Why Bernie wants free public university and single payer healthcare

[tk2kewl]

First, what does it really mean to be a liberal or a progressive? From my point of view it means people always come first, and that all people have certain inalienable human rights, many of which, but not all of which, are delineated in our Bill of Rights. Most progressives believe all people have the right not to be killed, even by the state. All have the right to express themselves and the right to worship or not as they see fit. Beyond these I believe all have a right to drink clean water and breath clean air. All have a right to basic nutrition and shelter. All people also have the right to healthcare and an education.

By stating that public university and healthcare should be free to all regardless of their ability to pay, Bernie is affirming basic human rights, and that my friends is the point.

Anyone arguing that wealthy families such as the Trumps, Bushes, Gates or Clintons should not be beneficiaries of these sorts of policies, either fail to understand where the policies are rooted or are simply attempting to cloud the issue.

[HerbChestnut]

1. Great post.

[tk2kewl]

2. Thank you

[PatrickforO]

3. Thank you. You are right. We've got to get out of the, "Oh,

they don't deserve 'X' because they are rich," or "Oh, they don't deserve 'Y' because they didn't earn it." A basic right is a basic right regardless of whether someone is wealthy or poor.

[HerbChestnut]

4. That's right.

And things like libraries, public roads, public schools, etc. already exist so the argument is moot to begin with.

[tk2kewl]

6. And bringing people together around this concept is really our only hope

University is the perfect place for it too.

[tk2kewl]

11. And not to mention the additional bureaucracy required to make those judgements

And investigate the cheating such judgement fosters

[bobbobbins01]

5. But Trumps kids!

[tk2kewl]

7. They might learn something from the kids of working people

if they interacted with them in college

[rhett o rick]

10. Ok, now you've gone over the edge. I might agree that Trumps kids could get free tuition at

a public university, but don't even pretend that they would do it. The wealthy go way out of their way to stay away from those in the 99%. That's why they are wealthy.

The 1% doesn't wish us in the 99% to die, but they just don't care if we do.

[tk2kewl]

16. We still have some top notch public universities in this country and Bernie's proposal would

strengthen them all. Maybe by the time his gradkids get to college they'll actually want to attend one

[rhett o rick]

18. No matter how good public universities become the wealthy will attend their expensive private

universities. George Bush couldn't even qualify to go to Harvard and Yale except he was from a wealthy family.

Don't get me wrong, I support Sen Sanders' idea, but the wealthy are the wealthy and don't mingle with the riff-raff.

[tk2kewl]

19. Most will

Confiscatory taxes on all income over a few million could reduce their numbers though

[dsc]

25. actually George Bush tried to go to U of T, which is a public school the last time I checked

and Jeb Bush did go to U of T. Many, many doctors and lawyers have gone to state flagship schools such as Ohio State, UNC, University of Michigan and send their own kids (who are the children of doctors and lawyers and thus wealthy) to those schools. All of them have legacy admissions meaning that those kids are more likely to get in than those whose parents weren't admitted by those schools.

[The Blue Traveller]

8. Kicked and highly recommended.

Thank you, tk2kewl.

[Doctor_J]

9. Free school, healthcare, vacation, and a pension would make many McJobs serviceable

Actually place the workers in the middle class (no, not in Manhattan).

[rhett o rick]

13. That sounds too....too...well, too Democratic. The New-Democrats think

we don't need those things if we just give all our wealth to the corp-state and let them take care of us.

[Live and Learn]

12. K&R nt

[salib]

14. Exactly! Otherwise, you are simply proposing means based scholarships and medical charity.

Perhaps, that is the real distinction here. Those who want to simply "help those who are less fortunate", I.e., provide educational access or healthcare that is "means tested", are simply suggesting charity. That is really the approach of those who offer private help to others, a laudable activity.

What Bernie wants to do is simply make a human right a reality. For all. That is really the approach of a government. At least a democratic one based on the liberal concepts of a social contract.

[tk2kewl]

17. Means testing also perpetuates social division

[aidbo]

15. All citizens, rich or poor, benefit from free K-12 public school.

Extending that benefit to public university is the right thing to do. And saying things like 'I don't want you to pay to send Donald Trump's kids to college' is like calling for means testing.

Introducing means testing just makes the policy politically vulnerable.

[tk2kewl]

37. indeed... even if the rich kids don't attend public school

we all benefit from an educated society

[AgingAmerican]

42. A persons level of bigotry is inversely proportional to that persons parents education level

Tuition free college is one of the best things we could do to combat racism in this country. Education is the great equalizer.

It's also very good for the economy.

[Agony]

20. You are so very right on! (and more diplomatic than I)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=857733

Cheers!
Agony

[tk2kewl]

21. Actually I had been stewing all afternoon over an OP that suggested HRC was more progressive

than Bernie for not allowing rich kids a free education. It took a while for me to collect my thoughts.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

22. Education and healthcare should be a right

American society is Victorian. It's wonder children aren't sent down the coal mines to work.

[SmittynMo]

28. Bernie's got the hand up here.

She will never succumb to this. She's already bent as much as she wants to, and it's not even close to Bernie's proposals.

This needs to be a highlight, of one item that she can't and won't steal.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

44. Yes people like the idea

[WillyT]

23. Most Excellent Post !!!

& Rec !!!

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. Means testing is a way to make programs resented and unpopular forever. Social Security and Medicare

are not means tested and are overwhelmingly popular - attempts to abolish them or privatize them or make major cutbacks on them are almost always universally opposed by the overwhelming majority of American people. Other "help the unfortunate" programs that are means tested are always politically open to cutbacks and are in general unpopular - because people frequently have trouble imagining themselves in such unfortunate circumstances. Means tested programs insure that the very poor will be often resented by the middle class and the working poor who make just enough to put them above the limits to qualify.

Doesn't Hillary know that? Surely she must?

[Scuba]

32. Bingo!

[99Forever]

34. Hillary knows it alright.

And uses it and every other dirty tactic you can think of. Don't ever kid yourself into thinking that any of her sort of people, give one shit about us "little people." We are here to be used and then tossed away when we have nothing left that rich people can steal from us.

[a2liberal]

26. +1000000

I couldn't reply in the Hillary group thread earlier today so glad you posted this. I have long believed (well before Bernie's candidacy) that means testing is wrong. I believe in government providing services for everybody. Make it up on the income side with taxes.... means testing is just unnecessary and allows for drawing arbitrary lines and causing all sorts of boundary cases that you hear about.

[Enthusiast]

27. Kicked and recommended!

[Thespian2]

29. K & R!!!

For any society to flourish, all members of that society must be part of the care and concern of all governments...

[SoapBox]

30. K & R

[Scuba]

31. "... simply attempting to cloud the issue."

[tk2kewl]

36. I deliberately posted in GDP to invite a counter argument

I wonder why no one is arguing that these things are not human rights or that we can't afford basic human rights.

[99Forever]

33. Truth is true. n/t

[Armstead]

35. Bingo - Nail on head

[NCTraveler]

39. The team aspect always interests me.

Like a two tiered system of sorts for some.

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/1251832415#post12

[Armstead]

40. Okay you have a point but....

The point is that the word free does get tossed around a little too easily by everyone sometimes.

But it's not just by Sanders and supporters.

And, more importantly, most people recognize that "free" isn't free. The issue is how something is paid for by whom.

When I drive on a toll road, I know I'm dipping into my pocket to give a few bucks to the tolltaker. But when I drive down an untolled interstate highway, I realize that it may seem "free" but I know that I am still paying for it -- just in a more roundabout way.

A larger point regarding Sanders and the basic goals he represents. We live in a society where the costs and benefits have become very unfairly distributed. Someone who makes a modest amount of money is -- in comparative terms-- hit a lot more by taxes than someone (or a corporation) with more money than they will ever need AND who uses every trick in the book to skirt even their expected obligation.

If we are to have a society that actually functions, that has to be changed, and a system that places the rewards/costs around more fairly.

The cost of college is a crusher for young people, and unfortunately it's become more of a necessity. So the "free college" idea is part of the notion that having the affluent pay a tiny fraction of the costs of financial speculation to meet a social benefit is a step in the right direction.

Like every other proposed policy it has to go through the meat grinder. Maybe the numbers wouldn't work. In which case, perhaps we all have to pay a small fraction more in taxes to support it. If enough people object, it wouldn't happen. That's democracy. (in theory anyway)

Back to the basic point though. We were fed the crap of "starve the public sector" and "trickle down" economics for years. Are Democrats going to continue to parrot that, and whine like the GOP about Big Government. And use terms like "free unicorns" to demonize liberal ideas like Clinton supporters are now claiming about Sanders ideas (which are nothing more than an extension of the traditional liberalism Democrats claim to stand for)? And as a result, support the Darwinian "you're on your own" philosophy of conservatism?

.







.

[Armstead]

41. PS are you also so rigorous when people refer to free public education with lower grades?

That's a fairly common phrase too, even though people realize it isn't really free.

Or is it only objectionable when Sanders or a liberal proposal related to politics is suggested?

[NCTraveler]

43. Seems I don't like the right wing aspect of the term, just like you.

Or at least at one point a whole week ago you didn't like it. You should really read those replies and then look for the names here. Truly funny. No "buts" from you at that point in time either. Armstead, I'm just laughing at this point. What else do you do when people claim Thatcher is more of a feminist role model than Clinton. It's gone from sad to funny. What is clear is the rhetoric. Remember a week ago when it was said by members here that only right wingers call it free? I do. lol.

[NCTraveler]

38. .

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/1251832415#post22