Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Untrue.
The first problem is fixing the already Free State education, ... so students can read and add at a college entrance level.
And not everyone is happy working in an office.
Democratic Debate
- Thread starter dukkha
- Start date
Untrue.
The first problem is fixing the already Free State education, ... so students can read and add at a college entrance level.
And not everyone is happy working in an office.
Althea
Althea told me...
Often, tuition is less costly than housing. You don't believe that tuition costs are skyrocketing?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...sn-t-get-you-the-cost-of-student-housing-will
Call it whatever you want. Somebody is paying the institution, professors, janitors, etc. How will the fees be computed in a 'free college for all' program?
.What I'm talking about, is funding. Are there free trade schools now?
Median being the operative word. Plumbers make six figures if they own the company. If you have a trade, you can be self employed. Job placement for someone with a Liberal Arts degree? The stats are not encouraging.
As opposed to 'pushing' people into 4-8 years of education that simply won't pay dividends? You're describing a flaw in our current system that forces people to obtain a college degree in order to find a high paying job.
Nobody is 'pushing' anyone. I'm merely stating that in our current economy with virtually no manufacturing here, college is not the answer for the majority in this nation. Free college for doctors would go a long way toward lowering healthcare costs. Of course, you have to ask why people become doctors? Some do it to be rich. Some don't.
https://hbr.org/2019/05/what-the-job-market-looks-like-for-todays-college-graduates
Is it your claim that only college students/grads are 'ambitious'? Is that fair?
Steve Jobs? Bill Gates? Mark Zuckerberg?
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/11/self-made-millionaires-dont-go-to-college.html
Good question. If you don't have a job, it doesn't matter.
What is untrue? That brain development continues into your mid-20's? That is completely true.
You should be learning those intangible skills in grade school, and then developing and honing them in college.
Otherwise, you arrest your brain's development at age 18.
They can already do that. We're past this part. We're at the part now where those who can get into college can't afford it. Hence, the need for free public college.
Free public colleges also forces private institutions to lower their tuition costs in order to compete for students. Don't you like competition?
True, however if you want to raise your lifetime cap on earnings, you need a college degree. Trade school grads have 30% lower wages than Bachelor's grads.
While I agree that not everyone is cut out for desk work, that's not necessarily what college trains you for.
Yes you are
Pussy
Althea
Althea told me...
I understand. I think the question is, 'are they working in their desired field, or are they just taking a job that doesn't otherwise require a degree?
My GF is a nurse for more than 20 years. Suddenly, colleges are demanding a bachelors degree instead of her associates. With 20 years experience, I challenge anyone to show me how forcing her to study the civil war is advancing her nursing.
The state is trying to funnel money to the colleges, so they won't give accreditation to hospitals with less than 85% bachelors degrees for nurses.
That's complete and utter nonsense. Real life experience always trumps schooling for the majority of jobs. Lawyers/Doctors are the obvious exception.
I would even argue that engineers should be required to work in the field before entering college. I see a lot of gross incompetence in engineering/architecture in the last 10-20 years.
They've been skyrocketing since 2000. Also, those costs change depending on private or public colleges. I went to Syracuse for undergrad, and housing/board was about 1/3 of the tuition cost.
I still am not following you here. The institution gets funding through the State, just like they do now, only instead of students chipping in a share, they don't.
Somebody is paying the police station, police officers, etc. How are those fees computed?
Somebody is paying the fire station, fire department, equipment, etc. How are those fees computed?
Somebody is paying the public grade school, teachers, janitors, etc. How are those fees computed?
No, just like with colleges, they're not free.
Ah...how many of them actually do that? Not many.
And to successfully run a company, you probably need a quick MBA or business management degree so you know what the fuck you're doing, and so your company doesn't go under in its first year, like most small companies do.
According to BLS in 2017, the unemployment rate for those with a Bachelor's is just 2.7%. For associates? 3.6%.
Bachelor grads also make 30% more than Associate's grads.
Althea
Althea told me...
The Public Option gives private insurance companies competition. Their CEOs are skimming billions off the top. The ACA went pretty far in curbing that, but who knows what's left of the law?
Those who obtain great coverage from employers would never go into the Public Option. People like myself, who have been trapped in the individual market for 40 years, would jump at the chance to obtain quality insurance at a reasonable price.
Because that's the reality.
The more educated you are, the likelier you are to be employed, and the higher your wage goes. The stats are clear.
Here's BLS again...this is from 2017.
Althea
Althea told me...
Stepping out for the evening. Going to see a great local blues musician. I'll address this later, as it's a good discussion.
Well, I think you're completely wrong, and I think the jobs you think have virtue are the ones most likely to disappear as technology continues to develop. I used to have to pay someone to physically clean my gutters. Now, I have a machine that does it in a fraction of the time, and at a fraction of the cost.
I don't know anyone who graduates with a Bachelor's degree and expects to be hired at a Vice President or CEO level. It depends on the industry, sure, and internships are playing a terrible role in that, but that's not the fault of higher education...it's the fault of greedy ass companies who won't pay recent grads a good wage, and Boomers who are refusing to leave the workforce because they need the health care and/or need to save for retirement.
Which has nothing to do with college and everything to do with greed.
If we are talking purely in the realm of lifetime earnings, then yes...that is completely fair. We know that the higher your education level, the higher your lifetime earnings. The two are intrinsically linked, but we shouldn't be denying someone the opportunity to achieve that simply because they're not wealthy enough to afford college. Does that sound fair to you?
All of whom are actively preventing wage growth at the companies they run (or ran).
All of whom are setting the low compensation for recent grads.
All of whom are not raising pay commensurate with experience, education, and training.
None of which is the fault of higher education, but rather corporate greed.
According to BLS in 2017, Bachelor's grads have an unemployment rate of just 2.7%.
According to BLS in 2017, Associates grads have an unemployment rate of 3.6%.
According to BLS, Bachelor's grads have weekly median earnings of $1,100.
According to BLS, Associates grads have weekly median earnings of $890.
So just comparing those numbers, we see a clear advantage for people with a Bachelor's vs. Associates. Those people see higher lifetime earnings, which also correlates to health care in our current system. The more educated you are, the more you earn, the healthier you are,and the longer your life expectancy.
The current Chairman of WarnerMedia, Bob Greenblatt, was a theater major in college.
Now, he runs the largest media company in the world.
Well, weren't many modern nursing techniques developed in the Civil War? At least, around that time starting with Florence Nightengale in Crimea, but then carrying into Clara Barton and Louisa May Alcott. It wasn't until the mid-1800's that people discovered germs, and that you should probably clean and dress wounds so they don't get infected. In fact, the guide to modern nursing was developed during...wait for it...wait for it...wait for it...the Civil War.
Nursing in the Civil War
http://www.pbs.org/mercy-street/uncover-history/behind-lens/nursing-civil-war/
Your GF should know this shit...it formed the basis of her profession. Civil War history is intrinsically important to nursing. That's where most of the nursing techniques we see today originated!
Well, I would want well-trained nurses that were educated to a higher standards, don't you???
No. No no no. This is why so many businesses fail. People think they can conventional wisdom their way through running a business. They think they're entitled to run a business. But let me be clear; no one is entitled to run a business, let alone run one poorly.
Well, I can't account for anecdotes, but from where I sit, the problem isn't that there aren't good engineers, the problem is that our infrastructure is outdated and in bad need of an overhaul; and putting a steel plate down over a hole, or patching it up with duct tape isn't gonna cut it.
What is the competition?
This is why I asked what a Public Option does differently from Aetna.
There is no difference. They both do the exact same thing.
My argument is that when the payor has a profit motive, there's no incentive for that payor to negotiate lower costs. So if you have two parties who are both mutually benefiting from higher costs, what's the incentive to lower them?
Health insurance and health care are two different things. "Great coverage" doesn't mean anything because you're still restricted to your provider network. So you have no choice for your health care. You have no frame of reference and no ability to shop around for a doctor who might be the best one for you. You are limited by your insurance coverage. It's not freedom.
The only competition you are talking about is competition among payers for who reimburses your doctor, not competition for what doctor treats you best.
And hundreds of thousands of people have insurance and go broke from medical costs anyway. So you're not solving anything.
Also according to KFF, it costs the average business $15K to provide coverage to just one worker. And the worker is still paying $7,100 in premiums, deductibles, and other OOPE. All that goes away with M4A, and it saves everyone money, even the business.
So, let's do some math...
Right now, the median income in this country is $61,000.
Right now, the average worker who gets coverage through their employer, pays $7,100, or 12% of their income.
In M4A, that same worker would instead pay 4% of their income, or $2,440 if we use median income as the standard, and the business would pay 7.5% of its income. For almost every business, they will end up saving far, far more. Take Netflix for example:
Netflix
7,100 full-time workers
$845M in profit in 2018
Using KFF's metric, Netflix pays $106.5M to provide health care to all their workers.
Using M4A's 7.5% rate, Netflix pays $63.4M to provide health care to all their workers.
So M4A would save Netflix $43M.
What can they do with that?
Fund productions which create jobs (every show Netflix produces creates about 500 jobs, from production through distribution)
Give all its 7,100 employees a $6K raise
Acquire more content so people will subscribe to the service
Expand (thereby creating jobs)
evince
Truthmatters
yeap its a russo bot hole
Health insurance companies do not provide healthcare. The company buys it. It is part of a worker's compensation. Insurance companies fight and deny care. That increases their profits. They make being ill a much worse experience. Spending time on the phone, writing letters and emails to get the procedures your doctor prescribes is demeaning and cruel, especially when you are at your weakest.
They make up complicated systems that require experienced people to find a way through it. They force doctors to hire staff to administer insurance claims which are purposely made more complex.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Happy Saturday gfm,
The only individuals who can rule over themselves are people who exist all alone in a completely secluded place away from the rest of society. As soon as you get a bunch of people sharing the same land there has to be a government and laws. I am pleased to be a part of great self-rule as it is in the USA. Meaning, of course, that we used our self-rule to create a vast government to control and govern our great nation. The very fact that we disagree on the basic implementation of that shows that personal self-rule without powerful government is not workable in society. People need to conduct themselves and self-police to the law of the land, a law only possible with a strong government to stand behind it, and if people don't self-police then the government needs to enforce the powerful law of the land.
That is the point where you begin to put words into the mouths of liberals, speak for them, and essentially hold both sides of the conversation, assigning the worst of thoughts to liberals and reserving the best to conservatives. It would be more realistic to let liberals speak for themselves and react to that rather than what you make up about them.
All that suffices in doing is showing how you pretend to be reacting to liberals but instead are putting words in their mouths and reacting to your caricature. It's a strawman fallacy.
In your view. In the views of others those roles are reversed. You are only entitled to your own view, not your own facts.
I said I am glad that Trump cannot destroy the Constitution. And I disagree when you say liberals are destroying it. Nobody is destroying it. The Constitution is still there. Same document. It has not changed, nor has it been destroyed. All that is changing is the current events and our challenge of trying to imagine how to apply a several hundred year old document, written by candle light and whale oil to the age of cell phones and the internet. That interpretation is our challenge.
You made that part up. You have no commonly heard quote from liberals claiming they do not want to follow the Constitution. Where are the pictures and videos of crowds of protesting liberals carrying signs that read "Destroy the Constitution?" There AREN'T any. You made it up because your view cannot work unless liberals are horrible people who are trying to destroy the USA, the very place they live and love, which is absurd at face value.
Correct. There is no basis for that claim, none in the creative examples you imagine, because the claim itself is simply incorrect.
That's just flat wrong. There is no written language which conveys a thought or concept absolutely. Everything said or written is always open to interpretation. What is a thought? How do you quantify it? We can't even do that.
No, they are not. You made an unsolicited observation ABOUT ME, falsely claiming: "You wish to be ruled, rather than rule yourself. You wish to be a slave, rather than be a free man."
That is strictly your view. It is not true, not a fact. Your view has already been shown to be fallible because you foolishly have declared that the Constitution requires no interpretation.
I do not have to sit here and listen to you trying to tell me how I think. The truth and what you think are two very different things. You need to stop talking about me. I could very easily decide that you are not respecting me and place you on Ignore forever. You are getting the benefit of the doubt right now. That is exhaustible. Testing my limits doesn't usually end well. Just stop talking about me and we are fine. I hope you can understand this and why I need to draw the line at some point. We have reached that point. Consider that line drawn right now. If this is an issue I know how to solve it very easily once and for all. I do hope you understand. You may like to put words in my mouth but I do not appreciate that. It takes two to have a conversation. If either person decides it is not worth it because the other has gotten too personal, and decides to end it, then it is ended. If there is any part of this which is unclear I have an (unfortunately irreversible) way to make it very easily understood once and for all, I assure you.
It is very straightforward logic to say a large and strong country needs a large and strong government. It only follows. It is illogical to believe capitalism is so magical that it can take the place of a large and effective government which addresses all facets of American society. Capitalism has no planning; nor responsibility to society.
This is your explanation of how a small and weak government can produce a large and strong nation? One word? Capitalism? So you think capitalism is the end-all be-all? Can never do any wrong? No, that is not correct. Capitalism is not all good. Prostitution is capitalism. The street drug market is capitalism. Loan sharking is capitalism. Usury is capitalism. Pollution is capitalism. A for-profit mechanism for providing a product to meet demand, with the emphasis on maximizing profits, not meeting the need. No responsibility to society nor the environment is implied nor required. How can drug dealers, thugs, polluters and hookers build a large and strong nation? Sounds more like expecting cancer to build a strong body. Cancer is simply undirected growth, just like capitalism. Goes wherever it finds it can thrive. Capitalism is a great engine of ingenuity but it requires the guidance of a large and comprehensive government. Unchecked capitalism would turn the USA into one giant strip-mall.
If those things are in violation of the Constitution why have powerful conservatives not been able to have them eliminated even though they hold a majority of the Supreme Court?
The answer, of course, is that those things are actually in compliance with the Constitution, and you are flatly wrong that the Constitution is not open to interpretation. It is a foolish mistake to think that your interpretation alone is the only one possible. That is not allowing others the same freedom of thought and opinion that you claim for yourself. A nation of people who think like that cannot exist unless they all hold the same exact view. No diversity allowed.
The only individuals who can rule over themselves are people who exist all alone in a completely secluded place away from the rest of society. As soon as you get a bunch of people sharing the same land there has to be a government and laws. I am pleased to be a part of great self-rule as it is in the USA. Meaning, of course, that we used our self-rule to create a vast government to control and govern our great nation. The very fact that we disagree on the basic implementation of that shows that personal self-rule without powerful government is not workable in society. People need to conduct themselves and self-police to the law of the land, a law only possible with a strong government to stand behind it, and if people don't self-police then the government needs to enforce the powerful law of the land.
That is the point where you begin to put words into the mouths of liberals, speak for them, and essentially hold both sides of the conversation, assigning the worst of thoughts to liberals and reserving the best to conservatives. It would be more realistic to let liberals speak for themselves and react to that rather than what you make up about them.
All that suffices in doing is showing how you pretend to be reacting to liberals but instead are putting words in their mouths and reacting to your caricature. It's a strawman fallacy.
In your view. In the views of others those roles are reversed. You are only entitled to your own view, not your own facts.
I said I am glad that Trump cannot destroy the Constitution. And I disagree when you say liberals are destroying it. Nobody is destroying it. The Constitution is still there. Same document. It has not changed, nor has it been destroyed. All that is changing is the current events and our challenge of trying to imagine how to apply a several hundred year old document, written by candle light and whale oil to the age of cell phones and the internet. That interpretation is our challenge.
You made that part up. You have no commonly heard quote from liberals claiming they do not want to follow the Constitution. Where are the pictures and videos of crowds of protesting liberals carrying signs that read "Destroy the Constitution?" There AREN'T any. You made it up because your view cannot work unless liberals are horrible people who are trying to destroy the USA, the very place they live and love, which is absurd at face value.
Correct. There is no basis for that claim, none in the creative examples you imagine, because the claim itself is simply incorrect.
That's just flat wrong. There is no written language which conveys a thought or concept absolutely. Everything said or written is always open to interpretation. What is a thought? How do you quantify it? We can't even do that.
No, they are not. You made an unsolicited observation ABOUT ME, falsely claiming: "You wish to be ruled, rather than rule yourself. You wish to be a slave, rather than be a free man."
That is strictly your view. It is not true, not a fact. Your view has already been shown to be fallible because you foolishly have declared that the Constitution requires no interpretation.
I do not have to sit here and listen to you trying to tell me how I think. The truth and what you think are two very different things. You need to stop talking about me. I could very easily decide that you are not respecting me and place you on Ignore forever. You are getting the benefit of the doubt right now. That is exhaustible. Testing my limits doesn't usually end well. Just stop talking about me and we are fine. I hope you can understand this and why I need to draw the line at some point. We have reached that point. Consider that line drawn right now. If this is an issue I know how to solve it very easily once and for all. I do hope you understand. You may like to put words in my mouth but I do not appreciate that. It takes two to have a conversation. If either person decides it is not worth it because the other has gotten too personal, and decides to end it, then it is ended. If there is any part of this which is unclear I have an (unfortunately irreversible) way to make it very easily understood once and for all, I assure you.
It is very straightforward logic to say a large and strong country needs a large and strong government. It only follows. It is illogical to believe capitalism is so magical that it can take the place of a large and effective government which addresses all facets of American society. Capitalism has no planning; nor responsibility to society.
This is your explanation of how a small and weak government can produce a large and strong nation? One word? Capitalism? So you think capitalism is the end-all be-all? Can never do any wrong? No, that is not correct. Capitalism is not all good. Prostitution is capitalism. The street drug market is capitalism. Loan sharking is capitalism. Usury is capitalism. Pollution is capitalism. A for-profit mechanism for providing a product to meet demand, with the emphasis on maximizing profits, not meeting the need. No responsibility to society nor the environment is implied nor required. How can drug dealers, thugs, polluters and hookers build a large and strong nation? Sounds more like expecting cancer to build a strong body. Cancer is simply undirected growth, just like capitalism. Goes wherever it finds it can thrive. Capitalism is a great engine of ingenuity but it requires the guidance of a large and comprehensive government. Unchecked capitalism would turn the USA into one giant strip-mall.
If those things are in violation of the Constitution why have powerful conservatives not been able to have them eliminated even though they hold a majority of the Supreme Court?
The answer, of course, is that those things are actually in compliance with the Constitution, and you are flatly wrong that the Constitution is not open to interpretation. It is a foolish mistake to think that your interpretation alone is the only one possible. That is not allowing others the same freedom of thought and opinion that you claim for yourself. A nation of people who think like that cannot exist unless they all hold the same exact view. No diversity allowed.
Wow, it sounds sadistic when you put it that way.......... Prob because it is.....
Greatest country in the world & you have ppl dyeing for lack of proper & timely care.....