-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Question for College Graduates
- Thread starter esmith
- Start date
Just because you live with your parents doesn't mean you've failed at life or can't get on with it. :sarcastic
tytlyf
Not Religious
Do you have any original thoughts or do you just repeat what Rushy, THEN the RNC repeated?Just wondering if there are any college graduates out there living in their parents basement staring at that faded Hope and Change poster, wondering when they can get on with their lives
Just wondering if there are any college graduates out there living in their parents basement staring at that faded Hope and Change poster, wondering when they can get on with their lives
No, I used my government-subsidized engineering degree to get a good job and now I'm living on my own, paying taxes, helping causes I care about, and contributing to society.
I agree that they haven't implemented as much of a social safety net as they probably should, but I don't think the available alternatives would do any better.
Sorry, but the job placement of recent college graduates isn't a priority consideration with regard to how I jude a presidential administration. This is in spite of me having trouble finding a job in my field even after getting a master's degree. I wouldn't call poor performance on this issue a sign it is "bad." Now, poor performance on environmental issues? Definitely. That is a death knell as far as my vote is concerned.
idea
Question Everything
I don't want to live in a country "where everything is free, except us"... I'm more interested in getting the debt under control, then in getting more free handouts.
I'm not interested in getting more "free handouts" for myself; I'm interested in helping others in need.
I also think that for many services (e.g. health insurance), government delivery can be more efficient than private delivery, so putting these things under the responsibility of the government can result in cost savings, meaning that there's more money to go around to do things like pay off the debt.
If you prevent a person from developing a debilitating condition, then you preserve his ability to work. This means less government expense (in the form of disability program payouts) and greater government revenue (since he's earning income that gets taxed). It's a win-win... as are many things in a true social safety net. Proper resources for the elderly means that their adult kids are freer to work at paid jobs instead of caring for their parents. Government-sponsored childcare can allow single parents to work instead of staying home and on welfare to make sure their kids are taken care of. Good public schools create a capable, technologically savvy workforce that can add value to the economy (while creating jobs and tax revenue in the process).
Most of the things in a social safety net are really "win-win" measures when you look at them in the context of the big picture.
idea
Question Everything
That is everyone's goal of coarse, Republicans just think there is a lower overhead when this is done by the private sector.
As a Republican, I am completely in favor of fixing Medicaid/Medicare issues, and am perfectly happy for the gov to step in and help those who are not able to help themselves. I think there is a world of difference between helping the poor - vs. forcing everyone (rich and poor) under the same umbrella... why should tax payers have to pay the medical costs of rich people? ... let's help the poor, but not force help onto those who don't need it. I think the portion of the medical community that is run by the private sector comes up with the best research, and the most cost effective solutions. There is no motivation to reduce costs where there is no competition - gov run healthcare will be more expensive... competition drives innovation, and it lowers costs...
just my opinion.
... which doesn't make a whole lot of sense, I think, since the private sector won't do something without the expectation of profit. The profit margin is always going to be there when the private sector does it, but not with the public sector... or rather, when the public sector does make money on one endeavour, it gets fed back into other services that benefit the public at large.
Here's the problem with that idea: it's the same sort of "privatized profits, socialized losses" system that prompted so much criticism of the bank bailouts.
In your system, the private companies get the best customers (in profitability terms): the healthy folks who don't get sick, don't need ongoing care, but pay their premiums every month and generate profit for the insurers. The people the insurers reject are the less profitable cases: the ones with chronic conditions that need lifelong management, or elderly people who have issue after issue. What you propose sets up a situation where the private companies can cherry pick the profitable cases while leaving the more expensive ones for the government to deal with. I think this is unfair as well as fundamentally disrespectful to the taxpayers who pay for it.
I'm not sure you entirely understand what I'm proposing. I didn't say that the whole health care system should be public, only that health insurance should be. I don't see any reason why a hospital's capacity for innovation would be stifled by the fact that there are government logos on the cheques it receives instead of the logos of corporations.
And I disagree with your underlying premise. Take a look at the Canadian healthcare system: many of our public, government-owned hospitals and universities are world leaders in medical innovation.
And if competition lowers costs, then why are the per-capita health care costs in your country on the order of 2 or 3 times as much as Canada? It's not because we're patching broken limbs with splints made of sticks and twine. Overall, the quality of medical care in this country is just as high as it is in yours.
idea
Question Everything
That is simply not true. There are many incredible non-profit volunteer charity organizations. I know, I have worked with some of them. If my taxes were lower, I would contribute more to them.
Here's an interesting article: Who Gives and Who Doesn't? - ABC News
"It turns out that this idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election..."You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity."
I think welfare needs are best met through family, friends, and community support - by those who are closest to the situation, and have the best understanding of what is going on. There is less waste, no middleman, and more love... the difference between love and prostitution? love is freely given... I think charity should be freely given to, and think most people are nice enough to give on their own.
I think the bank bailouts were a result of banks being forced by the gov to provide loans to people who could not afford it, based on equal opportunity/fairness doctrines... if the gov had stayed out of private banks to begin with, there would have been no need for a bailout - and if banks gave out bad loans without coercion, then I say, let them go under. Let bad business practices reap their own rewards.
I think group policies, and family insurance plans negate that effect. Most private policies don't cover a single individual, they cover everyone from a given company, or everyone from a certain school, and everyone in the employers family. In order to get the business of the entire company, insurance companies know that they will also have to sign on family members, and retired people from that company, so it's not like all disabled people have no private health insurance.
making health insurance public makes the entire health care system public.
I think costs are high because hospitals (unlike other businesses) are forced to treat everyone, regardless of their ability to pay or not. If grocery stores were all forced to hand out food, reguardless of everyone's ability to pay or not, then food prices would skyrocket too. If someone needs medicaid/medicare then let them fill out the paperwork and go through the proper channels to get the help they need. If someone can afford insurance, then make them get insurance - not through a law - but by telling hospitals they no longer have to care for people without insurance. Hold people accountable for their bills, and everyone's bills will go down.
esmith
Veteran Member
Ask a veteran what they think of the government run VA
So make it better.
esmith
Veteran Member
I was pointing out that the VA is government run health care. They do not have the manpower or budget to support the Veterans. What do you think will happen if Obamacare is left intact and approx 50 million patients are added? Where are the doctors coming from, where is the money coming from (borrow it I guess)
And I'm sure I could point to crappy private hospitals. Neither one is necessarily indicative of what either one can do.
What would make 50 million patients suddenly show up at VA hospitals? I didn't realize that Obamacare included a massive military recruitment program.
esmith
Veteran Member
It shows what government run health care is doing NOW in the VA Hospitals. By the way not all VA Hospitals are bad.
I guess you can't understand a comparison. There are apporx 50million uninsured in the US, if they now get insurance....where do they go and who is there to see them>
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
I'll have my first college degree at the end of the spring semester, and I've had my own home for three years now. But I guess someone who is in college who started on the path of home ownership at 22 isn't good for your statistics (2 or 2 1/2 more years and the loan is even paid off).Just wondering if there are any college graduates out there living in their parents basement staring at that faded Hope and Change poster, wondering when they can get on with their lives
And BTW, it isn't the job of the government to find jobs for people. Just because you have a degree in one area doesn't mean you are restricted to only one field. The problem of many people not willing to accept jobs they do not want is not the fault of the government, it's the fault of the person. I do not particularly want to teach, but because the job-outlook for anthropologists isn't very high I'll have to look for other options and teaching is a good one, especially since I plan on teaching to help pay for school anyways.
One I have asked said it's ok, and while it's far from perfect it isn't nearly as bad as what alot of people think it is. But in fairness, that guy is the type who is appreciative and thankful for everything he has.
And the Republicans have also mentioned they wouldn't mind letting student loan interest rates double, and they wouldn't mind cutting back on pell grants and financial aid, which means fewer people go to school, which means fewer people are qualified to do anything more than ask "would you like fries with that." And many Republicans also do not mind hacking at public education, which already leaves many people unable to count back change as a cashier. The Republicans push the private sector, which cares only about the bottom dollar. Social welfare programs, which include subsidized education, does not fit in well with profits for private organizations or individuals.
The government you have now is half-run by people trying to undercut its ability in the name of "limited government".
No, I just don't think your comparison is particularly well thought out.