I don't think he blew either of them. The ACA was working as intended, if the conservative states would have embraced the exchanges it would have worked even better. We'd have a great platform to increase competition and get frivolous lawsuits into Federal courts...

As for the unemployment, again you're just reciting talking points. The Bush recession was deeper than projected. You're an actuarial Jim, you know that economic modeling isn't perfect and actual performance can't be measured until after it occurs.

What strikes me as odd is that you're still hung up on this stuff and ignoring the very real issues we have going on today. We have a President who's distancing our allies, pushing us closer to war, engaging in senseless trade policy and using the position to enrich himself.

But hey, you have a few extra dollars in your paycheck so it's all ok right?

Well, no. Regardless Seattle does bring about an interesting situation. Successful businesses have driven housing costs through the roof and as a result the poor are increasingly homeless. What do you do about that?

Median home in Seattle is now 777k

Haha, forgot Russia.

I can't afford a house in Boston, you know what I do......I don't live in Boston.


and that comment has nothing to do with the take on Spencenomics.


and the minimum wage in Seattle is that Utopian $15 an hour that was supposed to fix all financial ills, why isn't it working?

rich liberals should adopt the homeless

Yes, because most homeless are in control of their situation.

so you'd like the public to give you $4000 per year for your healthcare?

We here in the USA currently pay more than 4K per capita for healthcare with tax dollars.
I just want our total expenditures per capita to be in the middle of comparable countries
Not 30% more than the next highest.
I think tax deductions do not count in those numbers but are also a real cost
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And you still can’t answer the question
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So then why bring up a median house price of $770k....would the homeless be better off if the median house price were $350k, that they could swing?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't believe that there is some fixed monthly/yearly number that everyone should pay for their healthcare....you were asked because you seem to think that there is.....

why?

he should just mail it to Pete for his healthcare

That's because you are not old enough to need it.
Your time will come:D

Do you think a total free market system would produce what you want?
Would you eliminate all controls and supports?
Do you think health insurance is unnecessary?
Would healthcare providers need to be certified in any way?
Are we getting rid of lawyers also?
Would health care providers do a credit check before performing any services? "He's broke, toss him out the door"
Who would pick up the bodies?
How much do you think it would cost per capita for your idea of healthcare?

Because the rapid gentrification pushes people down with no where to go. It's not the only reason but it's a big part.

I knew you referred to Health Care when you said "all the things needed for a reasonable life." But my question actually referred to ALL the things you would need for you to live a reasonable life--food, shelter, clothing, transportation, leisure activity, and so forth. ALL those things impact overall health. Some are even more fundamental to life than health care, and most are in more constant demand than health care.

Why do we want to insure health care over those other things? Cost? Isn't the cost of health care made more expensive when it is insured by a third party such as wealthy insurance companies or the government--especially when that third party becomes more and more universal? Aren't the cost of ALL those other things made more affordable because they are not universally paid for by a rich third party? How much would you have to pay an insurance company or the government so that either would in turn pay for ALL those other things you need to live a reasonable life? Is health care really that different?

And if some procedure is so rare that the cost to provide it is prohibitive, perhaps each individual state, by vote, could create state clinics to make the service available to its people.

Getting the federal government out of it would be a first step to lowering costs, in my opinion. I think it would be more financially feasible to have 50 "Switzerlands" than one behemoth, overspending, and dictatorial State.

You only missed a couple questions on my last post
Do you think a total free market system would produce what you want?
Would you eliminate all controls and supports?
Do you think health insurance is unnecessary?
Would healthcare providers need to be certified in any way?
Are we getting rid of lawyers also?
Would health care providers do a credit check before performing any services? "He's broke, toss him out the door"
Who would pick up the bodies?
How much do you think it would cost per capita for your idea of healthcare?

are you and Spence drinking together today?:cheers2:

A lot less than it does with our current system.

Can you point out a working example of the system you propose?

I thought you and Detbuch were, you each keep replying to posts to the other one. I was cutting you some slack assuming you were daydrinking.

I'm not proposing a system. I'm proposing that the federal government significantly get out of health care. I'm proposing that the individual states create whatever regulations are needed, and that those regulations protect a free market in health care.

Can you point out an example of what you think I propose doesn't work?

Why on earth are you worried about the homeless in Seattle? Seattle is a very Progressive city. No way that homelessness will exist there. The supposedly homeless in Seattle should be asked "How is your life suffering because of progressive policy?"

The progressive liberal utopia of Connecticut, is also an epicenter of income inequality, where the zillionaires of Westport and Greenwich live next-door to unimaginable poverty in Bridgeport.

Still far far better than all those conserv. states where they can't even pay their teachers decent salaries and have to have high school grads teach school.

Apparently, no country is foolish enough to try it.

I doubt that income inequality is better in those states. We weren't talking about average income, or teacher income, we were talking about income inequality. That is a huge issue in CT, because it's a byproduct of hard-core liberalism.

High school grads teaching school? Where is that?

One conservative state that people are moving to in huge numbers is NC. They pay their teachers poorly, which is one reason why taxes are low. But they still get people to apply for teaching jobs, and if you do 5 minutes of research before deciding what town to live in, you can get great public schools.

Paul, here in CT we pay teachers very well (despite what they claim), and we give them insane benefits (despite what they claim). There is an upside to that, sure, as talent often goes where the money is. There is also a downside (in addition to the cost). You can run the risk of drawing people to the profession who are only attracted by the pay, benefits, and time off. That is not a profession where you want people who are only casually interested in the underlying work. You need people who are answering a call to teach.

When I was a student in public schools in CT, teacher pay was barely above poverty. Yet we got great, certified teachers, not high school grads. Then I went to a Catholic high school, where teachers were paid even less. Again, I had amazing teachers. It's a total fallacy to claim that unless we bankrupt ourselves to pay them well, that no one will teach except for illiterate criminals. It's demonstrably false.

Hard-core liberalism made CT a suburb of NYC? How did the people of Fairfield County make other people poor?
Are you sure teachers even deserve to be paid? Or should they own their own schools so they can make a profit, then it would be OK to make whatever they can.

Is it? How much better would lower income folks be with a lower tax burden?

Sure is. If you look at many stats, the evil liberal states rank far better than the conserv. utopian states. Things like quality of life, education, health care access, public safety, crime, life expectancy, environmental health, housing rates, etc. Those come at a cost - higher taxes.

Would the poor fare better w/a lower tax burden - I don't think so as the stats indicate there are less "ills" in the higher tax states.

Would Jim, you and I fare better in a low income state - prob. yes.

I heard that in Utah (which has a severe teacher shortage) they hired teachers w/a college degree. The person who said that also said you could teach w/o a degree if you have 5 years of relevant experience - which I don't think is a bad idea.

And their d... uppity teachers are walking out
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opi...211234489.html
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/08/us/no...est/index.html

Actually, we were foolish to depart from that "system" and switch to federal government control. As we "progressed" through the switch, prices skyrocketed.

Advances in medicine occurred before the switch, and would have continued probably even faster and better without the switch. And the competition between states would have created varieties from which to choose. And it would have helped to preserve our constitutional "system" rather than helping to destroy it. And individual freedom of choice as well as freedom in general would have been sustained.

No, you misinterpreted my post about. I was not saying liberalism caused the fabulously wealthy enclaves of Fairfield County, that was great luck for the state of CT. I'm saying liberalism is directly responsible for the other side of income inequality, the extreme poverty, and for the loss of much of the middle class. Highly progressive areas tend to attract large numbers of wealthy people who can afford the taxes that accompany liberalism, and also large numbers of people who want to live off liberal welfare. The middle class fall through the cracks and go elsewhere. That's why you have income inequality, you have people at both extremes, not a lot of folks in the middle.

Not sure what made you think I don't think they should be paid (I taught public school for a short time in CT). They should be paid an amount that is reasonable to fund via reasonable taxes.

What I said, and it's demonstrably true, is that lower compensation doesn't always mean a lower quality of education.

The problem with that, is that liberals feel that the state knows better than these people, how to best spend their money.

Also, the cost of living is lower ("more affordable") in those lower taxed states, so lower salaries can be sustained more easily.

Fine. let them walk out, and I bet for every teacher that quits, the town gets 10 applications from fresh college grads eager to land their first job. Do you have any data to suggest that they can't fill open teaching positions in the Carolinas? I'd bet the farm that's not true.

Paul, how do you explain the fact that CT is always among the nation's leaders in population exodus? CT offers an amazing quality of life if you can afford it. Many people are deciding that it's not worth the cost, that the Carolinas offer a better bang for the buck.

And that's based on today's taxes, which we know aren't anywhere near enough to fund the debt that's coming soon. So even though most of the debt is off the balance sheet in unfunded IOUs. we're still losing productive citizens. What's going to happen when these debts come due, which is around the corner?

"Would Jim, you and I fare better in a low income state - prob. yes. "

There are upper middle class areas in NC and SC where I can enjoy a comparable quality of life, for far lower cost. You refer to them as "low income states" to disparage the entire state. I'm not saying I want CT to turn into all of NC or SC. But we can learn lessons from the parts of NC and SC that are working so well, like the suburbs of Charlotte, which is the banking capital of the US. They are building $450k houses as fast as they can be put up, and it isn't meth heads who are buying them. The population exodus has been a disaster for tax revenue.

That makes sense, let's stuff the schools with first timers learning on the job with no experienced mentors.