Medicare-For-All

[Salvador]

Obviously free college education does not mean universal college education. I am saying about subsidizing the existing college seats in public universities only.

There are 14.6 million students enrolled in public universities,

U.S. college enrollment statistics 1965-2027 | Statista

So that halves my original estimate from approximately $750 billion annually to around $375 billion annually. So you'd have to cut military spending in half in order to pay for the government subsidized payment of existing seats in public universities.

I'm not so sure what would happen if America's military power were reduced in half? I suppose our nation would have no significant military presence beyond our own borders; I suppose our nation would be at the mercy of Russia and China or other nations as well who'd fill this void.

Also, there'd be a sense of unfairness that half of all college age persons would be left out of being able to take advantage of the government paying for their education. Out of fairness to everybody, technical skill training as well as college education should be paid by the government for the sake of everybody who wants to obtain any form of higher education. Right?

 

[sayak83]

There are 14.6 million students enrolled in public universities,

U.S. college enrollment statistics 1965-2027 | Statista

So that halves my original estimate from approximately $750 billion annually to around $375 billion annually. So you'd have to cut military spending in half in order to pay for the government subsidized payment of existing seats in public universities.

I'm not so sure what would happen if America's military power were reduced in half? I suppose our nation would have no significant military presence beyond our own borders; I suppose our nation would be at the mercy of Russia and China or other nations as well who'd fill this void.

Also, there'd be a sense of unfairness that half of all college age persons would be left out of being able to take advantage of the government paying for their education. Out of fairness to everybody, technical skill training as well as college education should be paid by the government for the sake of everybody who wants to obtain any form of higher education. Right?

Not all of the 14.6 million are doing undergraduate are they? Mtech, MBA, and higher degrees in law, commerce etc. will not be included, obviously. Further, private universities are not included.

No it's not unfair. Admission is based on a competitive system, and if a certain % of seats are reserved for students from poorer background, that would work quite fine. Not everyone can complete higher education right now, and everyone has to go to college. The only point here is reasonably good students should be able to afford college without taking loans and going into debt.

US will still have the largest millitary budget among all countries even if it's millitary budget is cut by half. See below.
1. United States

But a 20% budget cut should be enough given that undergraduate education cost is highly inflated to cover for high end research costs in the universities. Further reduction will be achieved through online classroom style education systems. Why should undergrads be forced to pay for university R&D budget or PhD stipends or high salaries of research oriented professors?

 

[esmith]

Obviously free college education does not mean universal college education. I am saying about subsidizing the existing college seats in public universities only.

Oh you mean State run institutions, that the individual state sets the monetary rules. The federal government has no say in those matters. The federal government does provide research grants to colleges and universities but that is it, read the following Article for further information on federal funding.
FYI the only institutes of higher learning that is federally funded are the military academies, which include the Coast Guard.

 

[Shaul]

In a single player healthcare system where private insurance is all but replaced, all providers would either take it or go out of business.

Is that strictly correct? I believe that there are private, fee only doctors in the U.K. who are not part of the NHS. I would presume similar boutique doctors would exist in the U.S. after a Medicare for all system were started.

After all, the ruling oligarchs would want them.

 

[youknowme]

Is that strictly correct? I believe that there are private, fee only doctors in the U.K. who are not part of the NHS. I would presume similar boutique doctors would exist in the U.S. after a Medicare for all system were started.

After all, the ruling oligarchs would want them.

I would assume some private insurance would still remain.

 

[esmith]

I'm sure that happens, but in my experience insurance doesn't want to pay. You have to remember, providers are people as well, and unnecessary tests are more work they have to do. Generally, adding more is incredibly difficult because overloaded case loads are common and frequent.

I see you haven't really talked to a doctor in a long time about things other that your health.
Ask a doctor why he orders what you think might be unnecessary test and if you are really acquainted with him/her they will probably tell you it's because of the possibility of a malpractice suite. Will give you an example.
I had a small growth (non-cancerous) removed from the back of my neck. It took 3 or 4 stitches to close the very small incision. I told him he didn't need to do it, just put a band-aid over it. His response was along the lines of "if I did that it will leave a scar" I told him I could care less he said something like maybe now but you might change your mind in the future and I would be liable. So it was basically a CYA procedure.

 

[youknowme]

[. . .]

I'm not so sure what would happen if America's military power were reduced in half? I suppose our nation would have no significant military presence beyond our own borders; I suppose our nation would be at the mercy of Russia and China or other nations as well who'd fill this void.

[. . .]

Even at half our military budget eclipses the combined budget of both Russia and China.

In 2016, the Chinese government's official defense spending figure was $146 billion, an increase of 11% from the budget of $131 billion in 2014.

Military budget of China - Wikipedia

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) 2017 Military Expenditure Database estimated Russia's military expenditure in 2016 at US$69.2 billion.

Military budget of the Russian Federation - Wikipedia


We have an insanely powerful military, let's stop pretending otherwise.

 

[youknowme]

All this discussion of where the money is going to come from is just a straw-man, it should be clear where the money is going to come from, we are going to take it from the greedy corporations that have turned people's health into a business and give some power back to the people.

Congressional Republicans seized on a new study Monday estimating that a universal health-care plan by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) would cost the federal government $33 trillion by 2031, arguing that it proves Democrats have moved too far left.

This seems to be the point most Reps. get hung up on, but then Sanders claims:

Sanders, looking at the same study, says it shows his “Medicare for All” proposal would save Americans $2 trillion.

“A Medicare-for-All health-care system would save the average family significant sums of money,” Sanders said in an email to The Washington Post. “Yes, an individual may pay more in taxes, but that family of four that is spending $28,000 a year for health care today will no longer pay premiums, co-pays or deductibles to private insurance companies.”

From 2019 to 2028, the federal government would spend an average of 2.8 trillion more per year on health care if Sanders’s plan were fully in place, according to the study, published by the Mercatus Center, a libertarian-leaning think tank. The study — written by Charles Blahous, a former official in President George W. Bush’s administration — notes that this price tag would not be covered by doubling what the government currently takes in through individual and corporate taxes.

But to single-payer advocates, there is no obvious difference to the average American between sending their money to a private insurer through premiums and sending it to the government through higher taxes.

And, they say, putting all Americans on one insurer would create a large-enough pool to force private health-care providers to charge less, while eliminating private insurers’ spending on marketing and administrative overhead that do not improve health outcomes.

On its current trajectory, the United States is projected to spend $7.65 trillion annually on health care by 2031, according to the Mercatus study. That number would drop to $7.35 trillion if Sanders’s plan were implemented, the study found. Over time, that adds up to a net savings of about $2.1 trillion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...09212fb69c2_story.html?utm_term=.0484fca32017

 

[Salvador]

Not all of the 14.6 million are doing undergraduate are they? Mtech, MBA, and higher degrees in law, commerce etc. will not be included, obviously. Further, private universities are not included.

No it's not unfair. Admission is based on a competitive system, and if a certain % of seats are reserved for students from poorer background, that would work quite fine. Not everyone can complete higher education right now, and everyone has to go to college. The only point here is reasonably good students should be able to afford college without taking loans and going into debt.

US will still have the largest millitary budget among all countries even if it's millitary budget is cut by half. See below.
1. United States

But a 20% budget cut should be enough given that undergraduate education cost is highly inflated to cover for high end research costs in the universities. Further reduction will be achieved through online classroom style education systems. Why should undergrads be forced to pay for university R&D budget or PhD stipends or high salaries of research oriented professors?

Top-ranked academically talented students already aren't obliged to pay for a higher education, because they can get scholarships or grants. There's now also many low interest student loan programs in place to financially aid many economically disadvantaged students attending college or a university.

I'm certainly not in favor of federal taxpayer dollars paying for somebody to party hardy a few semesters away at a university where he/she is there for the social experience rather than with the intent of completing his/her higher education and obtaining a degree from a college or university.

 

[sayak83]

Oh you mean State run institutions, that the individual state sets the monetary rules. The federal government has no say in those matters. The federal government does provide research grants to colleges and universities but that is it, read the following Article for further information on federal funding.
FYI the only institutes of higher learning that is federally funded are the military academies, which include the Coast Guard.

Well, the state run colleges should have free or heavily subsidized seats.

 

[sayak83]

Top-ranked academically talented students already aren't obliged to pay for a higher education, because they can get scholarships or grants. There's now also many low interest student loan programs in place to financially aid many economically disadvantaged students attending college or a university.

I'm certainly not in favor of federal taxpayer dollars paying for somebody to party hardy a few semesters away at a university where he/she is there for the social experience rather than with the intent of completing his/her higher education and obtaining a degree from a college or university.

Scholarships are only a fraction of total number of undergrads who study in public colleges. All who do should get heavily discounted education.

 

[Salvador]

Scholarships are only a fraction of total number of undergrads who study in public colleges. All who do should get heavily discounted education.

Don't states already subsidize their colleges and universities, so that students are getting a higher education at a discount rate?

Should the pay of professors and school administrators be capped in order to make higher education learning be more affordable?

Should students, who fail to complete their higher education, be required to reimburse the cost of taking away highly-valued university seats from other prospective students who are more serious about completing their higher education?

 

[sayak83]

Don't states already subsidize their colleges and universities, so that students are getting a higher education at a discount rate?

Probably they don't do enough or don't have enough seats. If we take SAT for example, I think that top 40% of all those who take SAT should get free (or like 80% discounted) education...and that qualifying criteria should get extended to upto 60% for students from poorer backgrounds.

 

[youknowme]

[. . .]

I'm certainly not in favor of federal taxpayer dollars paying for somebody to party hardy a few semesters away at a university where he/she is there for the social experience rather than with the intent of completing his/her higher education and obtaining a degree from a college or university.

You realize that a number of studies haven shown that when given money the poor generally act responsible with that opportunity, as they are motivated to make the most out of what they get. Personally, I think you harbor some stereotypes of the underprivileged and I think you underestimate them.

This this just one example:

3. The poor do not systematically abuse cash transfers (e.g. on alcohol).
Despite stereotypes that poor households will use cash transfers to buy alcohol, tobacco and other “temptation goods,” studies consistently show no significant impact or a significant negative impact of transfers on such spending.4,18,19,22,23,24,25,26,27 Similarly, most studies find no effect on the number of hours worked. Some studies show increases in working hours as household members migrate to obtain better jobs.23,28,29,30,31

Research on Cash Transfers | GiveDirectly

 

[Salvador]

Scholarships are only a fraction of total number of undergrads who study in public colleges. All who do should get heavily discounted education.

Student loans are widely available.

 

[sayak83]

Student loans are widely available.

Not loans. Free education. Never loans.

 

[dianaiad]

I looked into it, you are feeding me BS numbers. But even with your made up numbers I must point out that many people live past the age 40.

My numbers are not 'made up.'

I not only know what my sons make, I also did my own research.

You, however, need to prove your own claim now.

.....................and you entirely missed the point. It would be very much desirable for people to live past 40...especially doctors, who have mostly spent the first three and a half decades of their lives getting ready to BE doctors, so that they can see to it that the rest of us live past forty.

The point I was making is that those who pooh pooh the hardships of doctors who may well face drastic cuts in income as a result of nationalized health care aren't paying attention to the point I was making:

If a doctor doesn't catch up to a truck driver in terms of income until s/he is forty or more (considering the debt most of them incur) what earthly incentive does anybody have to become one, if the income proposed in future is about the same as that of the truck driver?

One son just sorta 'fell into' the field; he is dyslexic and school was always difficult for him. He's not stupid; he spends his 'road time' listening to lectures from pretty much everybody, and has taken every free class Harvard offers (and Harvard offers a lot of 'em). The other son made his decision deliberately; he crunched the numbers and figured out that he would be considerably better off going the 'trucker' route than going to college and getting into debt. He was right. He's forty, owns his own home outright, can retire when he wants to and is not in debt to anybody...and if HIS daughter wants to go to college (unless of course it's Harvard) she'll not have a huge student debt to repay.

It's taken him twenty years of very strict money management and hard work to get there....and now many of those who want nationalized health care think that they can cut doctor's salaries (before those doctors have to make insurance premiums, etc.) down to what a truck driver makes, starting them twenty years later, with far higher expenses and starting with a huge debt load.

Me? I'm a retired school teacher. I don't think we make enough money either.

 

[dianaiad]

Student loans are widely available.

I see that you have never been in the position of having to pay one of those BACK, at more than a $1000 per month.

 

[youknowme]

My numbers are not 'made up.'

I not only know what my sons make, I also did my own research.

You, however, need to prove your own claim now.

.....................and you entirely missed the point. It would be very much desirable for people to live past 40...especially doctors, who have mostly spent the first three and a half decades of their lives getting ready to BE doctors, so that they can see to it that the rest of us live past forty.

The point I was making is that those who pooh pooh the hardships of doctors who may well face drastic cuts in income as a result of nationalized health care aren't paying attention to the point I was making:

If a doctor doesn't catch up to a truck driver in terms of income until s/he is forty or more (considering the debt most of them incur) what earthly incentive does anybody have to become one, if the income proposed in future is about the same as that of the truck driver?

One son just sorta 'fell into' the field; he is dyslexic and school was always difficult for him. He's not stupid; he spends his 'road time' listening to lectures from pretty much everybody, and has taken every free class Harvard offers (and Harvard offers a lot of 'em). The other son made his decision deliberately; he crunched the numbers and figured out that he would be considerably better off going the 'trucker' route than going to college and getting into debt. He was right. He's forty, owns his own home outright, can retire when he wants to and is not in debt to anybody...and if HIS daughter wants to go to college (unless of course it's Harvard) she'll not have a huge student debt to repay.

It's taken him twenty years of very strict money management and hard work to get there....and now many of those who want nationalized health care think that they can cut doctor's salaries (before those doctors have to make insurance premiums, etc.) down to what a truck driver makes, starting them twenty years later, with far higher expenses and starting with a huge debt load.

Me? I'm a retired school teacher. I don't think we make enough money either.

Ya, I don't really care.

 

[esmith]

We have an insanely powerful military, let's stop pretending otherwise.

I admit, that Congress orders things that the military does not need or want but that is not the issue here. You say we have a insanely powerful military, but the major problem is being combat ready. If you have a large military that is not combat ready then you do not have a viable military.
U.S. Navy
U.S. Navy
The Status of U.S. Navy Readiness: Too Small, Too Old, and Too Tired

USMC
U.S. Marine Corps

USA
U.S. Army

USAF
U.S. Air Force
Fewer planes are ready to fly: Air Force mission-capable rates decline amid pilot crisis

General State Of Combat Readiness of The US Military (very long read except for Conclusion Article
An Assessment of U.S. Military Power