Web-site/URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100326/ts … RoY2FyZXJl
Obviously, states with higher unemployment rates will need more help as far as insurance is concerned.
Arizona (Unemployment Rate: 9.7%) Home state of REPUBLICAN Sen. JOHN MCCAIN; OK, 9.7% unemployment IS high
Delaware (Unemployment Rate: 9.6%) Home of Vice President JOE BIDEN; OK, 9.6% unemployment IS high
Hawaii (Unemployment Rate: 7%): OK, this is STILL high
Maine (Unemployment Rate: 9.3%): Home of REPUBLICANS Olympia Snowe & Susan Collins; OK, 9.3% IS high & Maine is a small economy and small economies need more help than large economies
Massachusetts (Unemployment Rate: 10.4%): Home of Democratic Sen. JOHN KERRY & Republican Sen. SCOTT BROWN (the man who won the seat held by TED KENNEDY for 47 years because MARTHA COAKLEY BLEW THE SPECIAL ELECTION); OK, 10.4% IS high (it's the highest figure so far on this list) and again, Massachusetts is a small economy
New York (Unemployment 9.4%) Home of Democratic Sen. CHUCK SCHUMER; OK, 9.4% IS high
Pennsylvania (Unemployment Rate: 9.5%): Home of REPUBLICAN-TURNED-DEMOCRAT Arlen Specter; OK 9.5% IS high
Vermont (Unemployment Rate: 7.5%): Home of DEMOCRATIC Sen. Patrick Leahy; OK 7.5 IS high
Washington State (Unemployment Rate: 10.2%) Home of DEMOCRATIC senators Patty Murray & Maria Cantwell; OK once again we're looking at a state with over 10% unemployment which IS high
Wisconsin (Unemployment Rate: 9.6%) Home of DEMOCRATIC senators Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold; OK, 9.6% IS high
Washington DC (Unemployment Rate: 12%), which IS HIGH
NOT THERE BUT SHOULD BE THERE
MICHIGAN (Unemployment Rate: 14.9%)
CALIFORNIA (Unemployment Rate: 12.5%)
Arizona, the paper said today, 650,000 unemployed, not counting every illegal. Now we know why taxes were raised on unemployment benefits. Gotta pay for that tax they added for everyone over $88,000, to pay for this monstrosity.
Arizona is also in deep dollar trouble due to the health care law language--directly so. If they proceed with a Medicaid cut the state had already planned, they'll be cut off from billions of dollars in federal medicaid funds. This has led state government folks to ponder whether they should cave in on the issue or sue the feds. Tonight's local news sounds like the administration, at least, is leaning toward the lawsuit option.
Doesn't sound like much of a winner so far.
The Federal Government takes your income. They they decide to which states it gets redistributed.
We need to eliminate all but absolutely necessary Federal Involement in State issues.
Would you not agree that people should be able to Govern themselves locally? With every issue. Gay Marriage, Marijuana, Guns, Schools, etc., let the people decide these issues on the State Level. Because then the people who make the laws live with the laws they make.
The Federal Government wants to step in and tell everyone what to do and how to do it with no regard for the will of the people.
And people can't see a problem with this? Why would you want to relinquish power of the States to the Federal Government?
This is the real battle that is coming States vs. Feds.
this real battle has been going on for a long time - you are wrong about the people who make the laws live with the laws, because people move from state to state.
Mike NV says - "We need to eliminate all but absolutely necessary Federal Involement in State issues."
In the past 35 years how many states have stepped up to SOLVE the issue of universal health care for its citizens?
One - Not Massachusettes - MA is struggling with their recent experiment. Hawaii has had near universal health care - paid for by employers - for 35 years. And it works!
"...Hawaii’s health insurance premiums are nearly tied with North Dakota for the lowest in the country, and Medicare costs per beneficiary are the nation’s lowest."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/healt … .html?_r=1
The correlation between universal health care and lower Medicare may be that people with health care throughout their life cycle have fewer and less expensive problems as seniors. The importance of this can't be overstated as we look at rising Medicare costs.
So here's my point. Mike sees this as something the states can solve - as Hawaii did 35 years ago. BUT THEY HAVE NOT! The power of the Chamber of Commerce and the Insurance Industry would rise up in opposition at the state level and crush any attempt to implement local health care. The states KNOW HOW to fix it locally and they will NEVER do it.
It was just BARELY possible for the federal governemnt to overcome the power of those two lobbys and implement what would nave NEVER happened at the local level.
The argument to keep it local is the argument to do NOTHING!
Doug if I may ask a question. Is the federal governments sollution in any way close to what they are doing in Hawaii? I am not meaning to be ignorant I would really like to know.
The solutions are not similar. In HI 35 years ago, the state legislature laid the burden on business - AS A REQUIRMENT - to offer health care at company expense to any employee working over 20 hours per week. I think the coverage can be extended to cover family, so the result is nearly universal coverage.
About 70% of citizens in the US are covered through their employer. Most of those people are satisfied enough. The political dynamics of that statistic required a solution that left in place the existing system - and bridged the gap (as much as possible) to the remainder of the people.
Had the US examined universal health care 40 or 50 years ago, we might have implemented a system radically different. . It's where we are - the reform that passed is a 'work-around' of that nescessity.
If Hawaii has the answer and it is working so well for them why can't the model be expanded on to work for the rest of the country?
Good question. The answer works there because it was put in place 35 years ago before health care became so expensive and at a time that labor had parity with business in political influence. To duplicate the system in the US would require a mandate that all employers offer insurance to all employees at company expense.
The democrats calculated that they could not have overcome the resistance from the business community and the insurance industry. The labor movement doesn't have the strength it has in the 70's when Hawaii enacted health care.
In Massachusetts, we have mandatory health insurance already. Many in Washington have pointed to our state while debating the health insurance issue. What was never publicized was the fact that Massachusetts had to eliminate some of the benefits the "state" plan offered and the state(technically a commonwealth) is now facing an enormous deficit, partly as a result of this health insurance policy.
While the discussions were on healthcare reform, president Obama slipped in a student loan bill.
What has student loans have to do with healthcare?
The government after president Obama signed the bill into law took over the student loan industry without a congressional debate.
The private sector banking industry will lose some 33,000 employees adding to the unemployment problems.The Obama administration surely don't understand the private job sector as yet.
I'm not sure that's completely correct. I read some of that and it's geared toward loan forgiveness and easier loan applications to students of medicine. The idea, I suppose, is to encourage more Americans to go into and practice medicine.
At least that's what I got out of it.
The government will now issue all student loans, President Obama stated that the government is cutting out the middle man ( THE BANKING INDUSTRY ) and will be saving $ 66 billion over 10 years.
Another government take over of private business, sounds a little like Russia, Cuba or Venezuela. Socialism and unions progressives are taking over our country.
by GA Anderson4 years ago
The gist of the new Congressional Budget Office, (CBO), report on the effects of Obamacare on the U.S. economy is that it will cause a reduction in works hours equivalent to about 2 million jobs by 2017.Here is just one...
by Doug Robinson7 years ago
With unemployment still hovering around 10%, should the new "Freshman Class" in the House of Represenatives be hellbent on killing Obamacare or more concerned with job creation?
by TimTurner8 years ago
On Yahoo today, they said the Democrats are "scrambling" to get votes to back the public healthcare plan: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091023/ap_ … e_overhaulCan someone please tell me why this...
by Charles Mark Walker4 years ago
Shouldn't there have been healthcare reform before Obamacare is implemented?Healthcare reform would mean looking into a countless number of things wrong with the system.Yet now we are getting a new insurance that there...
by rhamson8 years ago
These statistics come from 1991 but show a trend that needs looking at when we are fed the line about the best healthcare system in the world.http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htmHealth Care Expenditures...
by SparklingJewel8 years ago
I truly want to know if these are valid reasons...or are they perspective on what "could" happen, or just totally absurd possibilities. If you have proof to validate or deny these reasonings, I genuinely would...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.