Our Platform for Outlining Colorado&#8217;s Future

You shouldn't loose your health insurance just because you loose your job.

There is no logical reason to provide health insurance through your employer. It was just done as a loophole to get around rules during WWII that stooped increases in salary.

Healthcare as an employment benefit keeps you from comparing apples to apples when you compare jobs. Some companies don't make you pay very much for health insurance. Other make you pay a lot.

Health insurance as an employment benefit keeps people from going into different jobs because they are afraid of loosing insurance.

When healthcare is connected to employment, employers only want to employ young healthy employees, because they end up footing the bill of the health insurance. If you had insurance as an individual, and tax incentives were restructured so it was just as cheap to get it as an individual, you would already have your insurance, and their would be one less reason to not hire an older individual.

It encourages employers to push their married employees onto their spouse's heal insurance.

Workers in low paying jobs have no health insurance. Workers in high paying jobs of super expensive health insurance. So most of the pre-tax benefit goes to the wealthy. This could be restructured in a way so that instead of benefiting people proportionally to how expensive the insurance is, and tying it to your income, the insurance benefit could come to individuals separate from their employer.

Probable interest of those who agree:

Probable interest of those who disagree:

Common Interest

Opposing Interest

Videos That agree

Videos That disagree

Website that agree

http://www.olywip.org/site/page/article/2005/12/11.html

Websites that disagree

Related arguments:

People that agree:

Robert B. Reich

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 1

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

Each state should be responsible for caring for their own uninsured

Citizens of Ohio and Florida shouldn't have to pay health insurance for people from Texas.

Probable interest of those who agree:

Probable interest of those who disagree:

Common Interest

Opposing Interest

Videos That agree

Videos That disagree

Website that agree

Websites that disagree

Related arguments:

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 1

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

The federal government should not spend money to fix housing

The government should not try to fix prices. The government should not try to say people's houses are not expensive enough. The government should allow those who want to buy a house to determine its value. The government can try to spur innovation through smart growth, but it can't buy all the foreclosed homes.

The government created a housing bubble when it made laws that forced banks to lend money to people who couldn't afford it.

Some efforts by states may be justifiable in promoting affordable housing, but the Federal government is best at trying to promote affordable housing.

Government should try to promote affordable housing, not try to raise.

State Governments can take targeted actions to offset infrastructure and education expenses, but should avoid clumsy, nationwide, and expensive approaches.

The state government should free up unused public property at times to make housing properties available, thereby supporting affordable housing. Still, the Government shouldn't try to make homes more expensive just to prevent people from losing money, because after the government spends the money, the home will eventually reach its market value, regardless of how much money the government spends.

If sprawl causes the government to spend more money per person, the Government can use the estimated money it would save by stopping sprawl to promote smart growth.

State governments could use the money they currently allocate for the homeless to develop long-term housing solutions. Some local governments put homeless people in hotels. If state governments want to be nice, they should also be smart. Perhaps the government could build a home for the same price they spend putting homeless people in hotels.

One of the few things state governments can do to promote affordable housing is to make it easier to build houses in areas where affordable housing is scarce.

States that have no affordable housing can promote mixed-income housing, so low-income individuals don't have to drive hours to access jobs in affluent areas.

Probable interest of those who agree:

Probable interest of those who disagree:

Common Interest

Opposing Interest

Images that agree:

Images that disagree:

Videos that agree

Videos that disagree

Website that agree

Websites that disagree

Related arguments:

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 1

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons, and the score will change.

We should allow "Italy to fail" if not letting them fail means giving them bail outs

The concept of Italy failing is ridiculous. This isn't a game with winners and looser. Italy may be less successful, or more successful but it probably be more successful than 1/2 of this planet's countries. They are more successful than most countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. If we are supposed to rescue Italy, we should probably rescue the rest of the world first.

Italy isn't helping us in Afghanistan, why should we help them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force

Greece isn't helping us much in Afghanistan. Why should we help them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force

They have the capacity to deal with that themselves.

We shouldn't try to do impossible things. It is impossible for the United States Government to make another large economy successful.

Italy is a very large economy.

We should bail out California before we bail out Italy. And there is no reason for farmers in North Dakota to pay for healthcare benefits of people living in San Fransico, let alone a country that looks down on us from the otherside of the planet.

Europe is able to take care of their own problems.

Those who would be hurt most if Italy fails, should give the most.

Europe is able to help Europe.

We would help if we could, but we got our own problems.

If we stay on the course we're on, with the level of borrowing this administration is carrying out, if we don't get serious about cutting and capping our spending and balancing our budget, you're going to find America in the same position Italy is in four or five years from now, and that is unacceptable. We got to fix our deficit here.

We with WWI, and WWII. They will have to do this alone.

Some Europeans resented our help in the past.

We should avoid foreign entanglements.

Those who say we shouldn't let them fail, are implying that we should bail out their banks or government.

Efficient capitalism requires fair competition. When people are competing with money, those who fail should not be given more money. If those who don't deserve to be given money, keep getting more money, then those those who should be trusted with money will have less. If no one can fail: bad behavior is rewarded until more people fail.

It feels good to give people things! Maybe they will like us! :) :)

It's not like we don't have money?!

Government is the perfect way to feel good about giving people stuff! You get all the self righteousness of saying we should be nice, and don't ever have to realize that you have to pay for it in taxes. And if your one of the lucky 55% of people in this country, you might never have to pay taxes! So why not give money to Italy! You won't have to pay for it! As long as you make slightly less than average, you won't have to pay a penny!

Probable interest of those who agree:

Probable interest of those who disagree:

Common Interest

Opposing Interest

Videos That agree

Videos That disagree

Website that agree

Websites that disagree

Related arguments:

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 8

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.

What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them; and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

We are broke