So let me get this straight. If loans are capped some people will no longer be able to afford college. However, you believe the cost of college will go up.

So you are arguing that when price goes up so does demand? That is an interesting take.

The whole system sucks. Most people tend to vilify the insurance companies but the insurance companies constantly get bent over by the medical community. The doctors know exactly what they can get out of the insurance companies and they get it. The insurance company shrugs and raises premiums. Major players (ie United Health) are already dropping out of offering Obama Care options because they aren't profitable. Big medicine, big pharma and big insurance are all in it for profits. We the consumer pay. The whole system needs to be torn down and reinvented but these are some of the strongest lobbies in Washington so it will take something extraordinary to ever change the system.

mrbaseball, do you acknowledge that one of the main reasons for instituting Obamacare in the first place was to get preexisting conditions covered by insurance companies?

Would you believe that many doctors (not including surgeons) don't make what they used to make? Today, many doctors are very unhappy in their jobs. They are constantly in fear of being sued or trashed on the internet by some unhappy client.

doctors are sick of their profession:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=24808

Sure I acknowledge that. Preexisting conditions are a bitch. That's why the current system doesn't work. The insurance industry cannot be forced to lose money on purpose. I am a capitalist but capitalism doesn't work for health care. It could have but that window has been shut for decades.

You pay what the doctor, hospital, treatment center etc. says you pay. You don't shop or compare because the payment is done by a third party (insurance). Most don't shop or compare when it comes to insurance either because most get what they have at work. The consumer doesn't really have a say. This crappy system is so tangled into society now it is hard to see way clear. And if you don't have a job with insurance benefits you are at the mercy of this disaster. Obama Care helps in that aspect getting insurance availability for all.

Doctors feel the full wrath of government regulation and fears of malpractice which again drives costs higher and higher. If medicine becomes socialized (as it probably should) the doctors are really gonna hate that.

It's a bad deal all the way around and I don't see a quick or easy fix.

Your friends and family are parroting the ideals of Obamacare, but not Obamacare as it actually is. The poor people it is supposed to help aren't being helped, as I expressed in my post upthread.

Right now, I work in a restaurant. I can get in a ton of trouble if I go past 35 hours, as that would force the company to give me health insurance. You can figure out how much I'm earning right now, but my monthly bill would be north of $300 / month. The deductible is over $10,000 and I get nothing at all.

Mind that I have my own computer, and happen to be literate. I was able to take the many weeks to do my research and figure out how this whole insurance thing is supposed to work. What do all of these terms like copay, deductible, and other confusing terms mean. Mind that this is supposed to be the job of well-paid professionals (HR) to figure out for people, and to say the least, I was super confused at what all of this means. I was able to figure out that a) I can't afford it and b) I'm not really getting anything. If I get hurt, I'm devastated in either case, and if that is $10k or $50k, I wouldn't be able to pay it back either way, and that is not including the $300 / month I'd be paying to get to devastation. I'd rather use this money for other things, like, idk, text books so I can learn and hopefully get that $40 / hour job back.

One of my friends recently moved to England, and she's definitely on board with their system. She doesn't know anything about Obamacare, but from what she's telling me about their system, it is definitely not Obamacare. Sadly, she actually believes Obamacare is the English system, and that explains why so many Europeans are shocked that we aren't happy with this ****.

I'm not arguing that demand goes up with the price (although sometimes it does, it certainly helped Rice get more attention a few decades ago). I think you didn't read the post carefully. I'm pointing out that the advertised tuition price is not the real price of college. It is the price for people that can afford it. But for those that can't afford it, they get scholarships and pay less. Officially, they pay "40 K" but in reality, they pay much less. It seems to me that if the loans would be capped, then because many would have less money to give the college, then the college would raise its advertised price. Give bigger scholarships to those that can't afford it and raise their average tuition by getting more rich students to pay the full price.

Different students pay different amounts of money for their college education. The tuition that is advertised, is the amount paid by the richest students.

Obamacare is not great, but it is a stepping stone to eventually get us to the English system.

Also, the law has many other purposes. It includes stipulations for several experiments that after years of practice will hopefully help find a way to improve the system.

Like mrbaseball I had an injury where it took around 6 weeks to finally get a doctor's medical opinion on. I was sent from one place to another and only after 6 weeks did I have a better idea of what my injury was (partial tear of one of my knee ligaments). In Mexico, I would have known that much in 1 day (maybe 3 days if I have trouble setting up an appointment if people are too busy). The system is ridiculously bad at extremely high prices.
I remember seeing a bill of $900 because I got an X-ray and they cut my wedding ring off (my finger was sprained and it swelled. The wedding ring prevented recovery). The process took 5 minutes (including the X-ray). It was simple and easy. Yet, they billed my insurance company for $900. That's just ridiculous.

Obamacare is not the answer, but it is a path towards the answer.

Atul Gawande wrote a wonderful piece for the New Yorker comparing the crisis of health care with the agricultural crisis of the early 1900s.
Here's a link:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/07/29/slow-ideas

dT,
if you are working 30 hrs/wk in a restaurant (non-tipped), you probably qualify for a subsidy to that $300/mo.

Eh... I'm gunning to get a job that covers all that.

Polls are showing Clinton and Trump are about even, but they are also the least popular candidates either party has seen in some time. I wonder how all of this will affect the electoral college counts.

I'm so looking forward to the nuclear smear campaigns they are going to drop on each other. Oddly they both appear to be able to dodge and escape all the crap thrown at them. Wonder what topics will be new? Is slamming Trump on gender issues getting worn out yet?

Well, there goes the planet...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36392084

Trump wins enough for delegates nomination

Not a surprise that the Republicans came around to Trump.
Rallying around their leader is just what the Right does.

I read today that Trump and Sanders have agreed to a debate on June 7, though nothing is officially set in stone ATM. If this happens, and Sanders outshines Trump, it will make the DNC very interesting.

Doubtful. Hillary is still the choice of most Democrats. That said, I think this move helps Hillary, too. It'll show her how Trump plans to debate when his opponent(s) aren't just competing to say "radical Islamic terrorism" the most times and will engage with biting questions like, "How do you plan to do that?" Bernie also will get to show his supporters that Trump is a horrible alternative to him when he formally loses the nomination.

I truly doubt Sanders supporters would vote Trump over Clinton. If a large portion really did, his supporters are utterly insane.

Good point, I hadn't considered that angle.

I think a good number of Sanders supporters will vote for him anyway as a write-in candidate. They won't want to vote for either Trump/Clinton and will do it as a principled stand.

Seriously, why would trump do this? He is going to go into the debate like he always does and it will piss off the lolbernievoters. He should be trying to court the bernie voters and not mocking them for how stupid they are.... He has to be planning to take a dive in the debate to help bernie out.

Sure. But if you look at polling numbers nowadays, there is a decent chunk of Bernie supporters who are either undecided or actually polling for Trump right now. This is largely expected, and we've seen it before when spurned supporters of the losing candidate temporarily say they'll go for the opposite party prior to the winner wrapping up, making nice with the loser, and unifying the party. This is a good opportunity for Bernie to bring the party together and to show some sore losers in his camp that even if it's not going to be Bernie, it definitely shouldn't be Trump.

For Trump, it is just more free press plus a little one upmanship on Clinton, who has refused to debate Sanders a few times now. I would like to believe that Trump will use this opportunity to show he has beem learning a thing or two, and isnt going to be picking a VP strictly to outsource the presidency, but who knows what the plan is with Trump ?

For Sanders, this is totally do or die, so getting some spotlight before California is a major deal for him.

I think that, for Trump, the strategy works out pretty good. He gets a chance to show that the Democratic party is fractured and he gets to use Sanders as a willing partner in taking pot shots at Clinton, who won't be there to defend herself.

If Trump believes he has a better shot at beating Sanders than Clinton in the general election, then it only helps him to give Sanders a boost.

Any way you slice it, Trump has made a good game of putting people off balance and forcing them to play defense. Taking a debate with Sanders accomplishes that.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/donal...3e201?vqp8pvi=


Donald Trump’s Top Adviser: ‘This Is Not A Hard Race’

Appears the Trump /Sanders debate isn't going to happen.

I don't think most of Sanders supporters will get behind Hillary if she is the nominee. That doesn't necessarily mean they will vote for Trump though either. I expect most of them will either not vote, vote Green Party, or possibly write in Sanders.

Some probably will vote for Trump, and a few will switch to Hilary. I'm thinking probably none of the millennials will vote for Hillary, they'll probably all take one of the three options I listed above. Probably some of the middle age and older Sanders supporters will vote for Hillary. I'm not sure exactly which demographic of Sanders supporters will vote for Trump, probably the less politically aware ones who aren't looking at the individual policies of the two, only the fact that they are both anti establishment (or profess to be anyway,) and therefor incorrectly assumes that that makes them the same.

I'm sure Hilary voters weren't too keen on voting for Obama.

It's different this time though. Looking at this year as Republican vs. Democrat is flawed I think. Better to look at this election as Establishment vs. Anti-Establishment.

In '08 Hillary and Obama may have been pretty different looking candidates but they were both on board with the establishment of the Democratic Party. So ultimately Hillary supporters were able to transition to Obama.

This year, Hillary represents the establishment of the Democratic Party that alot of Bernie supporters have grown to loath. Their backing Bernie not only as a general election candidate but also as an attempted coup of the current rank and file establishment of the Democratic Party. A lot of Bernie supporters want to dismantle and rebuild the Democratic Party just as much as they want to see him beat a Republican for the White House in November. They aren't likely to turn around and back the very representation of that establishment they so loath that is Hillary Clinton.

It isn't apt to compare the situation to '08 or any other past election, because this year isn't Democrat Vs. Republican, it's anti establishment vs. establishment. Bernie is anti establishment, Hillary is not only establishment, she is the epitome of establishment.

I don't see any of the serious Sanders supporters turning around and voting for Hillary.

Some of the more bandwagony ones probably will. Certainly the on the fence types will.

Obama was a first term senator who was merely a law professor beforehand. He also did some work in the Chicago ghetto, but that wasn't really political.

Clinton was definitely painted with the old-guard establishment brush in '08. I think someone in the old thread said something about not forgetting that first woman isn't supposed to be confused with old news, but her last name didn't help her look new.

Obama's message was Hope and Change, out with the old and in with the new, and anti-establishment.

Sanders has been in Congress for over 20 years, plus held political office before that. He's been in politics longer than many of us have been alive.

Trump is certainly not establishment. He also has no clout in sausage making, so I'd expect him to make little change, if any, in office.