I think there should be free Community College for anyone that wants to go, but I also think college isn't for everyone, and Trade schools should also be free (I've seen plenty of plumbers that charge hourly rates more than lawyers).

As far as other colleges, there should be merit scholarships for anyone who does well at Community College can transfer to those for years 3 & 4.

I had a merit-based scholarship for my undergrad, but it was conditioned on maintaining a 3.0 GPA (B average or higher). If it went under 3.0 for two semesters, scholarship gone. Also required finishing in 4 years, so I had to take 15-18 credits every semester. I also worked part-time during semester and full-time in summers to pay down the loans (that the grants & scholarship didn't cover), so graduated debt free. I also can see I'm an exception rather than the norm.

I wouldn't begrudge anyone getting higher education. I also think some people who drop out when they are 18-22 years old, could go instead when they are older and more mature and totally succeed, so don't force it immediately after high school. Part of that is pressure from being allowed on your parents health insurance if you're in school up to a certain age... universal health care coverage (public option) would fix that and should be a higher priority than universal college. I voted for Bernie.

Here's another one - make it illegal for a Health Insurance company to own hospitals (some own many many hospitals).

Prices aren't going to go down until they have lower priced competition - i.e. single-payer "public option". Maybe in another 3.5 years it might be possible, but not anytime soon.

Don't even try to imagine a world where Trump is coming up with a plan where "everyone is [actually] insured" aka a public-option for health insurance.

You're forgetting that Trump is a sociopathic liar in the purest sense of that psychological diagnosis. He will say n̶e̶a̶r̶l̶y̶ anything to get his way.

"[the] world is actually healthier, wealthier, better educated, more tolerant, less violent than it has ever been."

Not in places like Afghanistan, Libya, Jemen, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Lebanon, downtown Chicago, Detroit or Cleveland. Not in Greece. And I'm not entirely sure it's a better place for the hundreds of millions of Chinese who left their rural areas to become work nomads. Also not sure about the all the millions of people in Africa whose livelihood gets crushed by subsidised produce/corn from the West. Not sure about all the Indian farmers who are driven into suicide by the monopoly powers of seed suppliers. Not sure about India as a whole, now suffering from the third year in a row of a belated monsoon and horrific drought.

"Democracy means you don't everything you want, when you want it, all the time" ... "and occasionally comprise, and stay principled, but recognise that it's a long march towards progress"

He talks the talk, but even for a center-right guy, he doesn't walk the walk. Principles went out the window in Gitmo. Principles went out the window when the drivers behind the illegal war of aggression in Iraq were not prosecuted in accordance with the Nuremberg Principles. Principles went out the window when carpet surveillance pissed all over the Constitution. Principles went out the window when US military forces aid Al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria just because they oppose Assad. Even mentioning principles in the face of the gruesome, drone-driven terror campaigns in at least half a dozen countries makes me want to vomit.

And don't get me started on compromise. If you ban single-payer and drop the public option before negotiations begin, that's not compromise. That's theatre meant to mislead us plebs while you add an additional layer of "market" to an already dysfunctional market, which ends up profiting the insurance companies yet again.

Leftists are the only patriots left.
The Right is purposefully destroying the government by preventing ANY laws being passed and SUING the president !!!?!! Meanwhile they cry about the debt, when it is the right that always drive up the debt, mainly by starting useless wars.
Meanwhile the Teabaggers, owned by the Koch brothers, defeated the public option health plan, under orders. A plan which would have benefited all Americans.
Broken.

Not true, at least not the primary reason.

The reason they're high is because pharmaceutical companies can get away with charging high prices and reaping high margins, because of their strong competitive position, margins some 50% higher in the US than the EU.

Source

See page 12 - Pre R&D margins are 65% in the US to 43% in the EU.

A big reason for this is the lack of a universal public option, only Medicare exists for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor. With a universal public option like in most developed countries, the monopsony buying power of the government for a much larger part of the population would force down margins.

But, the concessions in the Affordable Care Act weren't concessions with Republicans. Zero republicans in the house and the senate voted for it, they basically weren't involved. Which is why they're so furious it passed.

It was pro-business Democrats that wouldn't go along with the public option. Yeah, "individual mandate" was once a Republican idea, but it wasn't put in to somehow meet Republicans half way, it was put in to make insurance companies happy.

Obama compromised significantly on the final state of the Affordable Care Act. If he hadn't, we'd have had the single payer public option that would have actually forced real competition into a market dominated by private insurers colluding with each other to fix prices.

It wasn't a compromise, it is a trojan horse for the single payer system. The architect of Obamacare admitted that publicly:



The reason he changed it is because his plan was too radical even for a democratically controlled congress to vote for. Also, the original point is that he didn't negotiate with the republicans at all.

He's only the most polarizing president in history because he's the first black one. Were he a white guy named Steve Smith he'd be the most conservative democrat to ever hold office.

You think he's polarizing because everyone is racist? Do you seriously believe that? I think he is polarizing because he actively works to divide people across political, economic and racial lines. From his extensive class warfare rhetoric, to comments from his mouthpieces like "theyre gonna put y’all back in chains", Obama has worked supremely hard to divide the country.

Again I ask you, if your party holds the majority, and the minority simply refuses to compromise or meet with you on ANY issue, then what else can your party do?

I don't have a party; I'm an independent. And are you trying to tell me that President Obama tried to negotiate with the republicans and was holding out an olive branch to them in those first two years but they wouldn't listen so he had no choice but to act unilaterally? Do you also have a bridge you want to sell me?

@shinyblurry Obama compromised significantly on the final state of the Affordable Care Act. If he hadn't, we'd have had the single payer public option that would have actually forced real competition into a market dominated by private insurers colluding with each other to fix prices.

He's only the most polarizing president in history because he's the first black one. Were he a white guy named Steve Smith he'd be the most conservative democrat to ever hold office.

Again I ask you, if your party holds the majority, and the minority simply refuses to compromise or meet with you on ANY issue, then what else can your party do?

>> ^Quboid:

Phrases like "big government" or "small government" don't belong in any serious discussion with the possible exception of extreme communism and libertarianism.

Good thing I was just making a joke then.

Is this a good time to point out that government health care pretty much guarantees no drug decriminalization for the foreseeable future? That's one that yanks me in both directions: I support decriminalization and I was also for the public option.

As someone who skews libertarian overall, I have to say I'm glad Obamacare is a go. It's one of the times I totally break with the Libertarian line.

I'd have been just as happy with a bunch of Romneycare clones popping up at the state level, too, though. I don't see why the blue states should be stuck with a broken system just because the red states don't want it (and conversely, if the red states want to keep their broken system, I don't see why they should have to get something better).

My main concern with Obamacare is that it won't do enough. I wish we had gotten the public option as well. I'd have more confidence in prices coming down with the extra competition.

@renatojj the single provider system you're thinking isn't in the current plan (as much as we would of liked to have single-payer, or even a public option, those things were removed.)

You don't care though, because you're just regurgitating some nonsense that you read online or heard from some right-wing propaganda. The actual parameters of the ACA are not what you're describing at all.

So even though the law specifically states partial birth abortions won't be allowed unless to protect the life of the mother, which btw, the average American you keep sighting would agree should be allowed, it's going to effectively let virtually every partial birth abortion to occur. That's right wing paranoia. The law specifically states otherwise, period. So even when it says that, you're saying otherwise.

Past that btw, are you saying that if a woman didn't abort the baby she would die, they should be legally required to have the baby anyway? Here's the problem; even if what you said is true that the floodgates for partial birth abortions would open, all you're proving is the impossibility to enforce the law. The overwhelming majority of Americans are against partial birth abortion bans that don't allow exceptions when the mother's health is at risk, or in cases of rape or incest.

There are plenty of laws where it's just impractical to enforce properly. I think if the entire US would abide by Prohibition, our society would be much better off without alcohol in the end, considering rates of alcoholism, etc. But it was impossible to enforce, so it was a bad law. I don't personally drink, and both my parents are recovering alcoholics, but I'd never be in favor of Prohibition.

Regardless, FOCA is not far left. It's not. This isn't intellectual dishonesty. I don't even care honestly if it passes or not. But it's not far left. Far left would not contain provisions at all to limit partial birth abortions. It would outright say parental consent laws are superceded and invalid. Etc. FOCA hasn't a single one of those things. It's center-left. But you're calling it far left because it's in any degree more left than where we are now. Same thing with what you're saying about moving any direction to the left on gay marriage. That's ridiculous. This is why we can't make any progress anymore legislatively or politically. Everyone thinks giving up an inch, even when it's a reasonable concession, is a slippery slope, the flood gates will open, Armageddon is coming, blah blah blah. The simple fact of the matter is while we're split on abortion, probably 70% of Americans would agree that we should limit partial birth abortions, but we should have exceptions for rape, incest, and for the health of the mother. FOCA is a reasonable compromise to move a tick to the left. Instead, it's tared and feathered as hard left, with many allegations that are outright lies, not just bending of the truth. Your point about the parental involvement requirements as a case in point. That's utter horsecrap, and you know it.

Prove provisions of the Obamacare is causing your mother's current health insurance coverage to be eliminated, and her premiums to go up. Prove it, explain what's going on, and show me where in Obamacare it's causing this. Until you can prove that, I'm calling BS.

I'm not saying companies don't end certain insurance policies because of Obamacare. I have a friend who works for Microsoft, and they're ending their health insurance plan in favor of another because the current plan falls under the category of a "Cadillac" health insurance plan, and will be penalized via a tax. So he'll go from super-awesome health insurance better than virtually any plan you could hope to find to a darn good one. He's pissed as hell because of this, but when I asked him did he look at this from the perspective of if this is good policy for society as a whole, he looked dumbfounded, as if why should he even consider that. If society as a whole is better off, I don't really care he has health insurance coverage a little closer to what the rest of us have. That should be the debate, not people deciding based on their own selfish interests.

The simple fact of the matter is health insurance premiums were already going up well before Obamacare was ever passed, but a lot of people now blame current premium increases conveniently on Obamacare when they don't know that was the reason why. Forget facts, it's that dang communist Obama!

I have a warped view of what's center-left vs hard left? If the only thing concerning gay marriage that Obama is advocating changing is that the federal gov't will begin recognizing the marriage legal IF and ONLY IF the couple's state considers it legal, explain how that's far left. If the only change to abortion laws is ensuring exceptions to partial birth abortions in cases of rape, incest, and to protect the health of the mother, explain how that's hard left. Explain how Obamacare, which largely keeps the same health care system we already have in place, is hard left. By definition, if we still have employee sponsored health insurance, no public option, no single payer, that's not a hard move to the left. It's not. The conservative right paints them all as these extreme measures, but every single one are compromises. Every single one of them, period.

And here's the result - Conservatives are urging the Supreme Court to dismantle the most significant health care reform since the invention of Medicaid to go back to a system everybody knows is broken, with no plan ready to fix it. We haven't even let Obamacare take effect quite honestly, but it's not stopping the GOP from claiming it's killing the economy. Ridiculous.

>> ^shinyblurry:


Hardly. FOCA will nullify the partial birth abortion ban, and any other state law which could be interpreted to "interfere" with a womans "right" to an abortion. The untruth is to say it is simply codifying roe vs wade; It will create substantial changes to hundreds of laws.
Yes, the law contains language that partial birth abortions would only be allowed in situations where the "health" of the woman could be impacted. Well, that is a meaningless distinction. Almost anything could be allowed under those circumstances, including mental health issues. The fact is, the ban will be repealed and partial birth abortions will be a go, and many will be justified under some flimsy pretext.
Again, to say FOCA isn't far left is simply to be intellectually dishonest. It goes far beyond what the average american would approve of.
I hope it gets thrown out if only for my mothers sake, who will have her current coverage eliminated and her premiums raised because of it.
What's clear is that you have a much different idea of what is far left, and what isn't from the average person.
>> ^heropsycho:

>> ^blankfist:


But you're changing what you wrote above. Sure, when someone protects themselves or others that's being defensive, but you made a point of them enforcing the law - and doing that means they're an offensive force of violence, not defensive.


The law is ultimately there to protect people. As a society/culture/species we've made a collective decision over centuries that we are willing to trade some rights for protections, i.e. the right to assault someone v.s. that persons protection from assault. If a cop enforces the law then they are supposed to be protecting the citizens from whatever harm the perpetrator is committing.

Does that go wrong? All the time. Cops enforce unjust laws, or act (as the video subject did) outside the law. But there's no way in hell, I'd trust a corporation to fulfil that role.

>> ^blankfist:

To your second point, there'd be a better system of checks and balances with a private security firm over a public police force. Regardless of performance of the public option, you must pay for it. If you hire a private option and don't like it, you can let them go and are no longer required to pay for their services. Also with the private option you'd have competition which would lead to better services and lower costs.


You seem to feel that corporations are primarily beholden to their customers. I'd argue that's not the case. If recent history has shown us anything, it's that corporations are beholden to their shareholders.

>> ^blankfist:

This goes hand-in-hand with DFT's comment above about Blackwater and the other companies hired by the US State Department. You and I don't want to fund them, but you have no choice as long as taxation is compulsory. The government forces you to pay for compulsory services you may loathe whether that be public police forces, huge national defense contracts or even private military security companies like Blackwater.


Yeah, governments do stuff I don't like, but that's the point of elections. You can vote in someone who won't do that. OTOH, it's a lot more difficult to get rid of an entrenched monopoly.

But I suspect that, interesting as this discussion is, it's getting away from the point of the video.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
I don't think you can simply it that much. If I saw someone being beaten assaulted, I'd step in. I'm not being directly defensive, but I'm defending someone else. And ultimately that is what cops are supposed to do. Protecting the public from harm.
I completely agree that the kind of "cover up" culture we see in some police forces is bullshit, but are you really suggesting that a private security firm would be better? What makes you think that the same culture wouldn't develop there? I don't buy the line about hiring a different security company. In the real world such a choice wouldn't be possible and a private security company would have even more motivation to cover up.


But you're changing what you wrote above. Sure, when someone protects themselves or others that's being defensive, but you made a point of them enforcing the law - and doing that means they're an offensive force of violence, not defensive.

To your second point, there'd be a better system of checks and balances with a private security firm over a public police force. Regardless of performance of the public option, you must pay for it. If you hire a private option and don't like it, you can let them go and are no longer required to pay for their services. Also with the private option you'd have competition which would lead to better services and lower costs.

This goes hand-in-hand with DFT's comment above about Blackwater and the other companies hired by the US State Department. You and I don't want to fund them, but you have no choice as long as taxation is compulsory. The government forces you to pay for compulsory services you may loathe whether that be public police forces, huge national defense contracts or even private military security companies like Blackwater.