Why exactly are you unwilling to pay for other people's medical care?

[Arianrhod]

No, the fact that you repeatedly fail to understand that the plan involves small fees on hedge funds is the issue.

Let me put it in language you can understand: IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU.

When it's about the government forcing ANYONE...

Then since it isn't, it's still not about you.

When it's about destroying the country, it's about me.

Well, then, you'd best pick up some work gloves at Walmart and go help Donny build his Great Big Wall.

Hyperbole R Us.

I prefer armed guards at the border. If they can climb a wall once, they can climb it again. If they aren't able to climb anymore, problem solved.

And you'll be happy to pay their salaries, if you aren't already. Would you volunteer to shoot a few people yourself? See, now, that's an issue of morality.

 

[dblack]

The right/left thing always reminds me of the Punch-n-Judy puppet show slapstick. Carry on.

 

[LOki]

"People being forced into things"? How about people who lost their homes when the banks crashed the economy? How about the folks at Enron who lost their jobs and their pensions in the same afternoon? How about the people in the Rust Belt who saw their plants shut down and their jobs sent overseas? That's coercion.

Yep. Sometimes it is. And when it is, we should put a stop to it. What we shouldn't do is play the "if you can't be 'em join 'em" card, and simply pile on with more state bullying.

It was a surprise to me to discover that there really are people who think "I'ma pay the penalty (and whine about being persecuted) and NOT GET INSURANCE because I want to stick it to Obama!" is a rational argument. Those people will feel bullied no matter what. You don't seem to be one of them, but when you posit that "all government is coercion," I have to ask you how you think the world would function if we just did away with government.

I don't think we should do away with government. Sometimes coercion is justified. But "I want" or even "I need" isn't a moral justification.

Can't disagree...because any attempt to legislate morality ends up more trouble than it's worth. Stoning adulterers would take up way too much of people's time.

I don't see keeping America's people healthy and educated as a moral issue but rather a practicality. YMMV.

But is it moral? Arguably, it's "practical" to pull a gun on your doctor and force her to provide you with health care, but is it moral? Seriously, why is it ok for government to do something that it would be obviously wrong for an individual to do?

"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."--Lysander Spooner

 

[Cecilie1200]

So let me get this straight. You want us all to believe that you're outraged because you claim YOU are paying taxes, and the Waltons aren't?

I didn't say they weren't paying any taxes; I said they got a tax break of $6 billion. Do you understand the difference?

And they STILL paid for most of the taxes, while 46% of the population didn't pay jack shit. Do YOU understand?

Do you have access to the Waltons' financial records? Impressive.

What I understand is that you'll be joining Conservative65 in going door-to-door in working class neighborhoods confiscating the kids' piggy banks so the 46% will pay "their fair share."

I can't seem to convince you people that that's far too labor intensive to yield the results you desire, but you won't listen. Better invest in a good pair of walking shoes.

What you should be understanding is that you're an utter imbecile.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that YOU have the Waltons' financial records. As obsessed as you seem to be, you probably pick through their garbage.

Unlike you, I'm not trying to take other people's money. That's your schtick.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I actually do agree with on taxes. The middle class is not paying enough taxes. However, I doubt a family of 5 at a $30,000 yearly income could afford to pay more than 1 or 2% of gross income in taxes without seriously effecting their quality of life.

Although a person may only be worth his pay of $8/hr, it does not change the fact that $8 is hardly enough to support a single person much less a family. If the employee wants to make more, then he or she should get more education/training , right. However, that presents two problems. Higher education is not cheap. In fact for someone making $8/hr, it's a fortune. Secondly, many people in low paying jobs do not have the intelligence and educational background needed to be successful in the kind of advanced education in demand by employers. Far too many graduates of community colleges are going back to the same jobs they had before they started school.

I think the trends we are seeing now will continue, higher costs in higher education, more competition in higher education, and falling demand for unskilled and low skilled workers. That's going to mean more pressure on government to provide assistance for low income workers.

Community colleges are a joke to be frank. Well, I'm being harsh there....they are a joke because they are being forced to do the education that the high schools USED to do. Far too many kids going to community colleges are having to enroll in remedial math, English and science classes first, because the education they received in high school was sub par.

It truly is a crime what is being done to these kids. It truly is.

True, but once one is past that - or actually shows up with that education already - community colleges can be very helpful for taking transferable undergrad courses at a much lower cost than at a university.

There are some truly great community colleges out there, however most are being dumbed down just like the high schools. I agree that for kids on a tight budget the CC route is essential. But we really need to stop dumbing the whole system down so that progressives can feel good about themselves. they are screwing the children of this country over.

Generally, community colleges are open enrollment, which means that any high school graduate is eligible to attend and it should remain so. No matter how badly someone screwed up in high school they have the opportunity to improve their education in a community college.

There are two tracks in a community, an AA or AS degree whose credits are transferable will transfer to 4 year schools and various paraprofessional degrees and certificates which do not. The qualify of programs vary just as they do in 4 years schools.

If they can't do the level of work that they should do in high school, they don't belong in college.

The problem with what you say is that many on the left want the rest of us to invest in something you say involves screw ups.

I am extremely tired of hearing "we forcibly take your money and give it to others" referred to as "investing".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Community colleges are a joke to be frank. Well, I'm being harsh there....they are a joke because they are being forced to do the education that the high schools USED to do. Far too many kids going to community colleges are having to enroll in remedial math, English and science classes first, because the education they received in high school was sub par.

It truly is a crime what is being done to these kids. It truly is.

True, but once one is past that - or actually shows up with that education already - community colleges can be very helpful for taking transferable undergrad courses at a much lower cost than at a university.

There are some truly great community colleges out there, however most are being dumbed down just like the high schools. I agree that for kids on a tight budget the CC route is essential. But we really need to stop dumbing the whole system down so that progressives can feel good about themselves. they are screwing the children of this country over.

Generally, community colleges are open enrollment, which means that any high school graduate is eligible to attend and it should remain so. No matter how badly someone screwed up in high school they have the opportunity to improve their education in a community college.

There are two tracks in a community, an AA or AS degree whose credits are transferable will transfer to 4 year schools and various paraprofessional degrees and certificates which do not. The qualify of programs vary just as they do in 4 years schools.

If they can't do the level of work that they should do in high school, they don't belong in college.

The problem with what you say is that many on the left want the rest of us to invest in something you say involves screw ups.

Unless, you really want to see the welfare state grow, then you should be in favor of providing education for those with lower abilities and aspirations that are in low skilled jobs.

"Be grateful we're ripping you off THIS way, instead of THAT way."

Can't really see a benefit to me with either one.

 

[Cecilie1200]

True, but once one is past that - or actually shows up with that education already - community colleges can be very helpful for taking transferable undergrad courses at a much lower cost than at a university.

There are some truly great community colleges out there, however most are being dumbed down just like the high schools. I agree that for kids on a tight budget the CC route is essential. But we really need to stop dumbing the whole system down so that progressives can feel good about themselves. they are screwing the children of this country over.

Generally, community colleges are open enrollment, which means that any high school graduate is eligible to attend and it should remain so. No matter how badly someone screwed up in high school they have the opportunity to improve their education in a community college.

There are two tracks in a community, an AA or AS degree whose credits are transferable will transfer to 4 year schools and various paraprofessional degrees and certificates which do not. The qualify of programs vary just as they do in 4 years schools.

If they can't do the level of work that they should do in high school, they don't belong in college.

The problem with what you say is that many on the left want the rest of us to invest in something you say involves screw ups.

Unless, you really want to see the welfare state grow, then you should be in favor of providing education for those with lower abilities and aspirations that are in low skilled jobs.

I've come to the conclusion that they have a lowered ability to understand that education is an investment. As one generation of professionals ages out and retires, who's going to replace them? They don't think of things like that.

It's an investment for the person being educated, and for his family. For a bunch of strangers? Not even.

Who's going to replace them? People who don't have a "Give me everything I want because I'm special" mindset. Probably not going to get a lot of professional go-getters from the whiner set.

 

[Arianrhod]

Apparently the majority of Rightists on this board are hedge-fund managers. Who knew?

"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."--Lysander Spooner

Now, this is interesting. You're terrified of the mere word "socialist," but you'll embrace an anarchist because he says what you want to hear. Yay, anarchy!

 

[Arianrhod]

It's an investment for the person being educated, and for his family. For a bunch of strangers? Not even.

Not sure what you're on about, but this is neither about the Sanders education plan, nor anything to do with the thread topic. Do you have anything relevant to contribute to either?

 

[LOki]

Apparently the majority of Rightists on this board are hedge-fund managers. Who knew?

"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."--Lysander Spooner

Now, this is interesting. You're terrified of the mere word "socialist," ...

Argumentum Ad-hominem. Then Strawman. Predictable.

...but you'll embrace an anarchist because he says what you want to hear. Yay, anarchy!

Yay, indeed.

You might consider the possibility that I'm not some kind of authority-hugging statist.

 

[Arianrhod]

You might consider the possibility that I'm not some kind of authority-hugging statist.

So you're an anarchist? That's refreshing!

 

[LOki]

You might consider the possibility that I'm not some kind of authority-hugging statist.

So you're an anarchist?

Seems so.

That's refreshing!

I guess...

 

[Flopper]

... A healthier, better educated nation is a nation that can compete in the global marketplace. ...

The question is whether it's the job of government to make us healthier or better educated, or better at competing in the market place. I adamantly don't want government involved in those kinds of projects. I want a government that protects our freedom to pursue the levels of health, education and competitiveness that we want.

I think those questions were answered long ago

 

[dblack]

... A healthier, better educated nation is a nation that can compete in the global marketplace. ...

The question is whether it's the job of government to make us healthier or better educated, or better at competing in the market place. I adamantly don't want government involved in those kinds of projects. I want a government that protects our freedom to pursue the levels of health, education and competitiveness that we want.

I think those questions were answered long ago

What is your answer to those questions?

 

[Flopper]

True, but once one is past that - or actually shows up with that education already - community colleges can be very helpful for taking transferable undergrad courses at a much lower cost than at a university.

There are some truly great community colleges out there, however most are being dumbed down just like the high schools. I agree that for kids on a tight budget the CC route is essential. But we really need to stop dumbing the whole system down so that progressives can feel good about themselves. they are screwing the children of this country over.

Generally, community colleges are open enrollment, which means that any high school graduate is eligible to attend and it should remain so. No matter how badly someone screwed up in high school they have the opportunity to improve their education in a community college.

There are two tracks in a community, an AA or AS degree whose credits are transferable will transfer to 4 year schools and various paraprofessional degrees and certificates which do not. The qualify of programs vary just as they do in 4 years schools.

We are in agreement here. In fact there is a program out our local CC that allows high schooler's, while still in high school, to attend college classes. The high achievers are normally not a problem. It is the middle of the road kids that need help. Currently the CC system does very little other than glad handing to help them. If they are a poor student the CC system bends over backwards to help them when to be honest they shouldn't even be there.

My wife teaches occasionally at the CC and MOST of the students are poor. To the point where getting them to do a single assignment can be difficult. They are paid to attend but they truly don't care about succeeding. Those kids should be elsewhere instead of wasting valuable resources.

That's one of the things I hate about teaching in community college is there are always those that are going to fail because they don't apply themselves or just don't care. However, most of the classes I have taught, they're in the minority.

I think people are far too critical of the success rate of programs that address the needs of the poor. To a social scientist, programs with a success rate of 40% are often considered successful. Few people seem to realize just how hard it is too work with people that lived most of their lives in poverty, have about zero self esteem, and have failed so many times that they have just given up.

Here's where I disagree with you. The success rate is extremely important. Merely throwing money at a program with no care as to how effective it is is what leads to multiple programs doing the same thing equally ineffectively. Money needs to be spent far more wisely than it currently is. That is a fact. Re-inventing the wheel over and over helps no one, and in fact harms everyone.

I not saying there should not be a measure of success in most social programs. I am saying that each programs should be evaluated based on realist possibilities. For example the average drug programs sports a success rate only about 50%. Some of the best claim 70%. However, there success drops sharply when measured over 5 year period.
A bureaucrat may look at 40% to 50% success rate as a miserable failure but someone who lives in drug invested community, would see a 50% reduction in drug addicts as a huge success.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Generally, community colleges are open enrollment, which means that any high school graduate is eligible to attend and it should remain so. No matter how badly someone screwed up in high school they have the opportunity to improve their education in a community college.

There are two tracks in a community, an AA or AS degree whose credits are transferable will transfer to 4 year schools and various paraprofessional degrees and certificates which do not. The qualify of programs vary just as they do in 4 years schools.

If they can't do the level of work that they should do in high school, they don't belong in college.

The problem with what you say is that many on the left want the rest of us to invest in something you say involves screw ups.

Unless, you really want to see the welfare state grow, then you should be in favor of providing education for those with lower abilities and aspirations that are in low skilled jobs.

I've come to the conclusion that they have a lowered ability to understand that education is an investment. As one generation of professionals ages out and retires, who's going to replace them? They don't think of things like that.

I think most young people in community college certificate and para-professional programs see their education as a stepping stone to making more money. Many of these students are paying little or nothing. Student's pursuing a 4 year degree pay more money out of pocket and through college loans and I think they do look upon their education as an investment.

Two reasons why the "not with my tax dollars!!!11!" group is resistant to tuition-free education at state universities (which, BTW, is the way it used to be in the 1950s they ordinarily tout so highly). Two-year certificate kids might compete with their own kids for jobs, and four-year kids getting "free stuff" is anathema.

No, dumbass. People who can't get off their dead asses to get their own education are no threat to my children whatsoever.

Resist the urge to believe that you represent anyone except other deadbeats.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I've come to the conclusion that they have a lowered ability to understand that education is an investment. As one generation of professionals ages out and retires, who's going to replace them? They don't think of things like that.

Maybe they see it as a private investment, and not something government should be in charge of.

State governments' involvement in state universities would be no greater than it is currently. I suppose if people wanted to personally screen working-class kids for their potential as future doctors, dentists, nurses, accountants, etc. and then sink their own money into paying the best candidates' tuition, they could do that but, like knocking on doors in working-class neighborhoods demanding "pay your fair share!!!!" it would be both labor intensive and not cost saving.

Although maybe these "volunteers" could do both simultaneously. "Hi, I'm here to confiscate the change in your sofa cushions and the dollar bills in the cookie jar...unless your kid wants to go to dental school. Because my dentist will be retiring in a few years and..."

Sounds like a plan.

Huh?

I'm not sure why we're discussing this in the healthcare forum when there's already a thread about "free stuff" vis-a-vis state college tuition in another forum, but why not?

I don't know if any of the other candidates have a plan, but the Sanders plan would pay for itself by levying a small fee on hedge funds.

Period.

I guarantee you the people screaming hysterically in that other thread don't even know what a hedge fund is, but they're outraged anyway.

Let's put it this way: there is nothing about your continued existence that I wish to contribute to. Your life is a nuisance to me, not a benefit. That will be the answer to ANY question regarding why I don't want to publicly fund something.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Two reasons why the "not with my tax dollars!!!11!" group is resistant to tuition-free education at state universities (which, BTW, is the way it used to be in the 1950s they ordinarily tout so highly). Two-year certificate kids might compete with their own kids for jobs, and four-year kids getting "free stuff" is anathema.

Wrong again. If you want to put your money into someone else's education, go head. I would rather have the CHOICE as to what CHARITIES I donate to, if I donate at all. It is not the role of government, nor should it be, to re-distribute wealth. I come from the group of people that sent their kids to two year college, because that's what they could afford. I hope to have the resourses to send my son to any college he chooses, and I don't want a hand-out to do it.

And if you don't have the resources? "Sorry, kid. Sucks to be you"?

You do realize you will have a choice to send your son to a private college regardless of whether state universities return to their original tuition-free status, right?

If you haven't figured out by the time you're eighteen that adulthood involves a lot of sucky choices and situations, then you must have been buried under a rock.

Not the government's job or the taxpayers' to make your life suck less.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Maybe they see it as a private investment, and not something government should be in charge of.

State governments' involvement in state universities would be no greater than it is currently. I suppose if people wanted to personally screen working-class kids for their potential as future doctors, dentists, nurses, accountants, etc. and then sink their own money into paying the best candidates' tuition, they could do that but, like knocking on doors in working-class neighborhoods demanding "pay your fair share!!!!" it would be both labor intensive and not cost saving.

Although maybe these "volunteers" could do both simultaneously. "Hi, I'm here to confiscate the change in your sofa cushions and the dollar bills in the cookie jar...unless your kid wants to go to dental school. Because my dentist will be retiring in a few years and..."

Sounds like a plan.

Huh?

I'm not sure why we're discussing this in the healthcare forum when there's already a thread about "free stuff" vis-a-vis state college tuition in another forum, but why not?

I don't know if any of the other candidates have a plan, but the Sanders plan would pay for itself by levying a small fee on hedge funds.

Period.

I guarantee you the people screaming hysterically in that other thread don't even know what a hedge fund is, but they're outraged anyway.

It's essentially all the same argument. We don't think government should be used as a general purpose tool to supply society with benefits. That's really the core debate here.

I think that's at least partly due to a misinterpretation of that phrase in the Preamble about "promote the general welfare." Too many people conflate it with "welfare as in 'welfare queen'" and ignore the "general" part.

A healthier, better educated nation is a nation that can compete in the global marketplace. That's known as "enlightened self-interest," a phrase that the same people who confuse "welfare" with "welfare queen" also lop off the "enlightened" part and embrace "self-interest" to mean "Me, ME, MEEEEE! Right now...fuck the future. MEEEEEEE!"

Yeah, people who've been conditioned to expect others to foot the bill for every damned thing they want is CERTAINLY going to be competitive.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Can't disagree...because any attempt to legislate morality ends up more trouble than it's worth. Stoning adulterers would take up way too much of people's time.

I don't see keeping America's people healthy and educated as a moral issue but rather a practicality. YMMV.

But is it moral? Arguably, it's "practical" to pull a gun on your doctor and force her to provide you with health care, but is it moral? Seriously, why is it ok for government to do something that it would be obviously wrong for an individual to do?

The entire argument used by the left, despite what they say, is a moral argument. When they say providing healthcare and education, as just two examples, is the right thing to do, that's a moral argument. Determining right or wrong is what morality is all about.

And now he not only talks around me, he attributes things I didn't say.

You said providing healthcare and education isn't a moral issue.

Legislating morality means things like "We should pass laws making this a Christian nation" and "We should pass laws requiring prayer in [public] schools" and "We think sodomy is disgusting, so we need to outlaw SSM."

Practicality is a whole 'nother category.

No, dipshit. "Legislating morality" means passing laws to try to make others meet our moral standards. You don't want to be legally forced to attend church. I don't want to be legally forced to contribute money to your feel-good programs.

It's not a one way street.