Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My student loans. Govt. backed loans were far cheaper than any private school loans that I could have gotten, even if I had qualified.
I think you're missing the forest for the trees. How about the cost of your tuition? Once gov't got involved with student loans, tuition skyrocketed. So, again, what has gotten cheaper because the gov't got involved?
I'll ask this again of our liberal members here. What program, industry, etc is LESS expensive after government gets involved? Can you name even one?
How's about healthcare in every other Western country in the world? (and most rank way sbove the US in terms of quality too). And not just that either - there is much that governments can do that the private sector either can't or won't I.e infrastructure, research and development, construction etc etc just look to China to see the explosion in economic growth and the work of the public sector in commerce and infrastructure. The same is true throughout history - the industrial revolution, the invention of the locomotive, electricity.. How's about the new deal here??
I'll ask this of you then - how would you achieve/improve the above if you remove government involvement??
I think you're missing the forest for the trees. How about the cost of your tuition? Once gov't got involved with student loans, tuition skyrocketed. So, again, what has gotten cheaper because the gov't got involved?
I think you are moving the goal posts. My interest rate was less because of govt. backing. If there was no govt. backing I probably would not have even qualified for a loan. In addition, I also got a VA loan for my first home, which I would not have qualified for without it.
How's about healthcare in every other Western country in the world? (and most rank way sbove the US in terms of quality too). And not just that either - there is much that governments can do that the private sector either can't or won't I.e infrastructure, research and development, construction etc etc just look to China to see the explosion in economic growth and the work of the public sector in commerce and infrastructure. The same is true throughout history - the industrial revolution, the invention of the locomotive, electricity.. How's about the new deal here??
I'll ask this of you then - how would you achieve/improve the above if you remove government involvement??
Really, it's less expensive in those countries?? Demonstrate that. I'll wait.
...once all of the Affordable Healthcare Act goes into effect, it will be very popular, not to mention a lifesaver for people and kids that would not be insured otherwise.
Insurance plans require the participants to pay a premium. Voluntarily. This is not insurance. This is welfare. Pure, simple welfare.
Kids are already covered through SCHIP or other programs. Allowing young adults to stay on their parents plan wouldnt require Obamacare. Or new taxes. All of the key components could have been implemented without the "tax" but weren't. Why not?
I'll ask this again of our liberal members here. What program, industry, etc is LESS expensive after government gets involved? Can you name even one?
Yeah, infrastructure. A corporate-owned infrastructure would rob us blind.
Just think about it. It's not rocket science.
The government doesn't have to pay a multi-millionaire or billionaire CEO plus insatiable shareholders, who must profit as much as possible. Most of this profit is just scraped off and doesn't go into the product but into their pockets instead. Government doesn't need to do this, it can operate as a non-profit. Yet it still employs many private contractors which is good for the market.
BTW the idle wealthy don't create jobs, consumers do.
I think you are moving the goal posts. My interest rate was less because of govt. backing. If there was no govt. backing I probably would not have even qualified for a loan. In addition, I also got a VA loan for my first home, which I would not have qualified for without it.
I think you are just considering the cost to yourself.
To a person on welfare, and I am not saying stundent loans are welfare, alot of things seem cheap but they are not.
Basic economics: There is no such thing as a free lunch.
I see your point but I think the cost to administer such a program has to be factored in.
I think you are moving the goal posts. My interest rate was less because of govt. backing. If there was no govt. backing I probably would not have even qualified for a loan. In addition, I also got a VA loan for my first home, which I would not have qualified for without it.
No, I'm not moving the goal posts. I am simply pointing out that you are limited in your scope. You cannot deny that student loans and tuition go hand in hand. My point is that you are happy the government made the tuition so expensive you needed a student loan only because they made that student loan less expensive? There is a correlation here with this health care nonsense.
The gov't is claiming they will make health insurance less expensive. However, they have proceeded to deem all types of new coverage, via HHS, that these policies must have. The result? More expensive policies. Now, what do you get in exchange for those more expensive policies? Well, if you're poor enough, they'll help you pay for those more expensive policies. If you're on a beer budget are you going to buy the caviar? No. But with Obamacare, that's precisely what this calls for. It's circular logic they are using and, at the end of the day, still doesn't make health insurance less expensive because you're buying an inflated policy. They are just helping you 'think' you need to buy that caviar when in reality the beer would have been just fine.
For the VA loan, they did not make that home less expensive but simply 'backed' you, allowing you to circumvent the usual financial requirements to obtain that home.
Last edited by southbel; 06-29-2012 at 04:30 PM..
Reason: forgot a key word
"$570 billion in savings on
administration and monopoly
profits, a single-payer system would
reduce dramatically the burden of
health care costs on the United
States economy. Over time,
furthermore, a single-payer system
would allow us to slow the growth in
health-care spending."
"Dr. William Hsiao, a Harvard economist who has been involved in designing health care systems in seven countries. Last year, the legislature commissioned Hsiao to analyze the costs and benefits of various health care options, ranging from single payer to a fully privately managed system. The soft-spoken economist told a packed state House that a single payer plan would be about 25 percent cheaper for consumers, businesses, and the government than the current system of private health insurance, saving about $500 million in just the first year"
Now, I will ask you what does multiple for profit, private insurance payers bring, to lower health care costs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
