We need a change in our election system to open the pool of candidates. Many people vote R or D for the least problematic and afraid of voting the 3rd party because it would throw the vote away. If we are to open elections to Independents and Libritarians then we need to not have to worry about throwing the vote away. The way to do this is to narrow the pool by votes (Candidate Idol). If a candidate doesn't get over 50% of the votes than the low man is eliminated and there should be another election. This would continue until the candidate has over 50%. The result could be L against R or I against D or maybe I against L. People would not worry about throwing their initial vote away and we might be surprised what parties end up the top 2 in the final vote. This should be from local all the way to President, it is the only way to have true 3rd or 4th party representation.

I have been a healthcare worker for over 30 years. At one time the Health Departments had Clinics available that went from General Care to Specialists. It appears that the only care left is the OB and vaccination clinics. These were closed in order to mainstream the health care and because some people were using the Emergency Room for general health care (ie: cold, diaper rash) and the low income were feeling "like second class citizens." The mainstreaming hasn't worked because many of these same people won't pay the doctors they see, so they ruin the relationship and end up without a physician, so they still go to the emergency room.
My fix would be for the government (local, state or Federal) to open up 24/7 facilities that would include well care as well as sick care for the uninsured. Leave the current system alone for those that have health care. Give some incentive for those that are uninsured to become insured while having a safety net.

This is where Glenn's Values come into play. Just wages for just work. Some have taken less weekly money to prove their worth and the bonus brings them up to an average salary. Others helped the company make all the wrong turns and should refuse the bonus. All sides of the issue need to be looked at and studied to make a proper recommendation. Too many generalities and one size fits all solutions get us into trouble. We need all cards layed on the table to really understand.

Stop the nonsense. The postal employees never expected bonuses. This is not part of their hiring process. Why should the Postmaster be different?