Hacker News Reader

Comment by lapcat | Hacker News Reader

> I'd have a lot more compassion about the debt forgiveness if they were enacting some plan to FIX the problem at the same time.

The problem is that typically the very same people who are opposed to debt forgiveness are also opposed government-sponsored higher education that's free for students, like higher school and earlier; likewise, the very same people who are in favor of debt forgiveness also advocate government-sponsored higher education.

I don't think there is a fix as long as higher education is treated like a luxury good. And if that's society's choice, so be it, but then I don't want to hear another word about so-called "meritocracy" when it's pay-to-play.

View on HN

Higher education in subjects with poor employment prospects is a luxury good. If wealthy people want to pay out of their own pockets to study those subjects then go ahead, but as a taxpayer I resent being forced to subsidize students who just want to goof around and pontificate for 4 years. Where is the return on my investment?

To be clear, I am not taking an extremist position here. There is value in having an educated populace and students should have some coursework in a broad range of liberal arts subjects. But for college majors we have to be more pragmatic at both an individual and social policy level.

When your solution to any societal problem is always "make it free!", maybe you need to broaden your thinking.

What's your solution?

I considered the alternative in my second paragraph. You didn't respond to that point. How do you reconcile meritocracy with pay-to-play?

"Make it free" doesn't work when costs are out of control, regardless of the product, service, or industry.

An idea solution would more closely connect the buyer (student) to the consequences of their decision (both good and bad) while holding the seller (university) accountable for the quality of their product/service.

Until you can address all three, there's no solution just pandering after the fact.

> I considered the alternative in my second paragraph. You didn't respond to that point. How do you reconcile meritocracy with pay-to-play?

Because it wasn't worth responding to. Most meritocracy has pieces that are pay to play. Maybe it shouldn't but acting like it doesn't is foolish.

The more interesting question is: How many students get a net benefit - financially, socially, etc - from college?

The more interesting question is: How many students get a net benefit - financially, socially, etc - from college?

From a policy perspective, the question we should be asking is "how much does society benefit from college graduates?"

If there's a net benefit to people attending college, then society should be funding it, as it's essentially "making a profit".

I also agree that changes to the funding model need to address the spiraling costs of attendance. But, I also believe much of that spiral is due to the funding model (near unlimited government backing and lack of dischargeability for the borrower).

> Because it wasn't worth responding to.

If you're just going to be dismissive, why did you respond at all?

> Most meritocracy has pieces that are pay to play

Which other "pieces" come with a lifetime of debt?

> The more interesting question is: How many students get a net benefit - financially, socially, etc - from college?

Why is that more interesting?

> If you're just going to be dismissive, why did you respond at all?

I didn't initially and chose to focus on the productive bit. You demanded a response.

I can say the exact same to those whose solution is to privatize everything. And frankly it seems like they're the ones who have governed the US for the last half century and the results do not seem great.

> I can say the exact same to those whose solution is to privatize everything.

Health care and higher education have moved hard the other direction.

No clue if privatization would work here - not pitching that - but the current solution has failed us and the "make it free" mantra doesn't work as long as the price is spiraling out of control.

> Health care and higher education have moved hard the other direction.

How so? I have no option to get public health care that I'm aware of; it's actually hard to imagine getting health care without being forced to pay a premium to a private company.

In both cases, private entities provide the bulk of the services, therefore you pay them.

And since you pay a fraction of the actual costs of the service for the public plans, the government subsidizes the rest.

The government is rarely the service provider for most of what they "provide" - roads are built by construction firms, medical care is mostly private doctors (the VA and HHS has some), the TSA is replaced by private firms in some places, and even nuclear missiles are manufactured by companies.

> The government is rarely the service provider for most of what they "provide" - roads are built by construction firms, medical care is mostly private doctors (the VA and HHS has some), the TSA is replaced by private firms in some places, and even nuclear missiles are manufactured by companies.

That's a deliberate policy choice. It doesn't have to be that way, but our politicians tend to be corrupted by campaign contributions and lucrative post-political jobs or (inclusive or) free-market ideologues who demand contractor bidding for any government services.

> That's a deliberate policy choice. It doesn't have to be that way, but our politicians tend to be corrupted by campaign contributions and lucrative post-political jobs or (inclusive or) free-market ideologues who demand contractor bidding for any government services.

That's a theory.

But as a former Fed, let me propose a different hypothesis: The people who want to do good work, want to grow, and want to push to the next level (whatever that is), don't go into government. Or if they do, they don't stay.

But don't believe me: if you know any US veterans, ask them about their experiences with the VA. Ask them if they've ever gone when it wasn't the only option.

I'm a veteran and my experiences with the VA have been great! I fully recognize that many others don't necessarily have the same experience, but I am consistently impressed by the quality of care that I receive.

The other veterans in my area (that I know and talk to) also seem to have good experiences with our VA healthcare. Just chipping in to say that while there is a lot to criticize about the VA, there are things to praise too.

Are you near/talking about Norfolk? That's the only exception I've ever heard.

Funnily enough, yes! Though my care in Anchorage, AK was also great. I didn't realize it was unique enough for you to name the location on a guess though.

I have a family member who regularly gets care at the Raleigh (maybe Durham) VA and gives positive reviews. He also has a comprehensive pension-provided private health insurance and (I assume) access to Medicare, yet gets some of his overall care at the VA, which is a 3-ish hour drive away. So, it’s far from his only option.

Why is the VA their only option? I'm not aware of anything stopping them from seeing a private doctor, except for the obvious issue of cost.

Any disparity between the VA and other hospitals is again the result of a deliberate policy choice to undermine government entities. With single payer health care, there wouldn't be such a disparity. And this isn't just a theory. The US is unique with our mostly privatized health care system, yet our health care costs per person are much greater than any other country, our health outcomes are worse than any other country, we have a ton of people who can't get health care, and we have many people bankrupted by medical debt, which is practically nonexistent elsewhere. Empirically, our largely privatized health care system has been a disaster.

In general, we give a lot of lip service to "supporting the troops", but mostly society doesn't give a crap about them after they come home. The only time this was different was during the World Wars period, where a large % of the male population was drafted. Veterans had political power then. Now that our military itself has been largely privatized and made up of volunteers, often themselves looking for financial opportunities, veterans are largely forgotten, except to make oneself feel good by "thanking them for their service". But if they're, say, permanently disabled from wounds? Welp, tough luck.

I work for a private employer who pays a private insurer who then contracts with private doctors - where am I getting any sort of public subsidy?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com