How bad can it be to provide Education, housing and health services free to all citizens

[AlphaCentauri]

why the demonization of that concept?

[AngryAmish]

1. How do you pay for it?

[Warpy]

22. You cut the Pentagon budget 10% per year

until our defense spending is in line with other countries.

[AngryAmish]

27. FY 2008 Pentagon budget $661 billion

So, according to your calulation, $66.1 billion additionally will house, educate and treat every American?

Wrong.

[Warpy]

29. Over one year, of course not.

although it will subsidize housing for marginal workers.

However, remember that 10% per year will add up over time.

Spending what we do on the military to preserve economic empire is insane. We can no longer afford it. We need too much inside our borders to worry about making the world safe for multinational corporations.

Redefining the military's purpose as a defensive one is absolutely necessary at this point in our history.

[Javaman]

32. You forgot to include the black budget...

which is estimated anywhere from 500 billion to 1 trillion dollars.

[Juche]

47. We already pay for it

K-12 is free and most in state college is free. It would probably cost an additional $70 billion or so a year to make college free to everyone who applied to an in state public college/university.


HR 676, healthcare for all, would cost $400 billion a year less than our current healthcare. It would probably end up costing even less as we would be promoting medicine based on cost effectiveness and maximum health promotion, rather than the current private system which considers a $10 vaccine and a $10 viagra pill to be equal and both to be blocked by any means necessary.

Up to $700 billion a year in medical care is unnecessary and does nothing to promote health according to Obama's budget manager.

[Two Americas]

49. who?

How does who pay for it?

It is a foundational principle of all politics other than those of the extreme right wing, that it is the workers in the country who are creating the wealth.

"We" - if you mean the working people when you say "we" - are already paying, but rather than that wealth being invested in the community and the well being of the people, it is going into the hands of the few through various tricks and stunts and mechanisms.

When right wingers say "we can't afford that" they mean that the wealthy and powerful few do not want to relinquish any of the loot they have extracted from communities and from the workers. They are talking about a different "we" who would be doing the "paying."

We cannot afford to NOT invest in well being of the people. Even moderate Republicans once understood that. Even Henry Ford knew that he needed to pay his workers enough for them to be able to afford to buy his cars. Today many Democrats are confused about this, and promote ideas that were once seen as those of only the very extreme political right wing.

We pay for it by stopping the drain of wealth from out of the country, from out of communities, and from out of the pockets of the people, and by recovering some of the wealth - our wealth - amassed in the hands of the few.


When you say "we" whom do you mean? With whom do you identify? The rulers? The wealthy and powerful few? Or the people?



....

[babylonsister]

2. They all cost something. Free? Who'd be paying? nt

[bobbolink]

23. ALL other "civilized" countries provide these things. They aren't BROKE, and they are happier.

If you don't want to see to it that citizens can get the necessities of life, then how much will it cost to clean up the crime, etc., that it costs.

Also, if you want life to be unlivable for a large number of citizens, then you need to take responsibility for providing a humane exit.

At least animals are accorded that much compassion and care.

[JDPriestly]

55. In Europe, health care is funded from income tax.

European countries also charge a high value added tax. I don't know how much of that goes to cover health care.

Let's assume that everyone should be insured. There are various ways to accomplish that goal.

1. Everyone can be required to buy their own private health insurance. The problem with this system is that, since insurance is required but provided by private insurers presumably with no oversight on costs and profits, it gives an incentive to the private insurers to charge as much as they possibly can, provide as little service as they possibly can and take as much in profits as they possibly can. That's our current system. You may think your employer is purchasing your health insurance, but in fact, you are purchasing it. Only -- you don't have any say over what plans your employer lets you choose from. Every insurance plan offers a different choice of doctors so if you or your employer change plan for one reason or another, you may no longer be able to choose the doctor you know and trust. Lots of doctors are not on your plan. So, with private insurance, your choice of doctors is very limited.

2. Everyone can be required to enroll in the national health care system and if they want additional or alternative private insurance they can opt for the additional/alternative private insurance. If you are working, you pay your share of the cost of the national health care system in the form of taxes. You pay a small co-pay for prescriptions. The costs of covering unemployed people, children and the elderly is included in the amount paid from tax on income and supplemented by amounts paid by other taxes such as value added taxes. Virtually every doctor chooses to enroll in the national health care system (and is free to also work for private insurers). Doctors have a one-on-one relationship with the patient. Those doctors who handle primarily patients on the national health care system only have to deal with one set of reporting documents and methods. Doctors have more freedom than they do under our current system. Some of them may even choose to have offices adjacent to their homes. Some may form medical groups. Doctors and hospitals ALWAYS GET PAID. (Now, hospitals and doctors don't get paid in many cases.)

3. A combination of the above two kinds of plans. Let people choose whether they want to continue with a private insurer they like or switch to the national health care system. If they choose private insurance, they don't have to pay the tax to support the national health care system. But if the private insurance costs more than the amount they would normally pay for their tax to support the national health care system, then the person who chooses private health care has to cover the difference between the cost of their private insurance and the national system.

I think this would put a lot of pressure on health insurance companies to lower their costs and rates and give better services. I'm on Medicare now. Thank God for Medicare. Most people will want to switch to a national plan. The employee, not the employer, should have the choice.

Neither private nor national health insurance should be allowed to deny or raise the cost of coverage based on existing health conditions.

[Mz Pip]

3. Free?

Nothing is "free." Someone has to pick up the check. How is that going to work?

[AlphaCentauri]

4. "free" in the sense that everyone has access to it

not just selected groups

[Lance_Boyle]

7. that is not a definition of "free"

that is a definition of "accessible."

The question of who pays is valid - you should try to answer it.

[AlphaCentauri]

10. Tax dollars

[AlphaCentauri]

12. also we can say free access

[The2ndWheel]

5. If people could get that for free, the term citizens wouldn't exist

Being a citizen means you're going to be paying for it. Still, you'd have to work to acquire those things if you weren't a citizen, so either way you go, it's not free.

[AlphaCentauri]

18. Corporations are getting free tax payers bailouts

why can citizens get free bailouts?

[The2ndWheel]

28. Because the system wasn't designed to work that way?

Corporations are on a much different scale than citizens. The corporations represent private interests on a large scale, the same way the government represents public interests on a large scale. Can the government bail itself out?

Plus, if the corporations don't have to pay any price for the bailouts, then it won't work.

[AlphaCentauri]

30. I don't see how corporations will pay the bailout

[The2ndWheel]

38. In terms of regulations

If the corporations are getting the money with no strings, it won't work. They have to pay a price to get the money.

Everyone has to pay that price though. We could all hunt and gather for own food for example. The price we pay for not having to do that is that we don't know what is in our food, don't know where the food comes from, don't have to see how it's made, etc. We just go to the store, give them money that was earned doing whatever it is that we do instead, and we have food. If we didn't have to pay a price for that, it wouldn't function the way it does. That price might be sitting in a cubicle for 40 years. That price might be living in debt. That price might be health related. The list could be quite long.

Even the countries that do provide those goods and services for their citizens, the people do pay a price for it. The bill might not come to the table just yet, but they will have to pay for it when it does.

It's all just give and get. It becomes much more complicated in a system of 300 million people, with different cultures, and backgrounds, and this and that. Usually when we're talking about how European countries provide for their citizens, they're much smaller countries, geographically and population-wise. Most of the citizens are from the same culture. Then again, you look at some African countries, and they're the same size geographically and population-wise as some European countries, and some of those nations are a mess. Then you have to go through the various histories, and see who conquered who, and which central governments were established, how they were established, etc. Just look at America as another example. It wouldn't exist without genocide and slavery. The current reality we live in never would've allowed America to form into a nation. Then you have to look at how the current reality we live in came to be. Who defeated who in what war, and that impacts what gets paid for, who pays for it, etc.

I just don't know if it comes down to lets just tax everyone to pay for everything. Too many variables to existence for it to be that easy.

[JDPriestly]

56. We just tax everybody to pay for everything when it comes

to national "defense" and many, many other services and things. I've lived in European countries and enjoyed the benefits of national health care systems. You have the health care when you need it, not when you can afford it. It's great. I'm 100% for national health care.

Everybody gets. If you don't benefit from national health care, your mom, your dad, your sister, your children, someone you know and love will benefit at a time when they really need it.

The problem with our current healthcare if that you have it when you are doing well, working and healthy. The minute you get really sick and can't work, you lose your healthcare because you can no longer afford it. The health insurance companies take your money when you are healthy and leave you to suffer or even die or rely on Medicaid when you are too sick to work. What a racket!

It is sheer idiocy for the American people to put up with the health care system we have. The diversity of our population has nothing to do with our unwillingness to change and go for national healthcare of some sort. The only reason Americans are reluctant to make this change is that they are ignorant. Ignorance is the biggest problem in this country. Ignorance that is proud and stubborn and unwilling to learn or try new things.

[JDPriestly]

6. Wonder how the cost would compare to the cost of

supporting the yachts, villas, multiple homes, expensive hotels, travel, gourmet meals and bonuses of the wealthy 1%?

Just asking how the math compares. I suspect that providing for the needs of every person is more expensive in the short run, but maybe less expensive in the long run.

[Mz Pip]

13. Even if the

cost were less in the long run, I can't imagine advocating the confiscation of private property and assets to support some form of completely government subsidized society.

[JDPriestly]

41. The problem is that our society now subsidizes the wealthy.

The AIG bonuses are only the tip of the iceberg. Big business and its big investors (not the little guys holding a few common shares) get enormous government subsidies in many forms. No one seems to object to confiscating the property that belongs to all of us, such as the minerals under our ground, the land on which ports, highways (that permit long distance trucking of goods from which the wealthy profit) and private rail lines are built. The list of giveaways to the rich goes on and on.

Meanwhile the money available for housing the homeless is given begrudgingly. I used to write grants for a homeless project. We gave people shelter, food and clothing and helped them get jobs. I had to do more grantwriting and reporting to get $50,000 than AIG had to do to get the billions it was given.

So, we happily take money from ordinary taxpayers to give to the billionaires at AIG so that they can buy yet another condo by the beach, but if someone mentions taking money from the billionaires to house the homeless in the slums of downtown Los Angeles, that's a danger to our way of life?

[Mz Pip]

42. I suppose part of the problem

would be where to draw the line.

I certainly have no problem with having the rich pay more in taxes, but how they use the money they have left shouldn't be up to the government or to me. If someone earns a lot of money, pays their fair share in taxes and wants to buy a yacht with what's left, it's not my business al long as it is done within the law. Not all rich people are frauding the government.

There should be more public housing, I can't argue that.

[AlphaCentauri]

45. more housing or price controls on real state

[JDPriestly]

57. Agreed, Mz Pip

[bobbolink]

25. You're on the right track. Isn't it sad that other nations can do this, but all these "progressive

balk at the very concept of all citizens having the necessities of life?

:cry:

[Naturyl]

48. It's because the economic center in America is the far right everywhere else.

Even our economic "progressives" are moderates at best in terms of world political opinion.

We don't have a viable economic progressive movement in America. Something like the Green party comes closest, but it is riddled with problems and has never been taken seriously.

Economically speaking, people with real progressive values don't have a place or a voice in America, for the most part. At the moment, we have to work within the Democratic party, which is primarily a center-right movement when it comes to economics.

[jmg257]

8. Depends on how bad you want to pay for it. (and how much you have to).

[Howzit]

9. When all things are free to all people because Govt pays for it,

that is the same as everyone paying for it though taxes. Subsidies only work when there are more people paying than using.

[No.23]

11. The blinding power of fear.

It never ceases to amaze me how oblivious the answer is to some people.





When something is more important to you than something else, and you have limited resources to pay for those things, you prioritize your monies on behalf of the more important things to you.

We do that in our own families, don't we?

It's time that we spent our limited funds on what matters most.

[No.23]

17. From the National Healthcare for the Homeless Council:

http://www.nhchc.org/Advocacy/PolicyPapers/MilitarySpending2008.pdf

Speaking to the answer, of course.

An answer that so many of us want to avoid, for some inexplicable reason.

[No.23]

21. Another picture of the oblivious to some:

[AlphaCentauri]

36. That chart explain it all n/t

[No.23]

39. Only if you're not in denial, however.

If you are, it will mean nothing to you.

Only if you're not in denial.

[bobbolink]

51. Thank you! We are refusing to look at our own complicity in all this.

People are suffering and dying right here in the U.S., but we want to ignore it.

It's the priority of ALL of us... and we "progressives" must finally face our own complicity.

Our hands are dirty.

[sinkingfeeling]

14. Because your concept is beyond the scope of reality? Who would pay for the advanced

college degrees of over 300,000,000 people? What would that free housing consist of? A card broad box or a $500,000 home? Who decides? The only one possible is making health services available to all citizens and even then, it won't be free.

[AlphaCentauri]

15. why education has to be a privilege of those who can pay for it?

does our economic system need uneducated people to survive?

[WI_DEM]

19. I wasn't rich and I went to college thru grants, etc, and yes a part time job

I think more should be done to help more people go to college, but there are ways for people, even if they aren't wealthy to get a college education.

[leftofthedial]

16. But if we did that it would be socialism!

Plus, how many people would willingly work for less than a living wage if they weren't afraid of getting sick?

[GreenTea]

24. Police departments fire departments, education, the whole US military budget, Postal Office....

Amtrak, Parks Services, politicians salaries, health care & budgets, Government agencies (FCC, FDA, etc.) Social Security, unemployment insurance, medicaid, bail outs, corporate subsides, tax breaks for the rich & corporations are ALL Socialism of one kind or another!

So what's wrong with single payer Universal Health Care for ALL? - Fuck it's our tax dollars let it come back to us, the people, certainly not to the insurance companies & the banks where it has been, and is still going!!

[leftofthedial]

33. Pssssst.

I was being sarcastic.

[GreenTea]

35. Hey!

I know!

My reply wasn't really meant for you...it was meant for the blind...you just happen to offer me a perfect setup.

Thanks!

[GreenTea]

20. Certainly far less cost than what we pay military warmongers & their weapons contractors each year.

[Deja Q]

26. Happiness and a state of well-being are sins.

We're supposed to be scared, nervous, and in ill health with no reason to live all the time.

[leftstreet]

31. You need to take the word 'FREE' out of your question

"How bad can it be to use our tax dollars to secure education, housing and health services for all citizens?"

[psych495]

34. Because that leads to health care shortages and government rationing

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1159506/Life-prolonging-cancer-drugs-banned-cost-much.html

While the need for health care for the underprivileged needs to be addressed, I have to concede that in places where universal health care has been put in place it ultimately leads to lower quality of care.

I think that 'progressives' are generally on the wrong side on this issue. Please check out the link above to read about two cancer drugs that will no longer be used in the UK because the government cannot afford it. The decisions about health care have been taken away from the individual and are now in the hands of the state. I don't want that for my wife who has diabetes. (she has had it from childhood) If she were to ever need an organ transplant I would not want her to be denied based on limited resources and her pre-existing condition.

So many of the questions posted in this forum reveal a real lack of understanding about problems that have come up in socieities that have tried this. As painful as it may be you may have to submit your eyes, ears, and brains to some of the criticisms levied by the other side of the aisle about problems w/ universal health care.

[AlphaCentauri]

37. I guess the article talks about brand name drugs not generics

[Ron Green]

40. You think the decisions about health care are in the hands of the individual here?

I would rather have a solid single-payer system of universal coverage than the shell game we've got now. I have very "good" insurance through my work and yet pay THOUSANDS in co-pays and surprise non-covered expenses if I have a major (or even a minor) procedure. I'm a middle-income worker, but I would gladly pay higher taxes for an honest system that covers everyone, is realistic about the end of life, and emphasizes wellness and preventive care.

I don't want the shell game.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. No it doesn't, but that is the boogeyman

riddle me this batman... what would you rather have? Five percent of your population falling through the cracks (worst case for Canada) or 35% of your population falling through the cracks? Aka your close to 40 million currently uninsured?

Oh and do enjoy your stay... perhaps we can start your education

Free clue, Canada spends half of what we do per person per year, and they have better outcomes... you figure this out

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. You first have to convince the population that taxes need to be higher than they are

because this is not free.

Mind you, if I got "free" care, and free education I'd have no issue with them... and why the countries where this is done have higher taxes overall.

As to housing.. not even the most "socialist" of nations has seen free housing... highly subsidized, yes, free, no

As to why it is demonized... it is the S word, and lots and lots and lots of propaganda

[Naturyl]

46. It can be pretty bad, to some people.

The GOP has done an incredibly effective job of convincing people (including way too many Democrats) that we can't guarantee people the basic necessities of life because of "free riders." Apparently, the idea of a few people rejecting work to pursue their own interests is horrifying enough to justify denying *everybody* an effective social safety net.

Psychologically speaking, the reasons people find the "free rider problem" so objectionable are fairly complex, but chief among them seems to be a misguided sense of fairness. In other words, they feel that if they have to submit to being forced to work for everything they receive, so should everyone else.

Overcoming this objection can be very difficult due to decades of cultural indoctrination, but it is in some cases possible by emphasizing a more progressive view of "fairness" - one which holds that all citizens should be unconditionally entitled to the basic necessities of life.

Until we find effective ways to overcome the quintessentially American "anti-freeloader" conditioning and programming, the battle to pass universal health care, free education, and other related programs will remain an uphill one.

[bobbolink]

52. It's time to back away from blaming Republicans for all of this.

Just as the war is now owned by Obama and the Dems, so is the obscene poverty situation in this country.

And, no, poor people don't have "HOPE" that Obama is going to change anything.

BECAUSE HE ISN'T BEING PUSHED BY THE VERY PEOPLE WHO ARE DENIGRATING THIS OP.

[cynatnite]

50. Abolish health insurance and have every working American pay a tax...

stop the two wars, cut the pentagon budget...

Doing this smartly makes it very possible. After costs are capped, this can be very affordable and the returns can improve education and health care as we go. In time, we can offer the best education and health care on the planet...which we should have been doing from the start.

[libodem]

53. You are talkin' Utopia here

that is like Blasphemy to the rich, I'm sure in some Divine concept of Calvinism only the 'chosen' deserve to have life be splendid! Who would the wealthy lord it over if we had Socialism. I'm sure all this happiness is a sin in someone's book.

[Vidar]

54. Probably cheaper than the god damned bank bailout.