forgiving all student loan debt for teachers because he thinks teachers in particular are cooler than everyone else with student debt, so why not.
Of all the insane democratic nonsense being thrown out at the debates, this is one of the few things I'd actually support. Fixing the educational system (especially at the primary level) starts by getting the right people to teach kids. As it currently stands, most primary care teachers are poorly paid, especially in more poverty stricken districts, and will have pretty significant debt by the time they're actually making a relatively meager paycheck. If we want better people teaching our kids there needs to be some kind of incentive in place to actually get people into the field and I think forgiving debt for working in the public school system is a pretty good way to do that.
Yes, there are many great teachers out there, but there are also many who are dumb as rocks. Unfortunately, the less qualified ones often end up teaching in the places which actually need the best teachers possible to keep the kids on track.
If you can't afford health care you should still be able to get health care regardless of your national origin, that's how it works in all the advanced countries in the 21st century.
Advocating that patients who can't afford health care should not get health care is something that just doesn't sound right coming from a physician.
But again that's a personal opinion.
And who is going to pick up the tab for the tens of millions of people who can't pay? Let's assume we implement a single-payer Medicare-for-all plan which reimburses at current rates. Literally every hospital in the country would shut down. Now if we want to start cutting out entire fields that are financial sinkholes to the system like the ED, psychiatry, oncology, etc, we can create something feasible. However, if we want to provide the level of healthcare quality that most people in the US demand then we'd be completely screwed.
Regardless of what anyone says (even the UN), healthcare in any country is a service, not a right.
I think you are correct in that, at the present time, it may be a bad idea, given the climate, and this is coming from a black man. Opponents to even the thought of reparations automatically present it as being a check in the mail that all black folks will get and an immediate increase to their tax dollars. There are numerous creatives ways that a form a reparation can be presented, but quite honestly, that's only if people accept that what their ancestors did was a horrible thing and many prospered well off it. Something very simple and easy to start with could be, say, "African Americans can got to state-universities with tuition paid". That's just me spit balling. Of course, it will make the "Well I'm paying my kid's tuition" crowd angry but again, people have to accept a wrong was committed and quite honestly hasn't really been forgiven much or even corrected. I personally wouldn't want a "check in the mail" whereas a level playing field would pay much more dividends. If we have to get into a discussion of whether the playing field is level or not, then this will be a long thread.
Saying that we should implement programs to aid people who are in poor socioeconomic situations (which are disproportionately black) and saying that we should help all people of one race because of a specific injustice performed over a century ago are not the same thing. Additionally, holding the populace of an entire nation responsible is problematic. Since reparations would likely come from tax dollars, are you going to increase taxes on everyone and provide benefits only for black people? Tax anyone who isn't black? Will that include first generation immigrants? Only people whose family has lived here for X generations? Only people who descended from slave owners? Only those in a certain tax bracket regardless of their race or affiliation?
The whole situation is a muddled mess and I see no reason why this is being framed as "reparations" as opposed to creating social programs to economically advance the lower economic class (again disproportionately black) other than for political gain.
You’ve chosen to come to a country where you get to enjoy the perks of being a citizen here, but also have to share in some of the liabilities that the country may have.
This makes no sense. You’re viewing the political parties like someone would a sports team. Maybe we should just make the Southern states pay?
It also makes no sense to argue that those who had literally nothing to do with those events should be involved in providing reparations to those affected. Would you have first generation immigrants such as DREAMers helping to pay reparations? How about Native Americans? Chines families who descended from those exploited by building railroads?
The previous post cuts to the heart of the "who pays?" problem. You could argue that it's the US gov, but then you're just arguing that all US citizens should pay.
Living Japanese individuals specifically in internment camps were paid. What about descendants of Chinese immigrants from the early 1800's? They endured many similar forms of discrimination including segregation, discriminatory housing acts, specific taxes for only Chinese individuals, not allowing citizenship until 1943, and slavery (look up "coolie"). Should they receive reparations as well? Why or why not?
www.johndelaney.com
www.cnbc.com
