Sanders: Universal Healthcare and Free College Aren’t Radical Ideas, They Are ‘Human Rights’

[Ray From Cleveland]

Maybe but labor is supply and demand. Right now we do have more supply than demand so jobs are not paying all that well. I don't know if we will ever see a day when labor is in short supply given the fact we have an administration letting people cross the border like bees going to the honey.

Here is a dated piece by economist Walter E Williams. I just want to paste some of his research on the subject

There are many factors pushing down labour supply :
1) Immigration
2) Job Offshoring
3) Automation

Eventually manufacturing jobs will experience the same process that happened to agricultural jobs.
Agricultural jobs could even disapear completely.
As automation continues even service jobs are being destroyed. How many accountants were needed 50 years ago to run a corporation ? Today I've seen multi billion corporations handled by ten accountants.

Banning immigration and job offshoring is only a short term solution, in the long run we will have to deal with a world where demand for labour is continually decreasing.

True , a similar situation happened 200 years ago , but 200 years ago there were no robots or computers or drones or the internet . This is a completely different creature .

Machines have been replacing humans for a long time now.

The candle maker was replaced by electricity.
The ice man was replaced by refrigerators.
The phone operators were replaced by computers.
The coal man was replaced by the natural gas furnace.
The ditch differ was replaced by the backhoe.
The horse shoe maker was replaced by the automobile.

Speaking of service jobs, some McDonald's restaurants are experimenting with a nearly all automated restaurant. You push the buttons for what you want, and the machines cook and prepare your food for you.

And someday gas and coal will be replaced by alternative fuels.

Maybe, but it probably won't result in job loss.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The ideas that all members of society should have access to a system of basic healthcare AND basic education regardless of their ability to pay

are simply commonsense ideas as to what a civilized society should be.

The uncivilized may disagree, but it is up to civilized society to render them powerless and irrelevant.

Here's the forum idiot yet again spouting off that taxpayers owe him free healthcare AND a college education. This from someone who doesn't even know that CVS fills prescriptions for contraceptives.

I think he also believes that PP is a major supplier of women's healthcare where there are "no other providers". Funny thing is, there's no place in this country that doesn't have basic healthcare for women, unless you live on a mountaintop in Idaho or something. In which case, it's your own damned fault. But PP has 820 or so clinics in the whole country, by their own count. Correct my math if I got it wrong, but in a nation with 158 million women, I'm going to say there's no way they're providing anything that isn't already available . . . except abortion.

The question becomes, why the hell do we listen to uninformed idealogues like NY on the subject of healthcare? Why do we take them seriously, or allow them to take themselves seriously?

There is a common assumption that one of PP's functions is to provide breast cancer screenings using mammogram devices.
Not one PP clinic has one. Not a single one.
Planned Parenthood Runs Zero Licensed Mammogram Clinics
listen to this chuck duck and dive,.
Cecile Richards Once Said Planned Parenthood Does Mammograms. Today She Admitted She Lied...
Santorum Shuts Down Whoopi’s Planned Parenthood Misconceptions [VIDEO]
The repeated, misleading claim that Planned Parenthood ‘provides’ mammograms

PP refers patients for mammograms and they also help patients in acquiring financial assistance for mammograms.

Yes. That is the narrative.
The fact is ANY doctor can refer a patient for a mammogram.....We don't need to fund for example a person( the woman that is in charge of PP) over a half million dollars per year for her salary.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Maybe but labor is supply and demand. Right now we do have more supply than demand so jobs are not paying all that well. I don't know if we will ever see a day when labor is in short supply given the fact we have an administration letting people cross the border like bees going to the honey.

Here is a dated piece by economist Walter E Williams. I just want to paste some of his research on the subject

There are many factors pushing down labour supply :
1) Immigration
2) Job Offshoring
3) Automation

Eventually manufacturing jobs will experience the same process that happened to agricultural jobs.
Agricultural jobs could even disapear completely.
As automation continues even service jobs are being destroyed. How many accountants were needed 50 years ago to run a corporation ? Today I've seen multi billion corporations handled by ten accountants.

Banning immigration and job offshoring is only a short term solution, in the long run we will have to deal with a world where demand for labour is continually decreasing.

True , a similar situation happened 200 years ago , but 200 years ago there were no robots or computers or drones or the internet . This is a completely different creature .

Machines have been replacing humans for a long time now.

The candle maker was replaced by electricity.
The ice man was replaced by refrigerators.
The phone operators were replaced by computers.
The coal man was replaced by the natural gas furnace.
The ditch differ was replaced by the backhoe.
The horse shoe maker was replaced by the automobile.

Speaking of service jobs, some McDonald's restaurants are experimenting with a nearly all automated restaurant. You push the buttons for what you want, and the machines cook and prepare your food for you.

And someday gas and coal will be replaced by alternative fuels.

Yes....That is correct. Your point?
Or is that some kind or petulant response because the transition is "taking too long".....

 

[Political Junky]

Maybe but labor is supply and demand. Right now we do have more supply than demand so jobs are not paying all that well. I don't know if we will ever see a day when labor is in short supply given the fact we have an administration letting people cross the border like bees going to the honey.

Here is a dated piece by economist Walter E Williams. I just want to paste some of his research on the subject

There are many factors pushing down labour supply :
1) Immigration
2) Job Offshoring
3) Automation

Eventually manufacturing jobs will experience the same process that happened to agricultural jobs.
Agricultural jobs could even disapear completely.
As automation continues even service jobs are being destroyed. How many accountants were needed 50 years ago to run a corporation ? Today I've seen multi billion corporations handled by ten accountants.

Banning immigration and job offshoring is only a short term solution, in the long run we will have to deal with a world where demand for labour is continually decreasing.

True , a similar situation happened 200 years ago , but 200 years ago there were no robots or computers or drones or the internet . This is a completely different creature .

Machines have been replacing humans for a long time now.

The candle maker was replaced by electricity.
The ice man was replaced by refrigerators.
The phone operators were replaced by computers.
The coal man was replaced by the natural gas furnace.
The ditch differ was replaced by the backhoe.
The horse shoe maker was replaced by the automobile.

Speaking of service jobs, some McDonald's restaurants are experimenting with a nearly all automated restaurant. You push the buttons for what you want, and the machines cook and prepare your food for you.

And someday gas and coal will be replaced by alternative fuels.

Yes....That is correct. Your point?
Or is that some kind or petulant response because the transition is "taking too long".....

Glad you agree.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Maybe but labor is supply and demand. Right now we do have more supply than demand so jobs are not paying all that well. I don't know if we will ever see a day when labor is in short supply given the fact we have an administration letting people cross the border like bees going to the honey.

Here is a dated piece by economist Walter E Williams. I just want to paste some of his research on the subject

There are many factors pushing down labour supply :
1) Immigration
2) Job Offshoring
3) Automation

Eventually manufacturing jobs will experience the same process that happened to agricultural jobs.
Agricultural jobs could even disapear completely.
As automation continues even service jobs are being destroyed. How many accountants were needed 50 years ago to run a corporation ? Today I've seen multi billion corporations handled by ten accountants.

Banning immigration and job offshoring is only a short term solution, in the long run we will have to deal with a world where demand for labour is continually decreasing.

True , a similar situation happened 200 years ago , but 200 years ago there were no robots or computers or drones or the internet . This is a completely different creature .

Machines have been replacing humans for a long time now.

The candle maker was replaced by electricity.
The ice man was replaced by refrigerators.
The phone operators were replaced by computers.
The coal man was replaced by the natural gas furnace.
The ditch digger was replaced by the backhoe.
The horse shoe maker was replaced by the automobile.

Speaking of service jobs, some McDonald's restaurants are experimenting with a nearly all automated restaurant. You push the buttons for what you want, and the machines cook and prepare your food for you.

True enough , but the pace seems to be accelerating.

 

[The Rabbi]

you have overstepped my friend.

As automation shaves jobs, less jobs will be available. Whereas there used to be the need for ten lathe turners, now there is the need for only one person to press the "on" button of the ten CNC lathes.

I've been pondering this for a long time: there can be several arrangements.
1) New areas are created by automation , like e-marketing, AI , workshops.
2) There is more room for expenditure on other areas : eg. healthcare, arts, entertainment.
3) Even if 1 and 2 are not available , some sub-optimal jobs can be created by the government.

Ultimately there might be a point in which no labour is required . Ray Kurzweil thinks this can happen as early as 2035. In that case there will have to be a transfer mechanism from businesses to households to avoid an economic collapse, due to the cyclical nature of economy.

It is laughable. Labor is a commodity. When a commodity becomes cheap enough there is demand. T here will never be no demand for labor. There will be no demand for labor at gov't mandated min wages though.

Maybe but labor is supply and demand. Right now we do have more supply than demand so jobs are not paying all that well. I don't know if we will ever see a day when labor is in short supply given the fact we have an administration letting people cross the border like bees going to the honey.

Here is a dated piece by economist Walter E Williams. I just want to paste some of his research on the subject:

April 16, 2008
Foreign trade angst
By Walter Williams

"There's great angst over the loss of manufacturing jobs. The number of U.S. manufacturing jobs has fallen, and it's mainly a result of technological innovation, and it's a worldwide phenomenon. Daniel W. Drezner, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, in "The Outsourcing Bogeyman" (Foreign Affairs, May/June 2004), notes that U.S. manufacturing employment between 1995 and 2002 fell by 11 percent. Globally, manufacturing job loss averaged 11 percent. China lost 15 percent of its manufacturing jobs, 4.5 million manufacturing jobs compared with the loss of 3.1 million in the U.S. Job loss is the trend among the top 10 manufacturing countries who produce 75 percent of the world's manufacturing output (the U.S., Japan, Germany, China, Britain, France, Italy, Korea, Canada and Mexico).


But guess what — globally, manufacturing output rose by 30 percent during the same period. According to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, U.S. manufacturing output increased by 100 percent between 1987 and today. Technological progress and innovation is the primary cause for the decrease in manufacturing jobs. Should we save manufacturing jobs by outlawing labor-saving equipment and technology?


Economist Joseph Schumpeter referred to this process witnessed in market economies as "creative destruction," where technology, innovation and trade destroy some jobs while creating others. While the process works hardships on some people, any attempt to impede the process will make all of us worse off."

Walter Williams

We saw similar trends in agriculture. In 1800 about 90% of this country were farmers. By 2000 it was like 2%. WHere did all those farm jobs go? To greater efficiency. But the people found new areas to work in.

Well that's the problem today: are there going to be new areas to work in?

Yes, of course there will.

 

[Conservative65]

Single payer health care would cover everyone for less than we are paying now.

How can we expect to stay on top of the world economy if we treat education as an extra cost option?

The problem that not everyone would be paying. It would still involve many, many, many getting but not doing their part.

There is a cost/benefit to these policies. You are just looking at the cost. I think the benefits would exceed the cost.

That's because unlike many who will benefit, I would be paying the costs. Those not paying are only looking at the benefit. Why would they care about the cost if they don't pay it.

I'm looking at the benefits. I have very good insurance now. It costs me nothing as part of my compensation package. The most I'll pay in a year out of pocket is $750.

 

[paulitician]

It's not a human right to forcibly steal from someone in order to please someone else. If anything, that's a human rights violation. People are just gonna have to accept that stealing from someone because they're unhappy and unsuccessful, isn't a justifiable act. It's actually a criminal act.

 

[Political Junky]

Single payer health care would cover everyone for less than we are paying now.

How can we expect to stay on top of the world economy if we treat education as an extra cost option?

The problem that not everyone would be paying. It would still involve many, many, many getting but not doing their part.

There is a cost/benefit to these policies. You are just looking at the cost. I think the benefits would exceed the cost.

That's because unlike many who will benefit, I would be paying the costs. Those not paying are only looking at the benefit. Why would they care about the cost if they don't pay it.

I'm looking at the benefits. I have very good insurance now. It costs me nothing as part of my compensation package. The most I'll pay in a year out of pocket is $750.

Someone is paying your costs.

 

[Conservative65]

Single payer health care would cover everyone for less than we are paying now.

How can we expect to stay on top of the world economy if we treat education as an extra cost option?

The problem that not everyone would be paying. It would still involve many, many, many getting but not doing their part.

There is a cost/benefit to these policies. You are just looking at the cost. I think the benefits would exceed the cost.

That's because unlike many who will benefit, I would be paying the costs. Those not paying are only looking at the benefit. Why would they care about the cost if they don't pay it.

I'm looking at the benefits. I have very good insurance now. It costs me nothing as part of my compensation package. The most I'll pay in a year out of pocket is $750.

Someone is paying your costs.

I'm earning it. You make it out as if I don't do anything to receive it as a benefit. My employer is paying the cost and it's their choice to do so because I provide them with a benefit that makes them revenue. What has some leech who does nothing and expects what I've earned done for their handout? Nothing.

 

[Political Junky]

Single payer health care would cover everyone for less than we are paying now.

How can we expect to stay on top of the world economy if we treat education as an extra cost option?

The problem that not everyone would be paying. It would still involve many, many, many getting but not doing their part.

There is a cost/benefit to these policies. You are just looking at the cost. I think the benefits would exceed the cost.

That's because unlike many who will benefit, I would be paying the costs. Those not paying are only looking at the benefit. Why would they care about the cost if they don't pay it.

I'm looking at the benefits. I have very good insurance now. It costs me nothing as part of my compensation package. The most I'll pay in a year out of pocket is $750.

Someone is paying your costs.

I'm earning it. You make it out as if I don't do anything to receive it as a benefit. My employer is paying the cost and it's their choice to do so because I provide them with a benefit that makes them revenue. What has some leech who does nothing and expects what I've earned done for their handout? Nothing.

Your employers clients are paying for it in added cost to service or product.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If a basic education should be available to all American kids, regardless of their ability to pay,

why would you disagree with Bernie?

It's the 21st century. College is a basic education.

 

[Conservative65]

The problem that not everyone would be paying. It would still involve many, many, many getting but not doing their part.

There is a cost/benefit to these policies. You are just looking at the cost. I think the benefits would exceed the cost.

That's because unlike many who will benefit, I would be paying the costs. Those not paying are only looking at the benefit. Why would they care about the cost if they don't pay it.

I'm looking at the benefits. I have very good insurance now. It costs me nothing as part of my compensation package. The most I'll pay in a year out of pocket is $750.

Someone is paying your costs.

I'm earning it. You make it out as if I don't do anything to receive it as a benefit. My employer is paying the cost and it's their choice to do so because I provide them with a benefit that makes them revenue. What has some leech who does nothing and expects what I've earned done for their handout? Nothing.

Your employers clients are paying for it in added cost to service or product.

My employer's clients choose to buy the products we sell knowing that.

A leech provides nothing in return for their handout.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Single payer health care would cover everyone for less than we are paying now.

How can we expect to stay on top of the world economy if we treat education as an extra cost option?

The problem that not everyone would be paying. It would still involve many, many, many getting but not doing their part.

There is a cost/benefit to these policies. You are just looking at the cost. I think the benefits would exceed the cost.

That's because unlike many who will benefit, I would be paying the costs. Those not paying are only looking at the benefit. Why would they care about the cost if they don't pay it.

I'm looking at the benefits. I have very good insurance now. It costs me nothing as part of my compensation package. The most I'll pay in a year out of pocket is $750.

You are assuming that the economy will be static or declining. I don't hold that view.

You are already paying for other's coverage. You are just paying it through the back door.

Would you trade that $750 for a $300 tax increase? Looks to me like you would be ahead.

 

[Conservative65]

Single payer health care would cover everyone for less than we are paying now.

How can we expect to stay on top of the world economy if we treat education as an extra cost option?

The problem that not everyone would be paying. It would still involve many, many, many getting but not doing their part.

There is a cost/benefit to these policies. You are just looking at the cost. I think the benefits would exceed the cost.

That's because unlike many who will benefit, I would be paying the costs. Those not paying are only looking at the benefit. Why would they care about the cost if they don't pay it.

I'm looking at the benefits. I have very good insurance now. It costs me nothing as part of my compensation package. The most I'll pay in a year out of pocket is $750.

You are assuming that the economy will be static or declining. I don't hold that view.

You are already paying for other's coverage. You are just paying it through the back door.

Would you trade that $750 for a $300 tax increase? Looks to me like you would be ahead.

I hold that it's not my responsibility to fund healthcare for anyone else. I shouldn't be paying for it on behalf of another at all, front door or back door.

If you believe that it will only cost $300, you're a damn fool.

 

[P F Tinmore]

If a basic education should be available to all American kids, regardless of their ability to pay,

why would you disagree with Bernie?

It's the 21st century. College is a basic education.

Amen to that. Or at least a higher skill set for the trades.

Have you ever heard business owners whine about not being able to find qualified employees. Well here is their answer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just out of curiosity...

Are any of the countries that are supposedly kicking our asses in the field of education denying college to their poorest children - children who would otherwise benefit from higher education?

 

[dblack]

Just out of curiosity...

Are any of the countries that are supposedly kicking our asses in the field of education denying college to their poorest children - children who would otherwise benefit from higher education?

Don't care.

 

[dblack]

If a basic education should be available to all American kids, regardless of their ability to pay,

why would you disagree with Bernie?

It's the 21st century. College is a basic education.

Amen to that. Or at least a higher skill set for the trades.

Have you ever heard business owners whine about not being able to find qualified employees. Well here is their answer.

Do you think it's a proper function of government to provide business owners with their needs? Is this the same sort of rationale that has Congress providing the insurance industry with mandated customers?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just out of curiosity...

Are any of the countries that are supposedly kicking our asses in the field of education denying college to their poorest children - children who would otherwise benefit from higher education?

Don't care.

Then shut up.