Universal healthcare and education

a reply to: Xtrozero

England has long passed away from the idea of free school and students typically take in $15k per year of debt.

Err....that's not true.
Education is free up to approximately 18 years old if people want to go to and do what used to be called 'A' Levels.

Only if a student decides to go to university are there costs and subsequent debts etc.

Its a very controversial topic and many of us feel its an absolute outrage that this was introduced.

The stipulation is once the student starts earning over $27K per year in their job the 4% loan is automatically taken out of their pay check in the form of a tax.

To be fair it is only a relatively modest amount - still too much in my book - and as far as I'm aware its pretty much the same in the USA where many 'college' graduates leave burdened with a big debt that they have to pay off over years.....unless of course Mammy and Daddy can pay for it all.

originally posted by: Freeborn

Err....that's not true.
Education is free up to approximately 18 years old if people want to go to and do what used to be called 'A' Levels.

Only if a student decides to go to university are there costs and subsequent debts etc.

Its a very controversial topic and many of us feel its an absolute outrage that this was introduced.

Well the US has free education too up to the age of 18, its called high school....

To be fair it is only a relatively modest amount - still too much in my book - and as far as I'm aware its pretty much the same in the USA where many 'college' graduates leave burdened with a big debt that they have to pay off over years.....unless of course Mammy and Daddy can pay for it all.

In 2017 the average student loan in the UK was $55k, US in 2019 is a little over $30k. I'm not slamming the UK or anyone. In America they are screaming how unfair our education system is and being a bunch of entitled little wankers they want their debt slate cleaned. If you have a degree and can not move into a professional job and pay off a measly 30k WTH did you go to college for in the first place.

a reply to: Xtrozero

So there's free education in both the US and UK up to 18.

Student tuition fees in England and Wales were introduced in 1998 - thanks to Scottish MP's voting for them despite the same being free in Scotland - and it saddled graduates with a # load of debt.

I understand your opinion that graduates should be able to start paying that debt off once gaining employment but the sad fact is the wages for graduates have been actively going down thanks to universities handing out degrees like confetti.
I'm sure its not quite a simple as that and there are no doubt many other contributory factors.

But probably more importantly the thought of studying for any degree regardless of its merits etc and suffering such debt puts off many able students from more traditional working class backgrounds from going onto higher learning.
Its not such a deterrent for those from more affluent and entitled backgrounds and just serves to reinforce the glass ceiling that prevents so many in this country from reaching their full potential.

I've only read the first page, but just wanted to add some comments.

I'm from northern Europe and consider myself lucky for having so many options for education but also knowing that I got my back covered in terms of health care. Now, regarding private vs public health care institutions, there are benefits and drawbacks. Let's say you're scheduled for a CT scan but you have to wait 2-3 months. If it's nothing serious then you can wait and only pay the equivalent of pocket lint. However, if you're worried about maybe having brain cancer or whatever, you can pay up a larger amount and get a scan the next week. If you're poor, you'll have to wait and by then it may be too late. Rich vs Poor, 1-0. One problem that's cropped up over the years is the migration of the best qualified doctors and personnel from public to the private sector due to higher salaries (and somewhat more freedom I guess). This can also be a problem in that some hospitals simply don't have the quality standards that they should have in certain fields.

I'm aware of the extreme anti-socialism (also called communism by many in the US) and that it's every man for himself, but let's say one of your kids get cancer. This is horrible beyond belief for any parent obviously. Isn't it extremely unfair that they got it, by no fault of their own, and that you simply cannot cover the monumental cost of treatment due to how the system currently is? This goes for any other disease + treatment. I've also seen people say that they've never needed to go to the doctor once, so why should they be forced to pay for something they don't need? THIS is perhaps the most short sighted argument ever, but be that as it may.

Having said all this, there are probably things I'm wrong about of how it works in the US. As far as I've gathered, your current healthcare system forces (in some areas only?) your employer to offer this, which in turn takes its toll on their own economy. This then trickles down on the workers since they have to pay their own fees for something they may not want. Is this correct? Or can you choose healthcare plans from other 3rd parties? It's still somewhat hazy to me.

As for taxes, I'm at about 37% of my income which is within the normal range. Gas prices are high, food prices are increasing and are actually becoming a problem in my opinion, public transport is pretty expensive in many areas, property expenses are high, etc. We complain a lot about it, but one thing we tend to forget is our healthcare system which benefits everyone. If you're poor you may need to wait, but you still get the treatment you need unless it's a super rare disease that needs experimental treatment, in which case it has to be approved.

Fire away.

originally posted by: Freeborn

I understand your opinion that graduates should be able to start paying that debt off once gaining employment but the sad fact is the wages for graduates have been actively going down thanks to universities handing out degrees like confetti.
I'm sure its not quite a simple as that and there are no doubt many other contributory factors.

But probably more importantly the thought of studying for any degree regardless of its merits etc and suffering such debt puts off many able students from more traditional working class backgrounds from going onto higher learning. Its not such a deterrent for those from more affluent and entitled backgrounds and just serves to reinforce the glass ceiling that prevents so many in this country from reaching their full potential

This is the biggest thing that is so wrong with the system. Not everyone should go to college, not everyone has the IQ to be successful in that environment, so Universities have dumb down their degrees, so everyone can get one. In the end many degrees will get you a position as head fryer at Burger king. I tell my two boys that if companies are not actively trying to recruit you by the end of your Junior year you are in a crap degree that doesn't align with the business world. People get these degrees and 30k in debt with no job waiting for them, but the colleges tell them it is worth $100k per year. They could have become a plumber apprentice and in two years be making more than 100k instead with zero debt. I blame most on the schools, but the parents and students are to blame too.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Make the standards required to get into University harder and only offer subjects that are relevant and required.
But at the same time make it more affordable and attractive for people from poorer backgrounds if they meet the necessary intellectual criteria.

How many media studies, diversity studies, classics and PPE etc graduates do we need?

a reply to: Skeletonized

About 80% of America get their health insurance through employers. About 5 years ago I got a brain abscess that was not good. Within hours I had a MRI and 5 days in the hospital that ended up with me on expensive antibiotics for 3 months with a nurse coming to my house twice a week and 6 more MRIs during that time. I ended up getting surgery to remove it as I hit the forth month and I asked my neurosurgeon what can I do, he said we can operate and remove it, I said OK as this was Tuesday and he asked me if I was busy Thursday which I laughed and said no. The whole thing had a cost of about $250k.

The cost to me was nothing as I received free 55% of my pay through the state, this is not taxed, and my insurance covered the whole bill with very little out of pocket expense to me.

I know we can have horror stories but much of America is insured and most have socialized workman's compensation as I do, so it isn't the every man for himself that the left preaches to the world.

BTW I'm in a very high 95% income tax bracket of 25%, that after deductions I paid about 12% in total taxes. My cost of living is also much lower than yours too...

originally posted by: Freeborn

How many media studies, diversity studies, classics and PPE etc graduates do we need?

I'm on board with free trade schools that turn into a good job. I'm also OK with the poor that meet a stick college requirement to get help. Didn't Trump just recently dump 400 billion into a minority college fund that is planned to last forever?

I think US taxpayers deserve the same health insurance the senators and representatives receive at taxpayers expense.

originally posted by: LuxFer
a reply to: Metallicus

Obviously its covered by taxes but im fairly sure we pay less tax overall than your country.

We also have a progressive tax system so the less you have the less you pay

A flat tax system does the exact same thing, but is far more fair. For example, in a flat tax system at a 10% rate:

If you make $1000,000 a year, you pay $100,000.

If you make $100,000 a year, you pay $10,000.

So, the one making a million per year pays 10 times what the person making 100,000.

What could be more fair than that?

I'll tell you...

Exempt anyone who makes less than $50,000 per year from any taxes whatsoever.

Generally, unless a government has extremely good ethics and procedures, bureaucratic corruption will sink in, and it will get heavier and heavier.
If the productivity exists in the majority of a population to support such a system, socialism is not needed from a government, as people have jobs and take care of each other.

An enforced socialist health care system represents a single point off failure, which can create a catastrophic hell hole, where people are sent to die in agony, with no care anyway.

If your or someone you love has no insurance and falls on bad times, it becomes a really important question.
What is someones life worth in monetary terms ? When people are suffering, it is inhumane not to act.
I wish there where black and white answers to these questions.

Unabashed profiteering in health care does not feel right, but drives innovation.
I think some kind of middle ground is needed.
You can pay private health insurance for many years, thinking you are covered, and then realize it's only really short term insurance in many cases when it's actually needed.

I think the real question, is do you trust your government not to f*ck things up.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Thanks. It's good to get different viewpoints on how this is set up because it seems like there are many variables, and many differing degrees of coverage, quality and cost. In any case, it's much easier for us in Norway to have a unified system as opposed to the much larger and diverse US, a fact that I think many (me included) forget. Not comparable in terms of solutions.

Touching upon education, I want to echo Ken Robinson and say that there is an increasing inflation in education where higher degrees have "less worth" since more and more people have one. Higher education is very much needed, and you do broaden you perspective and often get a better and richer understanding of things. However, the degree in which theoretical aspects of practical vocations is prioritized seems like a mismatch. And this is my impression, but it looks like in fact almost every educational path lacks the adequate practical lessons needed before starting relevant work. I know this applies to medical studies where doctors fresh off the assembly line complain about not knowing basic stuff, or not having enough training at least, so much so that it can be a risk towards patients.

There was also some law passed a while back (I believe) where private company heads (like electricians) would retroactively need a degree to continue on as is even though they had 40 years of experience and clearly knew what they were doing. Politics rearing its ugly head again.

This was perhaps a bit off topic in terms of the OP, but just wanted to share my views on it.

originally posted by: Skeletonized

Thanks. It's good to get different viewpoints on how this is set up because it seems like there are many variables, and many differing degrees of coverage, quality and cost. In any case, it's much easier for us in Norway to have a unified system as opposed to the much larger and diverse US, a fact that I think many (me included) forget. Not comparable in terms of solutions.

True, we have cities with more population than your country hehe. People don't think about that America has the third largest population in the world and each state also have their own laws and subsistence programs paid for by state taxes, not federal.

About 15% of the population I see as in need of further medical assistance and I wish the federal Government would focus on just.

a reply to: Skeletonized

A few years ago I was offered a place at the local University to study as an allegedly 'mature' student.
Unfortunately domestic circumstances prevented me from taking up the offer - I have recently been considering re-applying as things have changed a bit.

Whilst looking on the University website I had a good look around at other degrees on offer - I was intending to study Criminology and Youth Studies - and was amazed at the utter irrelevance of many courses.

I understood the need to open up University education to everyone - which has come at a price - but surely the courses studied need to be relevant and with some sort of practical application in 'real life'.
And the amount of new subjects studied that just seem to be present in order to placate the dogma of political correctness/diversity etc is staggering.

To a simple man like myself it just seems absolute bollocks.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Exempt anyone who makes less than $50,000 per year from any taxes whatsoever.

Why can't they pay 5k too? They most likely even use more services than the 100k that pays 10k.

a reply to: Skeletonized

That's what health care coverage is for.

If you make above a certain line, you should be able to afford it either because your employer offers a plan through your job or because you make enough you can arrange your budget to pay for your own individual or family plan which is much less feasible but still considered doable by the state, especially after Obamacare (look, I made a joke).

If you make below the line or are retired, the state (read federal government) had social programs for you -- either medicaid or medicare. These are state paid/backed insurance programs that you qualify for by being either low income, disabled, or fixed income/retired. They are in essence single payer.

Additionally, some states will also have programs like SCHIP or CHIP which are specially for children like the ones you mention. You know, the poor children who get cancer and whose parents cannot pay the bills. Those are medical assistance programs for low income children.

Underneath all of that are all the numerous charities and assistance groups that deal with kids like you mention, and help absorb the costs of medical bills for families caught in a bind.

What it takes are active, engaged parents who go out and look for assistance. No one comes looking for you.

a reply to: tanstaafl

I prefer an idea more like in Starship troopers. You can exempt yourself, but you lose the right to vote. You cannot vote again until you pay for a period of one presidential cycle, or four years.

No representation without taxation.

Are you a citizen? Do you have what it takes? That puts the burden of responsibility on you. It's your choice how important your vote is.

originally posted by: ketsuko

What it takes are active, engaged parents who go out and look for assistance. No one comes looking for you.

There is a small percentage that fall outside of all that and I support the Goverment helping those people. I don't care if it is a billion per year, it helps them, BUT universal healthcare is a pipe dream that would only work if we tear down the insurance umbrella and start from the bottom up...Sanders' 60 trillion or Warren's 30 trillion isn't going to work for anyone.

And as I said before it turns into Goverment cheese from the past...looks like cheese, but smells and taste like crap, BUT they call it cheese. Think about universal health care being the same way.

a reply to: Xtrozero

That small percentage was all that needed help the last time around, but the government would prefer power, so they took off and nuked it from orbit for all of us.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
"originally posted by: tanstaafl

Exempt anyone who makes less than $50,000 per year from any taxes whatsoever."

Why can't they pay 5k too? They most likely even use more services than the 100k that pays 10k.

Good question, but I disagree with your premise, which suggests that old brain-dead demwit talking point of 'fair share'.

The Revenue Act of 1913 imposed a one percent tax on incomes above $3,000, with a top tax rate of six percent on those earning more than $500,000 per year.

So, anyone earning under $3k was totally exempt.

$1 in 1913 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $26 in 2020.

So. I'll change my suggestion that anyone with an income under $78, not $50k, should be 100%, totally exempt from any kind of income taxation.

Imagine the stimulus to the economy if this was to happen.