2007-06-12 05:55:30 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think that the state of Arizona tried publicly funded elections (paid for with tax dollars) and that's how John McCain was elected. Not saying I'm a huge fan, but I like the fact that the billions of dollars that are currently being spent on TV ads, polical polls, campaigning and other crap could be put toward a better purpose!
2007-06-12 06:04:20 · update #1
They would be shorter, but I doubt we would not have the pandering to interest groups seeing they could still deliver votes for candidates.
2007-06-12 06:09:17 · answer #1 · answered by The Stylish One 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the U. S. well-being care gadget in simple terms have been given truly extra effective. That mentioned, at the same time because it relatively is quite good at some issues (e.g. cancer analysis and therapy) -- a minimum of for those waiting to pay -- it relatively is fairly adverse on familiar (A 2008 checklist (See link) by the Commonwealth Fund ranked united statesa. final interior the known of well-being care between the nineteen in comparison countries), way too high priced (The final place end referenced above replaced into regardless of paying 2x as lots in line with individual on well-being care) and overemphasizes therapy (on the fee of ailment prevention/well-being merchandising). it relatively is reliance on inner maximum insurance firms ensures that administrative expenses are lots larger (frequently 2X) than usual, public funded structures like Canada's. The worst characteristic of the U. S. gadget is the way it factors outstanding take care of the wealthy (those waiting to be lined by good insurance plans) and pathetic (and very high priced) care (relatively well-being facility ER care) for those with out. This has been truly addressed by the recent adjustments (so called "Obamacare") yet remains an argument for tens of millions. At proper the U. S. gadget gets a C for usual outcomes, an F for fee and a C (up from an F) for universality.
2017-01-06 11:04:53 · answer #2 · answered by bianka 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Campaigns would be a lot shorter. Give them a budget and see what they can do with it. If they handle it well they may be good for the economy.
2007-06-12 06:01:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
actually we already give millions of dollars to people campaigning for public office, I think this is the only money they should receive, the only difference among the candidates, should their platform
2007-06-12 06:24:43 · answer #4 · answered by Nick F 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You mean I can't support the cannidate I want with how ever much I want. Are you talking about denying my right to free speech.
2007-06-12 05:59:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Like I want to pay more taxes so that some blowhole can pay for his election.
2007-06-12 06:23:02 · answer #6 · answered by Pythagoras 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, and the money for those running were equal!
2007-06-12 05:59:58 · answer #7 · answered by cantcu 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
you would get a broader spectrum of people, that wanted to run. and we would have a better view of true American opinions.
2007-06-12 06:00:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
They'd be shorter for sure.
2007-06-12 06:11:00 · answer #9 · answered by Incognito 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They would be a lot shorter!
2007-06-12 05:58:55 · answer #10 · answered by A Person 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋