I think these problems are mostly local in scope... That's why I don't really address them in the context of the President. They're important, but the federal level of government doesn't really do much but write checks or regulate them on an interstate basis.
And this is the problem. They're treated as local problems, by local special interests, and with limited, local resources. We end up with a complex patchwork of hundreds of different and often competing systems, making it easy for the more unified corporate interests to run roughshod over the people.
Our government is bad at healthcare and everything was better when they largely weren't involved. (I still think you need a medicare/medicaid alternative for the under-employed/old.)
Yes, government is bad at healthcare, but not because they couldn't easily be good at, but because it's hobbled by special interests making billions off the chaos and the inability of small government to reign them in.
When government wasn't involved things were
not better.
I just think that states have a lot of unique problems in this regard and they gotta deal with the problem closer to home for responsiveness.... I mean California and South Dakota for example have such a different set of needs it's hard to put them in the same box and come up with something workable.
Local, unique problems may be handled locally, but universal or national problems; problems of The Commons, are best handled collectively, by a disinterested, not for profit actor.
If we'd allowed states to handle problems locally we'd have no national parks, massive pollution, no standard, 8 hour day; no universal suffrage, no Social Security or Medicare, &c, &c.
Education needs to be gutted -- it's too costly, and too much is being taught that doesn't lead to an income. Again, most of this is under state level control. We like to pretend that it's one educational system, but really the 50 states have 50 different ideas of schooling.
It's worse than that, Within each state, even each district, education varies. Schools in poor neighborhoods get poor education, in middle class neighborhoods they get middle class education. Schools in Louisiana get education inferior to that in Massachusetts. This is what happens when schools are funded not by Big Government, but by local property taxes.
What other country does this? Collective affairs are best handled collectively, not locally.
Too costly? Education is an investment, and it yields interest. We can't afford
not to educate.
I'm particularly against the removal of hands-on elective classes like shop, home economics, and things of that nature. (Which has been all the trend in recent years...) Education needs to give you basic life skills, and I think it's failing on that and replacing most of the useful things with fluff.
There's more to education than practical life-skills.
Basic education establishes a foundation of general knowledge upon which specialized skills might be built. It should include civics and cultural literacy, as well as the rudiments of important subjects like economics, mathematics, ecology, history, psychology, &c; skills a competent member of a larger society and, presumably, a voter, should have.
Higher education focuses on producing intellectuals and polymaths. It's 1ry purpose is to increase happiness and appreciation of the world.
Then there's trade school, to teach the "practical," non-fluff skills, like plumbing, medicine, cooking, law, auto mechanics and engineering.
College is largely useless at this point unless you're in a medical, legal field, or a trade (where they actually give you a sort of apprenticeship). The focus of education has moved into a bunch of useless and impractical concerns and none of it leaves you without anything but a fat bill.
It gives you social competence, political competence and happiness, my Philistine friend. It makes you a competent social and political actor. It shows you the big picture, not just an isolated puzzle piece.
Many of my friends have children that have spent on college and are not working in the field of their major. We need to change that. The costs have gone up mostly because the government gives the schools unlimited funny money via the loan program. Schools used to be so much cheaper, and teach you way more.
What is this "funny money" the government loans? Why should any student
need a loan? This is a new thing.
Corporate interests discovered there was money in education and, being good capitalists, they capitalized on it.
You used to be able to work your way through many colleges with a Summer job, and most state colleges began as free institutions, for in-state students. Neoliberalism changed all that. It made a virtue of avarice.
Housing is complex, but I'd say it was largely better with no government involvement. I'm old enough to remember when the govt wasn't giving out all the funny money and Section 8 and so on, and the prices were WAY lower. (like half or less, lol.) This artificial stimuli has done nothing but drive up prices and make the path of ownership even more difficult. This is another situation where the govt has largely hurt that rather than helped it. (like schools) The market for housing needs to be more natural and then it would sort of resolve itself.
I remember when there weren't homeless encampments everywhere, and beggars at every traffic stop. This is the result of
lack of government involvement, not a result of it. It was when government began withdrawing from social programs, and avarice became a virtue, that housing prices started going up.
So, I guess in these areas I am highly conservative, but it's because I've been alive long enough to know days when education, housing, and healthcare were a lot cheaper. The only real gain on the healthcare front from a government perspective is the pre-existing condition mandate, but I'd like that further expanded to include a consideration of extremity. For example, many conditions have a scale --- you can be diabetic, but taking really good care of yourself and have no actual risk. (A situation I am in currently...) As of now, I am just treated as a 'diabetic' with no consideration of my particulars. My blood sugar is probably more controlled than the average person and I should have similar insurance rates, etc. None of that is really considered and I'd like that to make it into legislation, etc. You can have conditions but be low to no risk because you're taking care of yourself.
Yes, you used to be able to buy cheap insurance, but it was also bad insurance, full of uncovered situations, restrictions, loopholes and caps, plus medical care and pharmaceuticals used to be cheaper as well. As a diabetic I assume you're quite familiar with this. But, again, this is the result of
lack of government regulation, not because of it. Other developed countries, with bigger, more interventionist government, don't have these problems.
Watch the videos from posts 82 and 85 from the
"Is it true Trump Supporters just want a father figure?" thread (sorry, I don't know how to link
).
This is an American problem caused by too little government, not too much.
