Why doesn't the U.S. have free, taxpayer-funded healthcare and college?

  • 164 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Avatar image for nattydaddy604
#151 Posted by NattyDaddy604 (304 posts) -

@Xabiss: Good catch, I did not notice that. Data is so easily manipulated in politics, which is why I try to include logic. Both the left and right use it, but the left is so notorious for it, its absolutely disgusting.

Avatar image for shellcase86
#152 Posted by shellcase86 (4351 posts) -

@XVision84 said:

College is more demanding and affords much greater flexibility. I don't believe that making it free is a good idea. Plenty of people go to college just to screw around and drop out. Plenty also get a degree that they have no idea what to do with. This would all be a massive waste of resources. It should be your responsibility to get yourself educated and if you wish to get yourself educated but you're struggling, then have more support programs for them (based off merit).

I don't know about the United states education system but I just oppose the idea of free education.

If not free education at the college level, I assume that's what you mean, then how about 'free' / supported / reduced costs for technical schooling or community college programs?

Avatar image for zaryia
#153 Edited by Zaryia (8289 posts) -
@Xabiss said:
@nattydaddy604 said:

@zaryia: "Stop. Defending a terrorist is surprising in any situation." You're a coward bud. Never have I said that what he was doing was OK. Never have I tried protecting the shooters actions. I have condemned his actions multiple times. Quit putting words in my mouth.

You want Islamic people to enter America, so therefore, you want Islamic terrorism. Got it.

As for the rest of your stats, I can see you are 1 of 4 who still blindly believe the media

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/02/poll-fake-news-494421

I'll take the rest of your "sources" with a grain of salt

You notice his source Brennancenter.org, well this is super important information he left out:

The Brennan Center is headquartered in New York and the board is co-chaired by Robert A. Atkins and Patricia Bauman. Michael Waldman , a former speechwriter/assistant to President Bill Clinton is the president of the Brennan Center for Justice.

Hmmm I wonder which way they lean with there views. ROFL. I love how liberals only use left leaning publications and try to use them as facts! He also used the Washington Post enough said!

While they have a slight center-left tilt, They are factually reliable,

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/brennan-center-for-justice/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post/

"Factual Reporting: HIGH"

But I'll do you a favor and directly source their data if that irks you so much:

  • Columbia University Study: http://www.projectvote.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/Politics_of_Voter_Fraud_Final.pdf
  • Comprehensive Study by Wapo:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/
  • Dartmoth Study: https://www.dartmouth.edu/press-releases/no_evidence_voter_fraud.html
  • Harvard Study: http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cces/news/perils-cherry-picking-low-frequency-events-large-sample-surveys
  • Federal Trial in WI: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/frank-v-walker-preliminary-injunction-motion-granted?redirect=legal-document/frank-v-walker-motion-granted
  • SCOTUS opinion: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-21.ZO.html
  • Kansas: The secretary has also testified about his review of 84 million votes cast in 22 states, which yielded 14 instances of fraud referred for prosecution, which amounts to a 0.00000017 percent fraud rate.

Mind you none of the above data is estimation. It's directly saying what Brennan is. It's not theory or inference. I can keep going if you want. But please tell me how all major studies and court verdicts on this are false. I look forward to your valid counter studies.

0.00000017 percent fraud rate.

Avatar image for zaryia
#154 Edited by Zaryia (8289 posts) -
@nattydaddy604 said:

As for the rest of your stats, I can see you are 1 of 4 who still blindly believe the media

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/02/poll-fake-news-494421

This has nothing to do with the studies and polls I linked. Refute them directly with your own polls and studies, stating exactly what you are stating like mine did rather than theorizing based off of them.

0.00000017 percent fraud rate.

@nattydaddy604 said:

I'll take the rest of your "sources" with a grain of salt

Those are among the most accurate pollsters in US, as well as Harvard, Columbia, Dartmoth, SCOTUS documents, and various other Court Documents.

I consider this quote your concession.

@nattydaddy604 said:

@Xabiss: Good catch, I did not notice that. Data is so easily manipulated in politics, which is why I try to include logic. Both the left and right use it, but the left is so notorious for it, its absolutely disgusting.

That's a shitty catch. He didn't actually refute any of their studies from Harvard, Columbia, Dartmoth, government, and court documents that Brennan linked. None of that data is being manipulated, it's all directly stating what Brennan is.

Voter Fraud is extremely rare and infinitesimally small. All of the data is on my side on this debate, hence you losing.

This is a fact.

Avatar image for XVision84
#156 Posted by XVision84 (15812 posts) -

@shellcase86: I'm supportive of reducing costs but again it should be for a reason and applied for. I don't believe that costs should just be reduced for everyone because that puts unnecessary stress on the tax system while many people will not take their program seriously.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
#157 Posted by ronvalencia (27472 posts) -

@shellcase86 said:
@XVision84 said:

College is more demanding and affords much greater flexibility. I don't believe that making it free is a good idea. Plenty of people go to college just to screw around and drop out. Plenty also get a degree that they have no idea what to do with. This would all be a massive waste of resources. It should be your responsibility to get yourself educated and if you wish to get yourself educated but you're struggling, then have more support programs for them (based off merit).

I don't know about the United states education system but I just oppose the idea of free education.

If not free education at the college level, I assume that's what you mean, then how about 'free' / supported / reduced costs for technical schooling or community college programs?

Out-of-control cost with the education sector i.e. socialism and 3rd way ideal capitalist open competition regulation needs to be applied for this sector.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#158 Posted by LJS9502_basic (166369 posts) -

@ronvalencia said:
@Jag85 said:
@Jacanuk said:

You mean the NHS is average for a majority of the population providing average care which often means doctors don´t have the best options available to them because of cost.

In the US you can get the best care money can buy and if you have the cash why not get it.

Most people don't have the cash to afford the best healthcare. So the point still stands that US-style healthcare is only more beneficial for a minority of the population, whereas UK-style NHS healthcare is more beneficial for the majority of the population.

Nevertheless, the UK does also have optional private healthcare alongside the NHS. So both public and private healthcare systems can co-exist.

Australia also has duel single payer and private healthcare systems.

UK spends more than 2 percent of GDP on defence

Australia spends about 2 percent of GDP on defence

Then the logical thing would have been for trump NOT to increase the military budget.

Avatar image for iambatman7986
#159 Posted by iambatman7986 (2764 posts) -

Because republicans start yelling socialism and spreading falsehoods in order to start a false narrative about the subject in an attempt to scare citizens of the country away from the prospect. In reality it works in every other major country.

I never understood why republicans care so much about anti-abortion and then are basically screw the children and their health once they are born with health issues or get health issues later on in life.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
#160 Edited by ronvalencia (27472 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:
@ronvalencia said:
@Jag85 said:
@Jacanuk said:

You mean the NHS is average for a majority of the population providing average care which often means doctors don´t have the best options available to them because of cost.

In the US you can get the best care money can buy and if you have the cash why not get it.

Most people don't have the cash to afford the best healthcare. So the point still stands that US-style healthcare is only more beneficial for a minority of the population, whereas UK-style NHS healthcare is more beneficial for the majority of the population.

Nevertheless, the UK does also have optional private healthcare alongside the NHS. So both public and private healthcare systems can co-exist.

Australia also has duel single payer and private healthcare systems.

UK spends more than 2 percent of GDP on defence

Australia spends about 2 percent of GDP on defence

Then the logical thing would have been for trump NOT to increase the military budget.

https://www.afr.com/news/policy/defence/will-australias-defence-budget-magic-number-stand-the-test-20180503-h0zkuz

Australia's defence spending to be increased.

The big-ticket items include $50 billion for the 12 submarines, 72 F-35 stealth fighters that would cost taxpayers billions, and a new fleet of frigates. In fact, procurement expenditure over the next 10 years would carry a price tag of close to $200 billion, approximately 55 per cent of the annual defence budget over this period.

Australia's ~2 percent of GDP on defence to increase to ~3 percent.

https://www.aspi.org.au/report/cost-defence-aspi-defence-budget-brief-2018-2019

In 2018–19, the government is increasing the defence budget towards its commitment of 2% of GDP by 2020–21. Based on the Defence Portfolio Budget Statements (PBS) and GDP predictions in the budget papers, we calculate that it will fall just short, at 1.98%, but that’s essentially a $400-million rounding error. And, based on forward estimates predictions, the Defence budget will grow past 2% in 2021–22.

Australia's Right (Liberals, Nationals) and Left wing parties (Labor, Greens) supports defence spending plans.

Australia doesn't have US population size to influence supply and demand with it's currency, hence it has to be prudent with government spending.

-------------

Like US education sector, there's plenty of money in the US health system, but the overheads are very high.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
#161 Edited by ronvalencia (27472 posts) -

@iambatman7986 said:

Because republicans start yelling socialism and spreading falsehoods in order to start a false narrative about the subject in an attempt to scare citizens of the country away from the prospect. In reality it works in every other major country.

I never understood why republicans care so much about anti-abortion and then are basically screw the children and their health once they are born with health issues or get health issues later on in life.

Socialism is not ideal, but countries like Australia/NZ/UK/Canada (CANZUK) and Nordic Countries regulates/enforce the ideal "capitalist open competition"(1) instead of the classic Socialism model.

1. For example, medicine related data patents and copyright.

Denmark PM Explains Socialism to Bernie Sanders & Debunks What is Socialism.

Loading Video...

On administrative efficiency, Australia, New Zealand and UK beats Nordic countries e.g. Norway and Sweden .

US health and education sectors needs to be reformed. US President has doesn't enough power to execute this process since US House of Representatives rivals the President.

AOC's big government socialism/guaranteed federal jobs sounds like classic Latino socialism i.e. not CANZUK/Nordic's smallest government/high efficiency targets with basic service delivery model.

PS; Australia's welfare money benefits has been turn into community work i.e. to get people back to work habits.

Avatar image for horgen
#162 Posted by Horgen (120186 posts) -

The Green New Deal pulled the guaranteed federal jobs point very quickly.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#163 Posted by LJS9502_basic (166369 posts) -

@ronvalencia: Again you ignore the basic fact that we already spend more than other countries and trump increased military spending.

Avatar image for headninjadog
#164 Posted by headninjadog (740 posts) -

@horgen said:
@Solaryellow said:
@mattbbpl said:

Cute picture but do you honestly think the first three are examples of good, government involvement here in the states?

Any program will fail if you cut funding for it.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
#165 Edited by ronvalencia (27472 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@ronvalencia: Again you ignore the basic fact that we already spend more than other countries and trump increased military spending.

US health system has higher overheads. Australian center-right wing government has identified US's data exclusivity patents with medical drugs would lead to a cost blow out.

US's existing single payer VA system gets gimped by drug cost blow out.

ObamaCare is not single payer, hence government pays into private insurance with their profit overheads.

@horgen said:

The Green New Deal pulled the guaranteed federal jobs point very quickly.

It's not Nordic/CANZUK nanny state model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom

CANZUK group has beaten US on economic freedom index.

The basic 3rd way idea is to have strong capitalist environment to fund welfare.

Avatar image for Rockman999
#166 Posted by Rockman999 (7469 posts) -

Short answer: Because of lobbyists rule politics and the GOP hates educated voters more than they hate non-whites being able to vote.