Why is college so expensive?

[Soul Crusher]

Socialists are all over the place. The Entire Country or Norway is an example.  There is nothing exciting or noteworthy about calling attention to a Socialist Bus Driver.

Bernie Sanders was a Carpenter and a Journalist.  He still loves Carpentry.

But the US taxpayer puts food on his table.  Remember that. 

A nation of MLK's would starve in months. 

[The True Adonis]

Not one of those people ever made a payroll or were responsible for objective outcomes as far as costs of things go. 

Those are not the type of people that make things work. 

Actual people who do real things do.  Plumbers, painters, bus drivers, sectretaries, doctors, lawyers, contractors, etc make the world work, not people like MLK or Bernie Sanders.

Remember - Those who can do, do.  Those who cant . . . . .   well you know the rest of that line.

 
   

I don`t understand.  Albert Einstein made a wondeful salary as did MLK and the rest as well.

[The True Adonis]

But the US taxpayer puts food on his table.  Remember that. 

A nation of MLK's would starve in months. 

I don`t understand.  A Socialist tax System is one where there is a NATIONAL SALES TAX, like Norway.

You seem to be advocating the IRS based Income Tax. 

[The True Adonis]

But the US taxpayer puts food on his table.  Remember that. 

A nation of MLK's would starve in months. 

There are a few Republicans as well as Democrats who do support a SOCIALIST NATIONAL SALES TAX.  They call it a Fair Tax.

[The True Adonis]

But the US taxpayer puts food on his table.  Remember that. 

A nation of MLK's would starve in months. 

Without Albert Einstein, some Historians argue, Over a Million additional Lives would have been lost as World War II would have droned on.  If that is true, imagine the economic impact of that total destruction and loss given that premise.

[LurkerNoMore]

Because college is a BUSINESS...it is NOT about education.

EDUCATION SHOULD NOT BE A BUSINESS

This is a very VERY true statement here.

College should be free for all citizens.  Facts and Knowledge should not be only for those that can afford it.  

I agree with this to a certain extent.

First let me say that I was one of the "lucky" ones that attended college on an academic scholarship.  My entire 4 years was paid for without a penny coming from my pocket.  (Often I had a check at the end of every semester for the balance of my award that wasn't spent on supplies and other school related things.  Was usually about $600 or so.  Not a huge amount)

When I studied for my MHA, that year of study and residency was covered as well.  In addition to the couple of times I choose to study on an exchange program at another college (twice in another state, twice in another country), everything then was covered as well.

Do I consider this "free education"?  NO.  I consider it "EARNED" education.  I did my work for 4 years in high school and was rewarded for it with a college education presented to me.  I did my work for 4 years in college and was rewarded for it by having further educational goals presented to me.

I truly believe those that really WANT it should have the opportunity to get it.  There are some very smart people out there that would excel in college and develop their talents to the utmost potential but simply do not have the $$ and means to do so.  This is really a bad thing when you look at it because overall, it robs the workforce of some people who would make truly outstanding employees.

Does this mean that everyone should be going to college for free?  No.  I believe the opportunity should be there and more readily but you must earn it.  Enroll, carry an above average GPA, stay out of trouble of all kind (on and off campus), do something like 40 hours of required community service per summer, and the opportunity for a college education is yours.  I believe that the ones that truly want it and deserve it will be (and should be) rewarded.  

This doesn't apply for those that carry a 2.1 GPA, miss classess, changes school randomly or miss semesters, get arrested, etc...  If they are not serious about their education then THEY should be the ones to pay for their lackluster efforts.  No one else.  This would certainly weed out the people that don't really want a college education, in addition to bringing back the importance of what a degree once held.  Used to be a degree held a lot of weight and moved you up the ladder much faster.  Now days, it is simply an entry point for many companies and those freshly minted degree holders lack many basic skills in their fields (despite having a degree) that are needed to achieve exceptional results and distinguish them from other coworkers.  Companies only hurt themselves by hiring people from "degree mills" type institute that churn out grads simply because they (or the gov't) pay the tuition.

I do think the availability for free education should be increased significantly, but only under established guidelines that require the student to support his end of the deal as well.

[Soul Crusher]

"There are some very smart people out there that would excel in college and develop their talents to the utmost potential but simply do not have the $$ and means to do so.  This is really a bad thing when you look at it because overall, it robs the workforce of some people who would make truly outstanding employees."



That's the problem.  The current system does not reward this type of person.  It rewards the athlete, the slacker with rich parents, etc. 

[LurkerNoMore]

That's the problem.  The current system does not reward this type of person.  It rewards the athlete, the slacker with rich parents, etc. 

Which is why I agreed with Samson when he stated college/education is a business.

Can't believe I actually agreed with him on anything.

[MuscleMcMannus]

Norway is a small homogeneous population that has not a fraction of the issues we deal with here.

Additionally, college here serves mostly as a place holder for many people who go into debt and come out and get HS level employment anyway. 

It would be far better to encourage community college and trade schools than private colleges that charge huge sums of money.

Of course the better students will go to college, but many would, and should pursue other endeavors.   

You're exactly right.  Scandinavian countries have hardly any of the problems we have.  They have a very small population with huge income from the sale of their oil reserves.  They are living off of their exports.  We don't have that option in the US.  This is why all those countries like Sweden have so much money for socialized medicine and other things.  However, that is changing. 

[Deicide]

You're exactly right.  Scandinavian countries have hardly any of the problems we have.  They have a very small population with huge income from the sale of their oil reserves.  They are living off of their exports.  We don't have that option in the US.  This is why all those countries like Sweden have so much money for socialized medicine and other things.  However, that is changing. 

Yup. I have always said that population size is key. Scandinavian models are taylored to the populations of those countries, not going to work for 300 mil+.

[MCWAY]

"There are some very smart people out there that would excel in college and develop their talents to the utmost potential but simply do not have the $$ and means to do so.  This is really a bad thing when you look at it because overall, it robs the workforce of some people who would make truly outstanding employees."



That's the problem.  The current system does not reward this type of person.  It rewards the athlete, the slacker with rich parents, etc. 

Actually, it rewards those who would excel in college. It also rewards the athlete. Some people are late-bloomers, if you will. A lot of people, who weren't stellar students have gone on to get educations, via athletic scholarships.

But, you do make a point. Sometimes, the people who get scholarships aren't necessarily the best students. It's all about the standardized test. I wasn't the valedictorian or salutitorian at my high school. But, I got more scholarship offers than either one of them (and more were full-ride scholarships), because I did better than they did on the SAT and ACT.

Basically, to get through high school, you simply need a good short-term memory and the ability to "pump-and-dump" information for tests.

[The True Adonis]

Yup. I have always said that population size is key. Scandinavian models are taylored to the populations of those countries, not going to work for 300 mil+.

Nice try, but we already spend more per capita per student for education and more per capita per person for Healthcare.  That renders the population size irrelevant as implementing a Universal System in both is projected to lower the per capita cost from what we are paying.

Your argument is meaningless.

[The True Adonis]

You're exactly right.  Scandinavian countries have hardly any of the problems we have.  They have a very small population with huge income from the sale of their oil reserves.  They are living off of their exports.  We don't have that option in the US.  This is why all those countries like Sweden have so much money for socialized medicine and other things.  However, that is changing. 

Our GDP is comparable so that is NOT the case.  Their National Sales Tax is moreso the reason for the ability to provide for its citizens.

[Soul Crusher]

Our GDP is comparable so that is NOT the case.  Their National Sales Tax is moreso the reason for the ability to provide for its citizens.

Absolutely not true.

You cant use a tiny population like Norway and assume that they do will work for us.  Additionally, Norway is tiny geographically and does not have the energy needs we do.   They have a different history, people, experience etc. 

Its utter nonsense to believe that what works in Norway will work here.   

[The True Adonis]

Absolutely not true.

You cant use a tiny population like Norway and assume that they do will work for us.  Additionally, Norway is tiny geographically and does not have the energy needs we do.   They have a different history, people, experience etc. 

Its utter nonsense to believe that what works in Norway will work here.   

Geographic Area makes zero sense.  This isn`t 1300 where the exchequer comes on horseback to collect taxes, taking a year.

[The True Adonis]

You're exactly right.  Scandinavian countries have hardly any of the problems we have.  They have a very small population with huge income from the sale of their oil reserves.  They are living off of their exports.  We don't have that option in the US.  This is why all those countries like Sweden have so much money for socialized medicine and other things.  However, that is changing. 

Sweden`s revenue is from taxes.  This is what they are known for. They are also a trade based economy.  They produce Timber, Hydropower and Iron Ore. Not oil in case you are assuming they have oil.

[The True Adonis]

   3.  Myth Two: Universal Health Care Would Be Too Expensive

        * Fact One: The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care

        * Fact Two: Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.

        * Fact Three: State studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that single payer universal health care would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits

        * Fact Four: The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada’s.

        * Conclusion: Single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the current US system due to lower administrative costs. The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems. By lowering these administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save money

[Soul Crusher]

Geographic Area makes zero sense.  This isn`t 1300 where the exchequer comes on horseback to collect taxes, taking a year.

Norway is a tiny little country that makes most of its money on oil exports and has a tiny homogenous population that lives off it.  The USA has become a service based economy.  

They dont allow millions of illegals to swamp their system and are not relied upon to police the terrorists and rougue states in the world.  Thus, they are not required to fund a military like ours.      

Your attempt to try to extrapolate what Norway does to the rest of the world, or at least the USA, ignores dozens of issues that make it a non-starter at best.      

 

[The True Adonis]

Norway is a tiny little country that makes most of its money on oil exports and has a tiny homogenous population that lives off it.  The USA has become a service based economy.  

They dont allow millions of illegals to swamp their system and are not relied upon to police the terrorists and rougue states in the world.  Thus, they are not required to fund a military like ours.      

Your attempt to try to extrapolate what Norway does to the rest of the world, or at least the USA, ignores dozens of issues that make it a non-starter at best.      

 

1. Our GDP is comparable.

2. They extend their benefits, such as free schooling and Universal Healthcare to ALL PEOPLE regardless of Citizenship.

3. They don`t need a huge military because they did not create a Military Industrial Complex and never have had the Empire mindset.

4.Please list an issue and I will try to counter it.

[Soul Crusher]

The only reason the adm costs are so high is to comply with the paperwork from Mediare, Medicaid, and avoidance of law suits from lawyers like John Edwards.

[Soul Crusher]

1. Our GDP is comparable.

2. They extend their benefits, such as free schooling and Universal Healthcare to ALL PEOPLE regardless of Citizenship.

3. They don`t need a huge military because they did not create a Military Industrial Complex and never have had the Empire mindset.

4.Please list an issue and I will try to counter it.

Like I said, let 15-20 million illegal alien arabs flood their country and see what happens.

[The True Adonis]

The only reason the adm costs are so high is to comply with the paperwork from Mediare, Medicaid, and avoidance of law suits from lawyers like John Edwards.

Wrong. You WANT John Edwards on your side.

Did you know that Doctors and Mal Practice are the THIRD leading cause of Death in the United States.

America's Healthcare System is the Third Leading Cause of Death
   
Barbara Starfield, M.D. (2000)
   
Summary by Kah Ying Choo

This Journal of the American Medical Association article illuminates the failure of the U.S. medical system in providing decent medical care for Americans.
      
 
In spite of the rising health care costs that provide the illusion of improving health care, the American people do not enjoy good health, compared with their counterparts in the industrialized nations.  Among thirteen countries including Japan, Sweden, France and Canada, the U.S. was ranked 12th, based on the measurement of 16 health indicators such as life expectancy, low-birth-weight averages and infant mortality.  In another comparison reported by the World Health Organization that used a different set of health indicators, the U.S. also fared poorly with a ranking of 15 among 25 industrialized nations.

Although many people attribute poor health to the bad habits of the American public, Starfield (2000) points out that the Americans do not lead an unhealthy lifestyle compared to their counterparts.  For example, only 28 percent of the male population in the U.S. smoked, thus making it the third best nation in the category of smoking among the 13 industrialized nations.  The U.S. population also achieved a high ranking (5th best) for alcohol consumption.  In the category of men aged 50 to 70 years, the U.S. had the third lowest mean cholesterol concentrations among 13 industrialized nations. Therefore, the perception that the American public’s poor health is a result of their negative health habits is false.

Even more significantly, the medical system has played a large role in undermining the health of Americans.  According to several research studies in the last decade, a total of 225,000 Americans per year have died as a result of their medical treatments:     
      • 12,000 deaths per year due to unnecessary surgery

• 7000 deaths per year due to medication errors in hospitals

• 20,000 deaths per year due to other errors in hospitals

• 80,000 deaths per year due to infections in hospitals

• 106,000 deaths per year due to negative effects of drugs
   
Thus, America's healthcare-system-induced deaths are the third leading cause of the death in the U.S., after heart disease and cancer.

[Soul Crusher]

No I dont.  That disgusting slob not only made millions on phony medical theories, but is a disgrace to his family and children.

[The True Adonis]

The terms iatrogenesis and iatrogenic artifact refer to adverse effects or complications caused by or resulting from medical treatment or advice. .

Causes of iatrogenesis include medical error, negligence, and the adverse effects or interactions of prescription drugs. In the United States, from 120,000 to 225,000 deaths per year may be attributed in some part to iatrogenesis.



iatrogenesis is a major phenomenon, and a severe risk to patients. A study carried out in 1981 more than one-third of illnesses of patients in a university hospital were iatrogenic, nearly one in ten were considered major, and in 2% of the patients, the iatrogenic disorder ended in death. Complications were most strongly associated with exposure to drugs and medications.[12] In another study, the main factors leading to problems were inadequate patient evaluation, lack of monitoring and follow-up, and failure to perform necessary tests.[13]

In the United State alone, recorded deaths per year (2000):

    * 12,000—unnecessary surgery
    * 7,000—medication errors in hospitals
    * 20,000—other errors in hospitals
    * 80,000—infections in hospitals
    * 106,000—non-error, negative effects of drugs

Based on these figures, 225,000 deaths per year constitutes the third leading cause of death in the United States, after deaths from heart disease and cancer. Also, there is a wide margin between these numbers of deaths and the next leading cause of death (cerebrovascular disease).

This totals 225,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes. In interpreting these numbers, note the following:

    * most data were derived from studies in hospitalized patients.
    * the estimates are for deaths only and do not include negative effects that are associated with disability or discomfort.
    * the estimates of death due to error are lower than those in the IOM report. If higher estimates are used, the deaths due to iatrogenic causes would range from 230,000 to 284,000.

[The True Adonis]

No I dont.  That disgusting slob not only made millions on phony medical theories, but is a disgrace to his family and children.

Trust me, you WANT medical protection.  I know firsthand.