A state that's well managed pays their own bills.
A state that's well managed makes sure that everyone in their state gets good health care.
A state that's well managed makes sure that citizens are well education, so they can get good, high paying jobs.
A state that's well managed makes sure that there are lets of good jobs for citizens.
A state that's well managed is happy to help neighbors who are having a hard tie.
A state that's well managed assures clean water and air for themselves and their neighbors.
A state that's well managed has a lower unemployment rate.
A state that's well managed has a higher standard of living, and higher average pay rate.
A state that's well managed has a good credit rating.
A state that's well managed has fewer citizens living in poverty.
A state that's well managed has well funded pension funds and low debt.
A few red states meet these criteria for a well managed state.
Oops, bad auto correct:
"The president is ALLOWED by the War Powers Resolution of 1973 ..."
The president is slowed by the War Powers Resolution of 1973 to send in troop (ground, air, or Navy), for a short time. The congress must eventually approve longer stays. But there is some controversy. for example, are the troops that Obama sent to Iraq actually fighting, or just advising and teaching? But none of this stops Congress from discussing the issue and tell us all what should be done, and what the president and DoD should do. And, yes, the president and the joint chiefs do have a plan, which can be found, at least at a general high level.
Well, no. That leaves the president free to do what the Constitution and Congress allow him to do.
Yes, but, in the US, "boots on the ground" is a political decision not military one. You may remember that "boots on the ground" was supposed to be decided by Congress with a declaration of war. Unfortunately, Congress, so far, has been unwilling to even discuss the political issue of "boots on the ground"., The president is doing what he can, based on earlier Congressional acts, and international agreements. Maybe Congress will get their act together and talk about "boots on the ground" at some point, so we can decide what our goals and actions really should be.
Sure. That's an easy question to answer. Rural hospitals are closing in red states that have not supported the ACA and accepted the Medicaid funds that would help patients pay for their insurance and health care. . These are hospitals in places like Georgia, Texas, and Louisiana, where patients can not pay for their treatment because their state governments have refused to accept such payments. Other hospitals whose patients can't pay for their care are having problems, as this headline shows: " Fifteen of the 17 hospitals in South Carolina that filled fewer than 30 percent of their beds in 2012 were in rural counties" If states want hospitals like these to stick around, they are going to need to spend some money to keep them around.
The Feds, whether you like it or not, have said that they are no longer going to pay for health care at the highest cost and the worst time, in the ER. They will now pay for people to get insurance and to get heath care when it's cheaper and where they first need it. If you decide not to accept that change, you and your hospital are going to have some problems. Your expenses will go up, and your hospitals will see dropping incomes. It's your choice.
I also see there was a changes in California, where a hospital was bought and is changing it's focus, and in particular closing it's emergency care department. A similar change may have happened in New York, as well. As the ACA takes hold, ER's will be needed a little less, so some changes will need to be made in other places, as well.
Except for a few business changes like those in California and New York, the majority of all recent hospital closures have been in the south where ACA funding has been refused, and because ACA funding has been refused.
It's not hard to figure out what our oil needs will be in the future. Oil companies certainly understand where oil demand is headed. Consider these facts:
- A new car bought this year has twice the efficiency - the MPG - of a car bought 5 years ago. The average new car bought 5 years from now will double the MPG of this year's car, based on the technologies they are working on now.
- The same thing is happening with trucks, as Ford showed with their new F-series trucks recently.
- The US reached a peak oil usage about 10 years ago. We are now using about 10% less oil than we did then, and the direction continues down.
- Japanese oil use reached a peak 20 years ago, and they are now down 20% since then. European oil use is also similarly down.
- China is slowing their oil use growth, and will reach a peak in 10 or 15 years.
Oil use is dropping in many places, and will be dropping worldwide shortly. The first cars that most Chinese buy will be electric, or they will get 60 MPG, or better. It's never a good idea to invest in a shrinking industry, and oil company leaders know that.
I don't see how there can any positive outcome if the Supreme court rules in favor of the lawsuit, especially in the mostly red states that have done nothing to make the ACA work in their states, and for their citizens. It is the red states that will see this damage to the health care in their states, while the states that have created their own exchanges will see little, if any, of this damage. The net result is that health care will get worse in the red states, while it will continue to improve in the blue states.
With the red states seeing a failing ACA and health care in their states, through their own efforts,, while blue states see the ACA succeeding in their states, how can this be resolve? If people just don't want to assure that their neighbors can get the health care that they need, and they want to work very hard to make sure that millions of their fellow Americans have no access to health care, what can be done? If people value the lives of others so little,what might change their minds?
Lang, I agree things do change. However, it was not just a matter of perception. There was also a lot of hard work on the parts of many - from doctors in Liberia and the US, to diplomats in China, Russia, Ukraine, Europe., and the US, too. And the stock market is not going to go up, without lots of hard work on the parts of millions of employees of thousands of companies. It's always a good thing when people get to see the benefits of their work.
I agree there is nothing wrong with getting rich from honest hard work. But some might wonder about those who have been getting rich by buying the government, so they could make laws to direct the money their way, and make them rich - especially at the expense of those in the middle class. The middle class whose income has been flat, while the income of those who are getting richer are seeing their income double every few years.
Here's a start on that list. Others can feel free to add more.
1. The DOW stock market has more than doubled. Today's Republicans would never have done that.
2. The unemployment rate has been cut in half. Today's Republicans would never have done that.
3. He passed sweeping financial industry reform, bigger than any since the great depression. Today's Republicans would never have done that.
4. He passed a universal health care bill that make sure all get the care hey need, and that those who can pay for their care do pay for their own care. Today's Republicans would never have done that.
5. He is bringing the trillion dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to an end, and focusing on the real threats that remain. Today's Republicans would never have done that.
6. He has created legislation and international agreements that curb greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Today's Republicans would never have done that.
7. He got Osama bin Laden. Today's Republicans would never have done that.
There's more to add, if you have the time..
And only a third of registered voters actually showed up to vote, and not all of them voted fr the willing candidates, in either party.
What lack of preparedness are you talking about? Before that man was turned away at that Texas hospital, our CDC and medical establishment had already treated and cured a couple of people who had been infected with ebola in Africa. In no place in the entire country was anyone infected with ebola, or did anyone die from ebola, except at that one hospital in Texas. The rest of the US was both prepared and successful in their handling of ebola patients.
I expect that the CDC is now looking at what happened at that Texas hospital and making sure that the same mistakes don't happen again.
Lang, 80,000 voters in Georgia (with a population of 10 million), is about half of the number of Georgians who reach the the legal voting age of 18 every year. There should be 100,000 or 200,000 new voters in Georgia each and every year.
The thing that might give the Democrats a big problem is if Bernie Sanders decides to pull a Ross Perot and run as a 3rd party candidate. Without Ross Perot, George H W Bush would have had a 2nd term. With a Bernie Sanders run, Hillary might have a big problem, regardless of who the Republican candidate is.
Dr. Kent Brantly
Nurse Nancy Writebol
Dr. Rick Sacra
Nurses Vinson and Pham
Dr. Craig Spencer
All now cured and back at work.
Sounds like a perfect strategy to get what they want finished..
1. first take health care away from 5 or 10 million Americans.
2. When that's done, close a few dozen schools.
3. Then shut down a few hundred miles of roads and highways.
4. Dump coal ash and other pollutants on streams and rivers in West Virginia, North Carolina, and elsewhere.
Pretty soon we realty will have that smaller government they want.