Can the states stop health reforms?

Because the PRODUCERS still outpace the NON-PRODUCERS in your examples. In Detroit the MATH caught up with them a long time ago as the NON-PRODUCERS segment of their communities overwhelmed a continually diminishing group of PRODUCERS.

With contracting economies the MATH can catch up with the regional economic situation real fast. Two major components that CIA analysts track as they predict instability in a region is the PRODUCERS to NON-PRODUCERS ratio, as well as the TOP 10% of wealth from the BOTTOM 10% of wealth distance (Top 10% over 18 times greater in wealth than the bottom 10% is usually the threshold for social rioting and unstable governemnt existence).

As the US government forces more financial burden on the diminishing PRODUCERS in society, they push the US closer to MATH that can't be supported by the historical realities of human history.

 

You make good, valid points. Its about spending not social programs per se. The same could be said about the amount we spend on military.

The other obvious overlooked factor in Detroit is cronyism which occurs with any political faction. Whether its "Brownie" and Bush, or Ray Nagin in New Orleans or Kwame Kilpatrick in Detroit.

 

At least when most of the traders out there blow up, they can still get health coverage.

 

I've also had a 313 area code and was born and raised in the `burbs. During the riots, we lived in Mt. Clemens. My dad (a serious liberal) borrowed a shotgun "just in case". Just wanted to make the point that I am very familiar with Detroit, not some clueless outsider. And just to be clear, I refer to the problems in Detroit City proper, not Metro Detroit (this difference will be addressed next).

While the problems with the auto industry are numerous and contributed to the decline in Detroit, it's not the leading cause. I give you the surrounding `burbs as an example. They do not have 10% of the problems that Detroit has.

I might make that my common Detroit quote. Suppose everybody on the planet right now laid down and cried with sympathy for Detroit for four hours straight. Wailed, and thrashed and screamed and bawled their eyeballs out for two hundred and forty minutes. That'd be a fair bit of sympathy, would you say? Yet it would not help Detroit one little tiny bit.

But "sympathy" is not only not what Detroit needs, it isn't even what Detroit wants, really. What Detroit wants is to blame other people for their problems then get piles and piles of OPM, then be left alone to throw that down the same trash chute it has thrown the rest of their resources. Millions of dollars have been spent from the State and Federal governments to try to save Detroit. But this is not what Detroit needs and it will not bring the city back to life.

The problems in Detroit are primarily caused by who wins the local elections. Have you ever tuned into a City Council meeting? You would not believe it until you listen to one.

The facts are that the voters in Detroit keep voting for the politicians who keep Detroit down. And that's my point, at least some people will not learn that you cannot get something for nothing, no matter how bad it gets.

Great quote to end on and provides the perfect example. The voters in Detroit are not about to change no matter how bad it gets.

 

Reality may be far different from what you imagine. A a collection of Cartels with government as a component of most of them is not the same as socialism. Neither government by cartel nor socialism may be attractive if you put high value on personal freedom. But they are not at all the same animal. It is interesting to note that socialism is not entirely incompatible with personal freedom. If you look carefully at some of the most successful socialist countries, and they seem to be mostly quite small, there is a great deal of personal freedom enjoyed by their citizens. They may be less free in some respects, of course.

 

No it is not. But my point apparently was. Index Piker thinks that if things get bad enough, people will wake up. My point was it can get very, very bad indeed and people will refuse to address the problems.

 

Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote.

 

You missed my point completely. I have heard ten thousand times your response of “they won’t help themselves …so the hell with them.” That is not what the problem is! Detroit is just a dose of the medicine that will soon come for all of us.

There is NO benefit to government to help any ghetto in America out in any way, shape or form. It does not buy them any votes or gain them any favor. They do nothing that does not buy political favor. They would rather give $17 billion to African and Asian nations each year in to gain political favor than to lift a finger to help anyone in America who does not give them some advantage.

Detroit is a symptom of the disease that America is dying from. Our government no longer believes in the ideals it was founded on. We no longer have compassion for anyone. Politicians are touting Haiti to fabricate their image. But they could give a dam about them. If it does not buy them power then they say the hell with you.

Many of you reading this will soon suffer the same fate as Detroit. That is the way our government plans a cruel death for each of us if we get a disease like cancer. You will be long dead before you get Obamacare to try and save your life. I’m retired and I see a painful cruel death coming for many that I know. Maybe I will suffer it. But the hand writing is one the wall for all to read….

 

Believe me not a single lawsuit will be productive; it a waste of time and money. It's not going to happen.
I think the main point between the western European mixed socialist and ours is not that one economic system leads to failure or dismal results but that one must be superior to the other. In that regard our system has consistently had higher GDP growth, per capita rates and lower unemployment. So based on those facts our more capitalistic economy has always outperformed Europe.
Is 16 percent, over one trillion dollars spent on health care economically efficient? Is it better or worst for the economy. If the answer is the latter; then the government reform should ultimately produced better results for the economy. Almost every European economy and Canada spends hundreds of billions of dollars less on health care than we do as well as lower gdp points.
Japan is a perfect example they have a highly advanced health care system with one of the world's highest life expectancy rates while spending 8 percent!! Better results with less money.