It's That Time, Again!
This is my favorite time of year - Town Meeting - which is Vermont-speak for local elections. I will have local politics posts regularly for the next two months, but not exclusively.
Next Friday, January 19, Haik Bedrosian of BurlingtonPol.com will be on "She's Right," on Channel 17 at 5:25pm, to talk about blogging and the local elections in Burlington.
Haik attended the Green Party and Democratic Party caucuses on Sunday and has a post about them here and some pictures here.
In other local election news, Burlington will have a ballot question about a new 9/11 investigation.
"Shall Vermont's Congressional Delegation be advised to demand a new, thorough, and truly independent forensic investigation that fully addresses the many questions surrounding the tragic events of September 11, 2001?"
John Briggs has the low-down here in the Burlington Free Press. (That link only works for one week.)
16 comments:
Hey Charity, how do you feel about Douglas' socialized cell phone plan? And wouldn't it be better to have universal health care coverage rather than universal cell phone coverage? Arnold the Governator seems to think so.
Read more HERE.
Health care and cell phones are not mutually exclusive nor are socialism and capitalism. Better cell phone coverage in the state will make Vermont more attractive to business, just like better roads would.
How quaint! Just a couple months ago, I was teaching my 8th grade U.S. History students about how New England's centuries-old tradition of town meetings is still around today.
I am out in California, so I am jealous of your centuries-old traditions. Think of Steve Martin's line in the movie L.A. Story:
"Some of these houses are 20 YEARS OLD!"
Chanman,
Unfortunately, I live in the big city, so we don't have a traditional town meeting, and I am jealous, too!
New England is great, if not for all the liberals! Of course, you have all the liberals and none of the quaint, centuries-old traditions, so I guess I should feel lucky.
BTW, thanks for the link.
As usual, Haik is the captain of the obvious, pretending to be original. Yawn. Of course universal cell phone coverage and universal health care coverage are not mutually exclusive. But Governor Douglas seems to think so. Why else would he block universal health care coverage -- unlike Arnold the Governator -- and, instead, roll out a just as expensive plan to give subsidies to telecommunications corporations in order to get universal cell phone coverage? Is it because more Republicans have access to such toys?
And, as for this "attracting business" stuff, it's pretty obvious that following the lead of California and providing health care for all and, as a result, putting the brakes on a huge burden for small businesses would ALSO be attractive for businesses and people, alike.
Well, Snarky, I guess I was wrong to think I could let Haik carry that one. Besides, we all know that socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive.
I have not read up of the gov's plan (I've been under the weather), but I am not a fan of subsidizing anything.
Still, I reject your notion that a cell phone is a toy or that Repubs have more than other people do - unless it is because Republicans are more practical.
Take my husband and I. We have a limited amount of utility budget. Since cell phone and land line cost about the same, and cell phones make way more sense due to their portability, we decided to ditch our land line and go cellular.
Cell phones are not just for the rich anymore. What do you think this is, the 1990's?
Let's just say the universal cell plan is an economically sound one, for fun. In that case, updating the technology infrastructure is more important than instituting universal health insurance coverage. Why? Because there already exists the mechanism for everyone to get health care access, but there does not exist the mechanism for everyone to have 21st century technology at their disposal.
There is no healthcare crisis; there is a common sense crisis. In fact, it is a plague of epic proportions. There is no reason why people should not put health insurance in their list of priorities when it comes to expenses, yet they don't mind ordering a pizza every Friday night or going out to the clubs or picking up their Starbuck's on the way to the office or chowing down on their Big Macs and Dunkin Donuts or buying cars they cannot afford or other gadgets.
When the people whining about not being able to afford heath insurance (who do not already qualify for any of the programs that already exist in our gracious welfare state) stop pissing their money away on useless crap, then we'll talk about a health care crisis.
Gimmie a break.
Ahhh. Right-wing rants feel so good. Like a drug. Give me more.
Oh Charity, just when I didn't think I could love you any more!!!!
I'm glad to have given you the opportunity to feel so good. But, next time, don't forget the logic. Has Charity been slurping the bong?
So, following your logic, maybe all those cell phone users could stop wasting their money on all that other "crap" in their lives and pay a higher rate to the telecommunications corporations so taxpayers wouldn't have to assist their habit.
And, please, let's stop equating the NEED of health care with the WANT of cell phones.
There IS a health care crisis. Just ask any small business -- or big, for that matter -- owner. Or anyone trying to actually pay their premiums out of pocket -- yes, even tofu eating, exercising and non-smoking freaks like me.
The health care "access" you seem to like is based on the rest of us having to pay for those who want to roll the dice and opt for the "free" care when a crisis arises. But it ain't free. The premium paying amongst us are footing that bill.
Also, check out your school budget some time. Notice the dramatic increases in the health care plans for school employees. Ah! Tax-payers get to pay again!
Come on, Charity, you have to admit to some serious double standards here. You conservative folk love to rail about "government subsidies" only when those subsidies don't coincide with your political/social whims of the moment.
You are, for example, all in favor of cell phone corporation subsidies. War corporation subsidies. Rich people tax-break subsidies. Over-populating family subsidies in the form of child tax credits. Subsidies for non-gay marriage/unions in the form of the marriage tax credit.
And, in case you've forgotten, the budget deficit under your "conservative" leader has ballooned more than it ever has -- mostly as a result of GOVERNMENT SPENDING. That's why rational conservatives like Andrew Sullivan have jumped from that sinking ship -- war and all!
Oh yes, ideological rants can be fun. Thanks for playing.
"And, please, let's stop equating the NEED of health care with the WANT of cell phones."
Oh come on, you are the one who started with the comparison!
"You are, for example, all in favor of cell phone corporation subsidies."
Go back to my comment. I said, "I am not a fan of subsidizing anything."
Oh, and Bush is not conservative. And I'm not just saying that because the GOP lost the election. Bob the Optimizer, my devoted and more-conservative-than-me husband, has been saying that since 2000.
Look, there is a problem with the cost of health care due in part to the freeloaders, who can't be bothered to either buy health insurance or sign up for the government benefits. You are correct there. The solution will not be found in trying the failing solutions of other countries. Look it up. Countries with government insurance systems are having funding problems, too.
Part of the problem is that health care is expensive. Go to the nearest hospital and take a look at the technology. That doesn't come cheap. We want to live forever, but we don't want to pay for it.
So, what is the solution? There are several market-based solutions.
For one, people should pay based on lifestyle choices. If the Optimizer came home from work and told me that our premium was going up if I didn't lose 50 pounds, you can be damn sure I would get my fat ass over to the nearest Weight Watchers meeting ASAP.
Unfortunately, some idiot doctor-turned-governor thought that the insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to do that.
For another thing, we should be able to purchase insurance in other states where it is significantly cheaper.
Should I go on? Something tells me you have already heard these talking points.
Man, Snarky, you sure bring out the right-winger in me.
Sorry, I've been busy with the visitors from Paul Beaudry's show to continue this dialog (read all about it HERE.
I'll step back up on the soapbox after a good game of pool and the laugh track I've got all ready for Bush's speech tonight.
P.S. I bring out the best in you. I think I smell Snarky Love.
Well, Snarky, I guess I was wrong to think I could let Haik carry that one. Besides, we all know that socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive.
I can carry whatever. And far from being mutually exclusive, capitalism and socially are actually interdependent.
And yes universal single payer heathcare would be a boon for business. Wal-mart, for example, already loves it as much socialized medicine as it can get.
But I'd like talk about something more important, like the fact that according to text I clicked to leave this comment, eleven people have left their two cents. However if you count Snarkyboy, me, Chanman, Charity, and Bob there are only five of us.
Captain of the Obvious strikes again!
Aw, Haik. I wasn't trying to insult you. I just meant that your comment would not be enough to satisfy the Snark-meister.
I noticed that too, about the two-cents thing. I'll have to change that. I'll probably just change it back to "comments" and face the fact that I am just not cool no matter how hard I try. :(
"Notice the dramatic increases in the health care plans for school employees."
Actually, the Burlington schools' health care costs went up less than expected this year. It was such a windfall that they had to add 3.5 ESL teachers at the last minute to get the budget up to the normal ridiculous levels.
And I didn't know California had already enacted universal health care? I guess we SHOULD follow their lead, just as soon as we enact something like their dramatic limits on property taxes. I know people in CA who pay .03 of one percent of the actual value of their homes in property taxes. Hook me up with that deal and I don't care how sloppy VT's universal health care experiments get. Until then, recognize that any attempts at universal health care at the state level, for a state this small, are doomed.
The state healthcare plan sucks. I'm one of the people that can't get health insurance. I can't afford it. And the state says I make too much to get their coverage because I sometimes bring in more than 1,000 a month.
I'm caught in the middle where I can't afford to pay for my own but yet make just a bit too much to get state coverage according to the ding dongs that run this idiotic system.
There is a serious healthcare problem. I'm one of thousands in this situation of zero coverage.
-Owen
I understand how you feel, Owen. Back when I was a single mom trying to support two kids by myself with no help from family, I made too much money for childcare subsidies, section 8 housing subsidies, and any other program that there is. Yet, I made too little to be able to afford a decent sized apartment (I slept in the living room for years) and I had to go without a lot to pay for the things we needed.
There is a gap there, but it does not justify a boondoggle like a state health care system.
If you were able to purchase a basic level plan, that would at least be a start. More employers would be able to offer insurance if it was less expensive.
The bottom line is that a state plan will not address cost and price issues. It just shifts who is paying for it, which is only a temporary remedy, at best.
Post a Comment