WHY NOT A NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SERVICE FOR EVERYBODY?

There's NO WAY this issue is simple to discuss. Getting into the details simply shows the nature and urgency of the problem.

About Healthcare - the US has an average human lifespan that is two-years less than Europe. People are dieing earlier due to a lack of adequate healthcare, which is too costly for many. (Namely as regards obesity.)

From here: Obesity What Are the Consequences

Excerpt:

As regards Tertiary-level Education attainment, no way are most of our kids in lower-income families getting any. And if they do it's at the very bottom (training courses). Which is, of course, better than nothing.

I'm sure the lack of a proper Post-secondary Schooling is a major reason why America has such a high crime-rate and level of incarceration. All the manufacturing jobs (that hired the lesser educated) have long-since fled to China ...

 

Sorry, Lafayettebis, have I got my wires crossed somewhere? Was it not you who was advocating cutting state education?

 

WHERE' S THE WAR?

Nope, it was me who said Post-secondary Education (Vocational, Associate, Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctoral) degrees MUST BE GUARANTEED by the state- or national government.

{Let's first note this: The average cost of a post-secondary education in a state-run school in America is close to $14K a year.)

My suggestion:
*Cost totally reimbursed or government-prepaid for anyone declaring a family Income below the Poverty threshold (example: $26200 for a family of 4). Then, for incomes above that level:
*Families with higher incomes a percentage of total-cost in a state-school is refunded in direct relation to the family-income. (The cost-proportion subsidized depends upon the family's declared income.)
*With a maximum-level based upon the Family Net-of-taxes Income. Meaning this:
*At some level of family-income, and in relation to a state's post-secondary Annual Tuition Cost, the percentage funded by the state and government can descend to zero. Which means that,
*Depending upon family income, some pay the total-cost in a state-school and/or send their children to private post-secondary schooling.

All children of the state (and not one less) should be funded first by the city/state (primary, secondary-levels of education) .Then, all others be funded in part from the government's Discretionary Budget (see below):



ABOUT THE DISCRETIONARY BUDGET

Note that the 2020 national-spending on Education is that tiny pie-portion pointing to the southwest. Defense spending consumes clearly half the entire budget ...

NB: Some lower-populated geographically contiguous-states can band together to assure the program's sustainability amongst themselves. That is, such that class-levels are maintained and programs need not be cancelled.

So, where's the war? We need that budget shown above to defend America from a Mexican invasion ... ?

 

OK apologies, that explains why I was struggling with your points.

OK. This has been suggested a few times this side of the pond.
Can I ask if as a rich person I can choose where to pay for my Childs' schooling. Can they go to a more expensive private school if I don't mind paying the extra?
And if so how are the schools for the poor funded, will the rich be expected to pay the same tax even though they are funding their Childs' education privately ?
You see my concern is where the $14,000 dollars a year comes from?
I have a further concern that we end up with a two tier school system, with the lower one very poorly funded.

Not saying that is your aim, but a possible consequence.

 

LIVING RICH

Of course, you can make that decision. If you have the means to do so!

My concern here/today is expressly the 10/12% of families living below the Poverty Threshold. (Presently they are 2.6 human-beings per family in the US.) They are around 34 million fellow-Americans.

So, how do we get them out of poverty!?! In Europe, the kids of all families can go to a public post-secondary institution of learning (either for free or a tuition that rarely surpasses 2/4K Euros a year.) If we can assure that our kids get a proper post-secondary education, then it will reduce their numbers in poverty:

Yes, taxation should remain the same - but NOT at the upper-levels where they are presently. From here: How stuff works

And then, in the early 1960s, Kennedy came along and to please "daddy" for helping him find the funding for his election started the reduction in upper-income taxation.

I am suggesting strongly that we get back to the pre-Kennedy level of 90%.Or, he US will continue to have the rich still making one-hulluva-lotta-muney. (See here history of upper-income taxation in the US.)

There will always be two kinds of post-secondary education. That is, "public-" and "private-" Tertiary-Level schooling. Let's just find a way to make sure those who WANT that education can find it very, very cheaply if their family income-level merits the financial support.

We cannot expect Hah-vahd to close its doors. And, some people will THINK that such schooling is actually better. Studies have shown that such is not necessarily the case. It does not matter.There is no way to do away with comparative-riches - except what the Russians/Chinese did in the previous century. And we can't have that!

So let's just try to manage the problem of exaggerated personal-enrichment. I ask again: Who-the-hell NEEDS a billion dollars to "live-rich" ... !

 

Agree with most of that Lafayetteblis. Maybe slightly less than 90% of the richest income, but otherwise yes.
Here in the UK you can send your child to private school but you still pay the same tax that covers all education. The government then partly fud the private school to the same value as a government public one.
Works quite well, though the private schools still turn out a higher proportion of high achievers.

 

This I don't understand. Why? Are high achievers born into only rich families?

Frankly, those are just some kids that rich parents want treated "especially". So they send them to private schools.

Having done some research, it appears that yes there are some states in the US that have "high-achiever" secondary schooling. I suppose that's all-right, but I certainly would not want to be paying taxes that support secondary schooling for only high-achievers.

If they are high-achievers, let them go to a high-achiever university for a post-secondary degree. I just don't see spending tax-revenues to favor any "special educational"* ...

*With the exception of course to schools teaching professional skills.

 

I'm afraid its as simple as more money buys a better education. Though many of these private schools, such as Eton will take in high achievers under bursaries, as this improves their record and encourages the rich to come.

Indeed.

What we have in the UK is far from perfect, but its far from terrible a well.

I am sadly poorly educated in how your American system works, I will study harder.

 

ONE'S EXISTENCE

I've lived in the UK. What you have in post-secondary education is Just Fine. The cost is slightly more than in France, but not that much.

What's a bit hefty, however, is the number of foreigners who want to learn English AND do so by pursuing a degree. Which is pretty damn smart of them!

It's a shame that the Brits wanted to leave the EU. That is going to cost the UK dearly. More so because of lesser job-creation.

It's a damn-fine system because we have some very good professor. Post-secondary schooling costs are exorbitant. Just like Healthcare - both are OTT.

We can't seem to get those two right. And they are the Two Most Important Components of One's Existence.

And as regards "existence", well worth the read here:
U.S. Health in International Perspective: Shorter Lives, Poorer Health.

Excerpt:

Need more be said ... ?

 

How long ago did you live here and roughly where?

Especially the Chinese, mon son studied marine biology and had two Chinese students in his class who spoke virtually no English.
Caused a little bit of disruption but brings the country £billions.
Are you aware of the change in recent years in the UK on how post secondary education is funded?

Tell me about it! I voted remain, but there is a strong vein of nationalism sweeping our country at the moment, mostly among the old and retired who are unaffected by the results of leaving the EU.
It started out as a concern about freedom of movement around the EU, but has transmuted into a flag waving "we're better than you are" attitude to our neighbours.
Give us a few years and we will be asking to re-join.

Yes, the States lags behind the rest of the civilised world in these two areas, we find it bizarre. But then of late we look at your behaviour over there with growing alarm. Your democrats are equivalent to our right wing, yet you voted in a guy a thousand miles right of them.
Many people now view the states as unstable and un-progressive as China.

 

As a rich person you have the right to have a higher level of taxation. But not lower, because Income Disparity in the US is rampant. (Be sure also to see the Income Distributions chart as well.)

As a citizen of the US, you also have a right to provoke your political-party to reduce taxes and protect doctors' salaries and American-kids cant get a post-secondary education for nearly nothing (and they become angry and end up in jail).

National Politics is always a matter of "trade-offs". Except political-parties think we are too dumb to understand that so they politicize with useless razzmatazz.

And like the simpletons we are, we swallow it all "hook, line and sinker "...

 

NOT ON THIS PLANET

Nope!

My argument is that the country need not be spending more than half its Discretionary Income on the DoD.

There are far more important communal-objectives necessary at a very low cost, namely:
(1) A death-rate largely attributed to insufficient Healthcare (and lack of self-disciplined eating-habits) must be lowered, as well as
(2) Far too many high-school graduates students cannot afford even a state-school post-secondary education (the average cost of which in the US is $14K a year)!

I find those two objectives as key to the well-being of Americans during their lifetime. And I hope I am not the Only One ... !

PS: I live in France. To see a doctor costs me $25. All hospitalization expenses are paid by the National Healthcare System. And I sent my kids to university at a tuition cost of $2500 per year.
PPS: Yes, all the above is costly. So, I pay higher taxes than you do stateside. You don't get something for nothing - not on this planet.

 

The discretionary income puzzles me, what is that? its not the tax take by a country mile.

I live in the UK, always have done.

I agree with higher tax for the rich. My view is:
You make a deal with your country. It provides a safe place to run your business with a healthy well educated workforce, good roads and infrastructure, a police force to protect you and your property (regardless of how much property you have) It provides protection from war and safety net for you if you fail or fall ill.
In return its expects you to share some of your wealth in the form of tax if you get wealthy. None of this is concealed from you when you set up your business, so why try and renege on the deal when you make it big.
There are countries you can trade in that do not offer any of these benefits or protections and ask for lower taxes, you have the choice to trade from these, you you might need to consider the extra cost of buying your local officials, paying for your private army and the ransom on your daughter. The choice is yours.

 

I've got a better idea. Why don't we have compulsory military service so that everybody will be veterans and will be eligible for VA benefits?

 

I have a deal for you: you run your country's healthcare and we will run ours.

 

Rude.
Unnecessary.

 

True. Your John Lennon came here bitching about the taxes in England. He no sooner got here when started pushing socialism. ("Imagine")

Fix your own damn problems, you've got plenty of them, we'll worry about ours.

 

That was over 20 years ago and you shot the poor bastard.
Anyway I see no reason for you to exclude me from the conversation just because you don't share my views.

And you could start by fixing your own personal problems, maybe the way you speak to strangers

 

My problem is having nosy Limeys and Canucks minding our business. You really don't know the situation here and your suggestions are unconstitutional.

 

Well then as you are unable to control your insulting behaviour I shall ignore you. Luckily everyone else I've met on here so far have been respectful even when they disagree with my views.

 

That is not a serious idea. It may be trolling or it may be flamebait, but it isn't a serious idea because 1) not EVERYONE is ever going to join the military, and 2) The VA has had some notable problems.

Further, I, for one, strongly oppose compulsory participation in a military force dedicated primarily to protecting and enforcing the "rights" of the powerful rich by making ordinary people consent to sacrificing life and limb for them.

 

"Enforcing the rights of the powerful rich", now that's an unserious idea. Robert Heinlien, ever hear of him? He came up with compulsory military service years ago. And yes, the VA has had its share of problems but people who have never served want a VA style system and people who haven't paid into Medicare want a Medicare style system. Everybody wants something for nothing and they expect the people who have taken care of their own needs to take care of the needs of the people who haven't.

If they don't want to serve and earn their own way, it must be because they don't care enough.

 

Well, I live in the US, where a visit to my PCP costs me nothing. My prescriptions cost me nothing. This is possible due to my private insurance company, I don't need to reach into anybody else's pocket.

 

It is worth remembering that "Discretionary spend" is only 30% of the U.S tax spend. So military spending being half of that is only 15% of that tax budget.
That maybe still too high, but is not as dramatic as the 50% figure being used to demonstrate the points above.

 

It's also worth remembering that we need an intact military in case we need to rescue England again in this century.