In the presidents speech he said if health care was like college, as in having a public college option vs private, it would help keep prices down and make it affordable. Huh? :confused:

 

 

Is he serious? :ohbrother:

Guess they didn't vet his speechwriters.

 

I listen to Mike McConnell on WLW 700 in Cincinnati and he's claimed several times that college costs really began to take off when borrowing for college became easier. More money available, let's raise prices. It makes sense.

Guess they didn't vet his speechwriters.

 

I listen to Mike McConnell on WLW 700 in Cincinnati and he's claimed several times that college costs really began to take off when borrowing for college became easier. More money available, let's raise prices. It makes sense.

I have heard that several times. Not sure if it is actually true but makes a ton of sense. House prices seemed to shot through the roof when banks started giving out money to anyone with a pulse and some without.

It's scary how easy it is to get money for school anymore. I qualified for about 12500 in stafford loans alone, yet my total cost for the year including books is probably only around $7500-8000. and that's if I actually buy books, which more than likely I won't. That doesn't even include private loans. I never realized how many of my friends were serious when they said they'd have about $60,000 in student loans once they graduate, for my this was the first year I'd taken out a student loan. Scary stuff.

I'm curious to hear what those who agree with the proposed health care bill think.

I may have to read the speech again, but I took this comparison to mean that the existence of a "public option" would not mean the end of "private options," i.e. the US has both public and private universities and neither seem to be going anywhere.

I may have to read the speech again, but I took this comparison to mean that the existence of a "public option" would not mean the end of "private options," i.e. the US has both public and private universities and neither seem to be going anywhere.

Either way that's horrible analogy. That's comparing apples to Buicks.

I may have to read the speech again, but I took this comparison to mean that the existence of a "public option" would not mean the end of "private options," i.e. the US has both public and private universities and neither seem to be going anywhere.

 

Either way that's horrible analogy. That's comparing apples to Buicks.

What's so bad about that analogy? I understand that healthcare and college are different, but give us the details as to why it is so bad.

What's so bad about that analogy? I understand that healthcare and college are different, but give us the details as to why it is so bad.

 

The premise for public health care is that EVERYONE is guaranteed health care. Do you think EVERYONE should be guaranteed a college education?

The premise for public health care is that EVERYONE is guaranteed health care. Do you think EVERYONE should be guaranteed a college education?

I didn't say anything about what I think.

I didn't say anything about what I think.

 

You asked what was bad about the analogy being discussed. I think you just answered your own question.

The premise for public health care is that EVERYONE is guaranteed health care. Do you think EVERYONE should be guaranteed a college education?

 

I'm not sure what your point is. If you are saying the analogy is poor because not everyone is guaranteed a college education then you must also be saying that if that were the case the private system of colleges would collapse. You seem to be making value judgments about two different policies, that's not part of the analogy.

You asked what was bad about the analogy being discussed. I think you just answered your own question.

I never claimed it was a good or bad analogy, I was wondering what the reasons were that it was bad or good, and you gave a good answer.

 

It is a good analogy, in a way, because President Obama's claim that a "public option" in college has not eliminated private colleges. However, there is also a difference, because of what you said, and also because (as far as I know) the current public option plans don't require any financial contribution from its patrons, whereas public universities do, so there is some motivation to keep costs low. Furthermore, aren't public universities funded by the state, not the federal government? The very fact that the state can't print money makes another fundamental difference.

^ From my understanding, the "public option" would collect premiums.

So we'd be sending more money to a group of people that have yet to prove they can run any program efficiently and fiscally responsibly?