Educated vs "Non-Educated"

Yes, it is. When your socio-economics are profit based and you rely upon purchased services, you are practising pure capitalism. It means you (or your society) earns enough to not have to do extraneous work (growing food, building houses, caring for the old and infirm, etc) yourself. Instead you can pay others to do it for you, via your PROFITS. There is no more capitalist capitalism than that.

Collectivism (aka, socialism and capitalism) is non-profit, and does not therefore allow for paid labour. All labour is provided by members themselves.

 

The opioid crisis created first by the drug companies and compounded by the "war on drugs" is behind the higher death rates.

I don't think voters will go along with voluntary cost sharing. Is that the hill you plan to die on?

 

How do you ensure personnel adequacy if profitability is reduced? We are already importing providers. Canada is importing providers hand over fist and is still coming up short. The smorgasbord of care we are accustomed to simply wont exist under cost cutting schemes were discussing.

When I say means tested I mean no subsidy for those who don’t need it. I agree on adding competition by allowing purchasing across state lines. But insurance that can’t charge more for added risk isn’t insurance. It’s cost sharing. We must stop using the term insurance now. It no longer applies.

Agree. But we are moving towards less competition.

That was my point. It’s been corrupted since at least WW2. How can we keep costs low if we keep increasing real and artificial demand?

You’re probably right. I keep forgetting how willfully ignorant we have become as a society. We need everything done for us. If the common cold needs professional medical attention in otherwise healthy individuals there is probably no solution to our problem.

I’m opposed to all price fixing. My reference to price fixing was only to bemoan the hiccup it caused in the statistics table I provided. Prices below insurance pay rates can be negotiated today.

I know opt out won’t happen. Our society is much to authoritarian and greedy at this point. I believe there should be separate pools for responsible and irresponsible people if we are going to cost share. Otherwise what is portrayed as sympathy and benevolence is simply enabling bad behavior. That is cruel.

In my. experience it’s set up to make motivated people who don’t do stupid things richer. Of course existing capital is leveraged, that’s unavoidable. But there is seldom any talk of non monetary assets and how they can be leveraged to achieve financial success.

They do. And it’s not right. And doing so while also claiming to protect property rights is hilariously absurd.

I’m a fan of generosity as well. I’ve been blessed to live among demographics that take care of these functions of government themselves for the most part. I know government doesn’t have to provide everything.

I appreciate that. Most people call me a liar.

 

That's right, blame anyone but the person sticking a needle into their arm.

 

The thing is, refusing to recognize that there are kids whose parents are doing nothing to promote the education of their kis is NOT AN EXCUSE for leaving those kids behind.

By excluding them we increase the odds of them being supported by our tax dollars - instead of them being part of pushing America forward.

Excluding them is a horrific decision - as we see today. We need to reduce generational poverty, as that is hugely expensive. We need the brain power in our new economy. And, since graduates earn an average of $1M more during their careers, we even need their tax dollars. Give what 25% income tax on $1M is, we do get a meaningful payoff, especially considering the alternative that they could be sucking social safetynet dollars.

Getting kids educated is a big win for US, let alone those kids.

 

WE are not excluding them, and WE are not leaving them behind - their parents are.

More importantly, how do you propose to force their parents to comply? Because you know as well as I do that parental participation is essential. And if you think the parents shouldn't have to comply, how on earth is that fair to all those parents and kids who do comply - given they would have to do so much more work to get the same result? Are you actually seeking inequality and inequity?

 

So, what’s the difference between a liberal and a progressive, other then spelling ? Progressives support the exact same things liberals do.....exact. Progressives support the same things that conservatives in other countries support. Progressives agree with every-other govt. in the free world on healthcare, gun control and AGW. Tell us, what’s the difference ?

 

Are you telling us that social programs don’t charge money and turn enough profit to pay salaries ?
In Russia, as in the US, enough profit is made for the ceo and board members. The difference is, Putin is the CEO of all the major industries. He’s doing the same thing as heads of companies do in the US. Under citizens united, we’ve become an oligarchy.

 

So, your taxes don’t purchase services ? Of course they do. Your taxes entitles you to services.

 

Progressives are NOT liberal, at all. They're fundamentally conservative, in that they believe in specific solutions for all times and all conditions. A genuinely progressive individual (ie, a liberal) understands and accepts that certain times and conditions will require solutions they may not personally favour, politically. Progress means forward momentum, and to move forward you have to course correct often. Steering one way produces a circle, not progress.

 

You missed the point, entirely. Probably intentionally, since you can't refute it.

 

I'm not suggesting we "force their parents to comply". I do believe parents should do what they can to promote the education of their children. But, I think we're pretty much limited to offering help and advice rather than requiring them to comply.

What does "inequality and inequity" mean? Our job is to create success. What help is needed for that is unlikely to be identical in all cases. Right now, there is huge inequity in that we're leaving a lot of kids behind on something that will affect them and their families for their entire lives.

 

Taxes are the result of PROFIT.

 

Many students, no matter how motivated, are incapable of earning significant scholarships.

What about people who don't live near a university? What if there is no family home?

 

So you accept that nothing can be done but ensure we ourselves are not bad parents?

It's unfair and inequitous to provide 'results' free of obligation to those who don't do anything to earn it, while others have to work very hard to achieve the same result. That's what giving freebies in education does.

 

Sure. As I said, if you can't secure a scholarship, you'd best make damn sure you take a USEFUL degree. One which leads directly to well paid full time work.

Most people live within 2hr commute of a city, and pretty much all cities have universities of some description. Get on the damned bus/train, like the rest of the world. No family home? You think the average high school graduate was raised in a tent?

 

It’s not unfair. We tax the s.h.i¿t out of everyone to protect your way of life. You want the next battery that makes electric cars practical and the next doctors to save your asteroid, and war planes to protect you, you pay for it with taxes..

 

Sure, all 20k computers won’t shut down the local town. Really, your experience as a college student from a middle class family is what ?

 

Uneducated, you mean these rich folks were illiterate?

 

The conservative part about progressives are, they pay their bills.

 

No, I did not say anything REMOTELY like that.

Our kids did not pick their parents. And, if the kid crapped out in that department, I don't see any justice in holding the kid accountable.

Putting up financial roadblocks to their education is the sinful act And, we are doing that.

I don't know what party school you attended, but where I went if students didn't apply themselves seriously, they found themselves on the street.

 

Isn't trying to justify laziness a kind of arrogance as well?

 

It cost between $125 -150 k to educate a high school kid for four years .
It costs lots of money. Just ask the property tax payers in towns. It’s the single greatest expense of ANY municipality that funds public education.

 

So, it’s claimed the ACA saves 30,000 to 45,000 lives a year. The deaths per year from drugs according to the CDC have increased from 36,000 to 70,000 since 2007. So your argument amounts to admitting the ACA was not effective in decreasing non drug deaths or drug deaths. If the ACA prevented non drug uninsured deaths but not drug deaths, the death rate increase would have been zero. But it is not. The math just doesn’t support both claims being true.

Probably not because it requires responsibility. Why would I die on any hill? These programs are legitimate solutions for many people. Just because you and insurance companies and government don’t like them because you can’t control everything they do doesn’t mean they aren’t acceptable to others. Progressive’s ideas don’t work for everyone either, but you have no problem forcing them on everyone. What’s wrong with choices? I’ve mentioned other options, too.