Posted on 12/30/2008 9:31:22 AM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
Governor Sarah Palin announced her goals to improve Alaska's health and education through fiscal year 2010 budget requests, the formation of a health care commission, support for legislation and an informational campaign to help Alaskans take better care of their own health.
Governor Palin put a priority on children's health and development. "Children are the most valuable resource in Alaska," she said. "We have to do more to support health coverage and health care, because it plays such a big role in a child's success in school, and in life. Our state agencies are partnering to better equip Alaskans to lead healthier lives and to meet health care needs across the state."
(Excerpt) Read more at medicalnewstoday.com ...
Corrected: Let me get this right. You think that getting more Americans dependent on the welfare state is “forward looking?”
California and Arizona are leading the charge toward universal preschool and full-day kindergarten. California may become the national prototype for universal preschool. Hollywood director Rob Reiner is promoting “Preschool for All,” a June 2006 ballot initiative, calling it “a broad-based, multi-year, non-partisan advocacy campaign to achieve voluntary preschool for all four-year-olds in California.”7
While universal preschool for all children sounds like a laudable goal, the Preschool for All Act represents a de-facto institutionalization of preschool in California by creating a new, governmentmanaged $2.5 billion a year entitlement program that subsidizes the preschool choices of middleclass and wealthy families. Although it is a voluntary program, it would change the structure of the current mixed-provider preschool market into a state-controlled monopoly. California’s Preschool for All initiative would be financed by a 1.7 percent tax increase on...
http://www.reason.org/ps344_universalpreschool.pdf
What should the State do with the money when it runs a surplus over a period of several years?
Every state has health care, especially for children. I imagine her plan is more responsible than most.
NEXT!!
“Since Sarah Palin proposed it. I think she knows what she’s doing.”
Awe man! Are you serious?
It could also be a rubber stamp for whatever Obama wants.
A more substantive answer:
1. Palin is Governor of Alaska — with an approval rating over 60%. She obviously knows a lot more about what Alaskans need, or think they need than we do. She also has access to a lot more information than we do, about what they can afford.
2. A commission to make recommendations on health care is far, far, away from socialized health care. Actually, I'd go so far as to say that any state governor, who doesn't do something similar is guilty of nonfeasance. (That is, unless they're guilty of actual misfeasance — as part of a broad Democrat conspiracy to usher in Obama’s version of universal socialized health care.) The commission should generate some “made in Alaska” alternatives to whatever Obama comes up with.
3. You can't say that Palin is “extending the nanny state”; without comparing what Alaska is doing with what other states are doing.
“repubs can either control the flow of change or be destroyed by it.”
= Become Socialist Lite. Small government is what we should be advocating, at the fed, state, and local level. By legislation or by revolution, we must have small government to survive as a nation. Palin shows she doesn’t get that. The image everyone has of Palin doesn’t match the woman. She’s a another Good Government Compassionate Conservative.
Please see my #28.
Not if the Governor wanted to turn it into a national program as president.
I think we are so shell-shocked by big government we forget what states should be doing for themselves and what the federal government has no business meddling with. If a state even has state-run healthcare - and it works and they can pay for it - I have no problem with it at all. The Libertarian in me screams "STATES RIGHTS!"
“What should the State do with the money when it runs a surplus over a period of several years?”
If you bought something from a store and the cashier gave you too much change, what would you do?
Good post. States rights bump!
That isn’t an answer it is a question.
See post #22.
Socialists have plans for our children.
This is old news, weeks old in fact
Revenues from oil production vastly outwiegh other sources of revenue.
I don’t have any problem with the State taking its cut from the harvesting of its natural resources. In fact that is smart.
The State owns land that has natural resources. Should those resources be given away to anyone that wants to take them?
Or is it permissible for those who want to take those resources to pay the state a fee?
And if those fees are substantial because of the vastness and value of the natural resources, then the state has great revenues and wealth.
What should the State do with those revenues?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.