Why don't some conservatives want anybody to have anything? (health care system, premium, Clinton)

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by I love boots.

You can't force people to be either of those things. If you don't believe me just look at people. They already do give food away in the form of food stamps and it doesn't mean people make healthy choices. Education can't make anyone smart if they just aren't. And how would that work anyway? Would it be free for as many times as it takes for someone to pass? Free for as many degrees as you want?

Point is for people who are qualified to go to college and didn't grow up with rich mommy and daddy to pay for it, student loan debt with the current private system is killing them. As are medical bills for people who aren't of a 7 figure or higher net worth

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

Point is for people who are qualified to go to college and didn't grow up with rich mommy and daddy to pay for it, student loan debt with the current private system is killing them. As are medical bills for people who aren't of a 7 figure or higher net worth

Why have colleges become so expensive?

That should be the first question.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

Why have colleges become so expensive?

That should be the first question.

Supply and demand, coupled with education being a labor intensive field. No new major universities have been built in the last 40+ years (Everest College and ITT don't count), so you have a static supply with a growing demand of students. What would help is if more state schools were built.

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

Supply and demand, coupled with education being a labor intensive field. No new major universities have been built in the last 40+ years (Everest College and ITT don't count), so you have a static supply with a growing demand of students. What would help is if more state schools were built.

So, colleges are raising their prices because they are in more demand and not due to costs?

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

So, colleges are raising their prices because they are in more demand and not due to costs?

I just explained it. But I'll go into it again. No new major universities have been built since the 60's or 70's. So a static supply of schools. But a growing demand as more people are wanting to attend college than did 40 years ago. And education is labor intensive, so it can't be made more productive through an assembly line or machine. So aside from bigger class sizes, of course it's going to get more expensive. Same reason that a one night hotel stay in San Francisco could rent you an apartment for a whole month in flyover country, supply and demand.

[I love boots.]

It's more expensive because the government got involved. Student loans.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by I love boots.

It's more expensive because the government got involved. Student loans.

This is a fallacy. I explained why it got more expensive in pretty good detail.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

This is a serious question. Considering conservatives are against minimum wage,...

Conservatives are against a federal minimum wage, since the Cost-of-Living varies greatly from State-to-State.

States and local governments that set minimum wages higher than Market Wages, cause Labor Substitution. Employers want value for their money so they substitute in one way with higher qualified candidates, leaving the least educated and least skilled to suffer. Employers substitute in another way by seeking automation or other cost-reduction measures, like limiting hours worked.

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

...against redistribution of wealth,...

It is Income is redistributed, not Wealth since you cannot exactly redistribute a parcel of land or a stock or bond certificate.

Income redistribution is nothing short of theft. If you want to voluntarily surrender your money, go ahead, but leave the restivus out of your hair-brained redistribution schemes.

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

... against the commons (i.e. publicly funded things like police, schools, fire, etc),...

The majority of Conservatives recognize the local school districts, fire and police are a matter of Opportunity Costs. What Conservative are against, is the often lavish waste of money by local governments.

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

... against unions,....

Unions are a political agency. There is nothing that Unions accomplished that would not have been achieved through the judicial system, as pertinent cases were already wending there way through the system. It would have only taken about 10 years to develop a body of case law that was favorable for employees.

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

... against healthcare.

Conservatives are against government-sponsored healthcare for reasons Liberals refuse to recognize, such as rationing, delaying, diluting or denying care, not to mention the costs are over-burdening.

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

Plus, society benefits from smart healthy people.

The way to achieve a health society is to force people to pay for health plan coverage based on the risks they voluntarily assume.

The obese can go walk a few miles everyday, instead of taxing the snot out of others.

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

No, the PPACA is only viewed as a failure because it was still forced to rely on the private market, and not everyone paid in, quite a few paid the penalty instead of getting insurance.

What you're really saying is you couldn't soak the young and the healthy to pay for the costs of the obese and others who live risky Life-Styles.

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

A real nationalized system works much better than the PPACA

You've yet to prove that. In the first place, you cannot have a nationalized healthcare system like Britain, Sweden, Portugal or Spain (read National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, US Supreme Court 183 L. Ed. 2d 450 (2012)).

Secondly, a system like Germany's would be grossly in effective on a federal level (but might work at the State level).

And finally, "Medicare-for-All" would require an increase in the HI Payroll Tax from 1.45% to 12.8% per employer and employee, and that would only cover 80% of current medical expenditures (assuming government really can reduce costs by 20%).

"In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income.

Virtual budgets are also set up at the regional levels; these ensure that all participants in the system—including the health insurance funds and providers— know from the beginning of the year onward how much money can be spent." -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)

Source: How Germany is reining in health care costs: An interview with Franz Knieps pp. 29-30


So how's that work exactly?

You collect $2.9 TRILLION in taxes, but healthcare costs are actually $3.2 TRILLION. Do you just delay, dilute or deny healthcare? Or do you grab money out of the General Fund and balloon the federal debt?

[wildflower82]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

Point is for people who are qualified to go to college and didn't grow up with rich mommy and daddy to pay for it, student loan debt with the current private system is killing them. As are medical bills for people who aren't of a 7 figure or higher net worth

Student loan debt has been around for a long time. I knew people who worked their way through college, took years to pay back their debt. Why did this change and now everyone must go to college? Even single moms with 3-5 kids, why is this my problem and not the person having too many kids before an education? I had one young man tell me, he was almost done with his classes and the school added on new class requirements. His thought, they didn't want the students leaving school and without the classes he couldn't get the degree that he almost had. Are the colleges adding more requirements to keep these kids in college and in debt? Plus, how can one justify paying $40,000-$60,000 for college only to come out with no guarantee of a job in that field. I would say this is more of a problem than most realize.


I don't know the answer to health care. I do know ObamaCare may have helped many, but it also ousted many of us who use to have health insurance. People who support ObamaCare, don't seem to concerned about those of us who lost ours, when they gained theirs. Even Obama lied to us, he told us if we liked our plan we could keep it, within a year I had none. My state opted out of the program, so Obama penalized all of us. I have had 4 different plans and all have eventually went away, because they didn't comply with the government and now I get to pay the penalty in the amount of $1300.00.


How is this fair, how does it work for people to lose their insurance, just so the government can pay for others with our taxpaying money?

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

I just explained it. But I'll go into it again. No new major universities have been built since the 60's or 70's. So a static supply of schools. But a growing demand as more people are wanting to attend college than did 40 years ago. And education is labor intensive, so it can't be made more productive through an assembly line or machine. So aside from bigger class sizes, of course it's going to get more expensive. Same reason that a one night hotel stay in San Francisco could rent you an apartment for a whole month in flyover country, supply and demand.

Restricting the number of students admitted should have nothing to do with price.

That's like saying the only way to restrict how many people see a movie at the 7:30 showing is by raising the price. No, all they have to do to keep the number of seats sold to the same number of seats in the theater.