A.) I want quality health care for everyone as well. But a singular, universal system would be a disaster. Depending upon the price tag, it would not only limit/delay access, but it would also have an adverse effect on research and technology. Think about it, how many health care technological advances that save lives come out of Denmark or Sweden.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest it would be a disaster. Medicare is not a disaster. We already have socialized medicine in this country for old people (Medicare), poor people (Medicaid), native americans, VA, active duty military, etc. It's not like we aren't familiar with it. And lots of technological advances come out of other countries. As for price tag, we already spend more than the other countries do.
B.) I would be open to cost reduction (depending upon the price tag) for tuition at Community Colleges and State funded universities. But I believe it should be a state decision more than federal. And young people need to learn that maybe you can't afford to go to certain private schools because you can't afford it. And if these decisions were made from a cost/benefit standpoint, you would have considerably less student loan debt. I've heard of countless people who went into tremendous debt going to expensive private universities only to become a social worker (a great vocation btw)....know what you want to do and financially prepare accordingly.
This is already happening at the state and local levels. In fact, Tulsa does this through Tulsa Achieves. Tulsa County high school graduates can go to TCC for free if they met certain criteria, which is very minimal.
I have seen this shift over the years. A few years ago, nobody wanted any concessions to the education system.. Now it has morphed into "ok, I am now fine with community colleges and trade schools". What is the difference between TCC and OSU? TCC is first 2 years, OSU is last 2 years. I would like to see more community college and trade school options and more partnerships between 2 year schools and 4 year schools, but the concept is basically the same. We also need more schools like OSU IT in Okmulgee, that offer 4 year degrees but are very "job training" specific. In other words, lots of work to be done in the American education system.
C.) When you go to work for someone (in the private sector), you enter into a contract with an employer. Thus, during the interview process, you have the opportunity to learn about the "benefits package". And then you can choose to work for "X" company. You are not compelled (gun to your head) to work for "X" company.....you have the choice to find another company with better benefits or that fit your scenario.
Yes, that is classic Libertarian logic. But it completely disregards the history of labor issues. From slavery, to child labor, to basic pay and benefits, to restrictions on hours, and much more... people had to fight to get those things. Most business owners didn't do it out of the kindness of their hearts. These were concessions to demands. The government had to pass the Fair Labor Standards Act to get many of these things we take for granted today. That brought you the 5 day, 40 hour work week. Overtime pay, etc.
If we applied the above logic to those issues, you would say "ok, so they want to work you in unsafe conditions 70 hours a week, for $10 a day, with no overtime pay... they didn't put a gun to your head, just don't work there"...
But the real problem with your scenario is it doesn't assume the desperation of a lot of workers. Employment offers aren't some smorgasbord of options for the vast majority of people. I know talented, educated people who literally filled out hundreds of applications, and out of that either got no offers or 1-2 offers... out of hundreds. Your scenario acts like people can just line up their dozens of offers and select the one with the best benefits. Even if there were dozens of offers, most benefits are pretty standard these days. 15 days of vacation, couple of national holidays, expensive healthcare plans (for families), etc.
It's going to stay that way until something or someone changes it.
And I don't know anyone who wants to get rid of social security. However, it is in desperate need of reform because we are going to run out of money. The mechanisms that fund it are hemorrhaging.
They want to privatize it. And the fixes to it are pretty simple.
E.) This is something some folks on the left don't fully discern. Minimum wage jobs were not created to sustain a living wage....and shouldn't be viewed that way. That's not the purpose of those types of jobs. They are typically entry level, part time or seasonal positions. They are typically non or low-skilled positions. IMO, the point of "minimum wage" jobs are to move up the ladder as fast as possible so that you're not in that position. And in a large number of instances, people working full-time in these types of positions have other issues likely in need of addressing (education, structure, motivation, etc.)...not trying to be insensitive, but there is truth to this. And the economics (in most cases) would force the owner/management to offset increased labor costs....which could lead to less employees, automation, or in some cases.....constricting your business. And of course increased costs would be passed along to us....the consumer.
42% of the country makes less than $15 an hour. In some cases, you have companies literally showing their low-paid employees how to get on welfare and how to work multiple jobs. It's exploitation, plain and simple. Taxpayers are basically subsidizing it.
I get what you are saying, I just don't agree with it. If you work a full-time job, you should be able to live without welfare. That is just a basic principle that I believe in.
And there is no "point" to minimum wage. You act like it's intentionally designed to motivate people. That isn't true at all. Why do you think they moved so many jobs to China, Vietnam, and Mexico? To motivate the Mexicans? No, because they can pay them $2.00 an hour to build a car vs $25 an hour to build a car here.
In much of the above, most of us want the same thing, but through different means of achieving it. It appears the main chasm between the two worldviews is that you, by and large, want big federal government solutions to resolve many issues. I'm usually a proponent of "the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen". And some of these items can better be solved on a local level where the problems/issues are generally understood better at a granular level.
Mostly true. We have two different methods for resolution.
