is that I think we should have as little legislation on the top end as possible. Federally should be in charge of things like war, standardized currency and keep laws(like murder). Then diplomacy between the states ectra. The states should be where most legislation and tax funds should be located. If you don't like the laws of your current state? Research and move to one with better fitting your needs. Over the last 3 or so decades this is becoming more and more a myth, with federal government even dictating what School Lunches contain across all of the states, using guess what, money as the motivator to comply. Do as we say or we cut all your funding to an unrelated topic.

I realize the whole globalization of the economy/world is semi-preventative of this. When you get down to it though democracy Always works better the smaller group you limit it to. County, State, Federal in that order for who's declaring laws and getting most of my tax money.

I'm glad you explained. I figured this was more what you meant. What you are describing would actually be something more like True Federalism. Not the bastardized version currently available. (For a good example of true Federalism, see Switzerland.)
By the way, I'm in total agreement. Similar to Arendt's view actually, who I've done quite a bit of work on. She basically supports city-state democracy of the Greeks, but recognizes it doesn't work over a large geographical area. So she finds that kind of True Federalism ideal. (It is because Switzerland is so small, that their canton system works. It does have its flaws, such as turning a blind eye towards the Germans in WW2 because there was no good centralized gov't).
What really hurts federalism is North America's judicial system which ultimately has more say in our countries than the actually elected bodies (this is beginning to leak into Europe, unfortunately). Interestingly, it seems that the "big government" described here is about 75% the judiciary.

[AHMETxRock]

What really hurts federalism is North America's judicial system which ultimately has more say in our countries than the actually elected bodies (this is beginning to leak into Europe, unfortunately). Interestingly, it seems that the "big government" described here is about 75% the judiciary.

That's an interesting fact.

[Asherian]

*nod* Switzerland is some sort of crazy mecca of all tax and provided by the goverment. I'm more a loonie in the heinlein sense, but seeing as that will never rationally come to exist I'll take what I can get.

Yeah I know murder isn't a federal crime, I was just using it as something I think is universal enough to be considered at the federal level. We all agree murder is bad, just can't agree on what to do about it. (I'm pro death, abortion/execution/suicide.) Yes a lot of it is the judiciary branch that I have an issue with, but congress has very drastically overstepped its limits as well. The best example I can think of are school lunchs. School lunchs k-12 are regulated at a Federal level, what you eat in CA is the same crap you eat in Kentucky. Down to how many slices of pepperoni can be on a pizza(3). Justification? The lunchs Sometimes(not always) travel across state lines falling into the perview of congress. Or some such like that, its been a while since I looked into the specfics of it. Details of a miniscle level being regulated nationally because the power exist to abuse and cause it to happen. Does it really matter if kids in new york eat the exact same thing as elsewhere? Apparently its critical!

[mountainmage]

That's why I always brought lunch. It wasn't hot, but it was a small price to pay for decent food. Now that I'm in college, I have a Quizno's, Wendy's, a Chinese place, and an Italian place all on campus. It's a dream come true!

[ruotwocone]

That's why I always brought lunch. It wasn't hot, but it was a small price to pay for decent food. Now that I'm in college, I have a Quizno's, Wendy's, a Chinese place, and an Italian place all on campus. It's a dream come true!

no culinary dream is complete without curry. also quality sushi, but this can be excused if you aren't near to fresh salmon or tuna.

[mountainmage]

Well maybe your culinary dreams, but I despise sea food. But I'm a very picky eater and I hate a lot of foods and their accoutrements. You name it, I probably hate it.

[Lethal Interjection]

That's why I always brought lunch. It wasn't hot, but it was a small price to pay for decent food. Now that I'm in college, I have a Quizno's, Wendy's, a Chinese place, and an Italian place all on campus. It's a dream come true!

no culinary dream is complete without curry. also quality sushi, but this can be excused if you aren't near to fresh salmon or tuna.

I agree with the former, but not the latter.
I love seafood, prepared right. Sushi, for me, isn't prepared right.
Curry however, I love. In nearly any variety.