By estimates of the Democratic Party and the Press, two Democratic Presidential Candidates — Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are deemed ‘Progressives’.
The word ‘Progressive’ means a person who progresses an agenda, who moves an agenda forward towards a pre-specified desirable outcome. For the Democratic Party — the Inclusive Party, the party of the Minorities and the Disenfranchised — this pre-specified outcome can be no other than more of equality within society.
For the Democratic Party, the outcome of all of it’s Progressive Agenda cannot be any other than more of equality in society.
In addition to the pre-specified outcome that is guide for labeling of an agenda as Progressive, there exists an important caveat that all Progressive Agenda must satisfy, namely, a ‘Progressive’ does not move an agenda forward by recreating problems that already have been resolved.
A Progressive Person does not, in context of a Progressive Agenda, recreate problems that already have been resolved; rather provides an agenda which resolves problems that have yet to be resolved.
What then are the Progressive Agenda that have been put forward by the Progressives within the Democratic Party. The list of Progressive Agenda is inclusive of: Free College Education (FCE) and Improvements to Access to Health Care (IAHC), which revolve around a public health insurance option. With respect to IAHC, the seeming consensus at this point in time is that the public option will coexist with a private insurance option.
Alright then, let us detail what, perhaps is the greatest economic challenge of modern times, particularly, modern times in the United States of America. If I heard you say, ‘Income Inequality’, well then you and I are on exactly the same page.
Friend, do FCE and IAHC help mediate disparities in social status and income that already subsist within an economy?
If one kid passes tough exams, obtains a scholarship to attend Harvard University — a private tuition charging university that has reputation — how exactly does another kid who attends University of Michigan (one of the top public universities at this point in time) free of charge command the same demand, compensation, and levels of hire within the economy? With entry into the University of Michigan free in context of FCE, the social status that a graduand used to derive from attendance at a top rated public university is, at the very least, whittled down. Over time, with opportunities for demonstrating it’s quality whittled down, social status associated with graduation from the University of Michigan progressively loses value. So then, we arrive at some dampening of social status for graduands from the University of Michigan.
So then, whereas at the present time, the University of Michigan has a reputation that enables it command almost the same tuition (from out-of-state students) as Harvard, meaning it has developed reputation for turning out good graduates, we end up in an equilibrium within which that reputation is attenuated and serves as less of a springboard for it’ graduands.
Relative to those who continue to attend private colleges and universities, Free College Education engenders a loss of social status and income for those who attend public universities.
The argument within work spaces is correlated and very straightforward. With respect to the kid who attended private college or university, there exists lots more of information on ability. For the kid attending free public college, in absence of any real competition for merit — scholarships and competitions for scholarships are rendered irrelevant — there is less of information for assessing graduands from public universities. So then, employers of labor have a rational basis for preferring graduands from private colleges and universities. In this respect, employers of labor argue that when every student’s effort at the University of Michigan drops, this because education is free, still some students will get A’s on the curve. Graduation Summa Cum Laude then does not necessarily convey the same information, as was the case when the University of Michigan charged US$40,000.00 to out-of-state students.
Free College Education recreates a problem that already was resolved, namely, the possibility that a public school can acquire about as much reputation as a private Ivy League School.
For a truly progressive idea that helps to fix problems inherent in current administration of college education, check out this post.
If hospitals earn more money in context of private medical insurance plans — this is guaranteed to be the case, meaning they rationally give preference to such plans, how exactly does introduction of a public insurance plan guarantee quality of health care for those now deemed ‘have nots’ on basis of the fact that they prefer a public good to a private one?
What good is guarantee of access to good drugs at public option prices if doctors and nurses are not patient enough to arrive at right diagnoses, this because there is a higher paying patient waiting in the very next room, who perhaps is willing to rent two private rooms if necessary for boosting of hospital profits?
What good is guarantee of access to good drugs if people leave hospitals feeling degraded and abused, this merely because they subscribe to a public health insurance program? How do drugs help a person get well in contexts within which his or her spirit has been abused, simply because he or she does not make a lot of money?
When society chooses to pay entry level teachers US$30,000.00, and declares that availability of teachers is crucial for well functioning of society, should a teacher be in a position to be made to feel less than an investment banker, merely because he or she makes much less money? So then, what is the rationale for mistreatment of a teacher because he or she prefers savings that accrue in context of a public option insurance program? But abuse such a teacher might suffer when the same doctors and hospitals derive higher earnings power from some segments within society.
And what exactly is the lot of those who lose their jobs in context of this public option, a matter that is of utmost importance, for a public insurance plan in context of which a person cannot, by showing proof of loss of income to administrators of the plan, be able to walk up to a doctor’s office or hospital for obtaining much needed health care, is not worth the paper on which the edict for the plan is written.
The Democratic Party and the Press are attempting to sell us that ‘Different’ equates ‘Progressive’. If we buy this marketing spill, we all will end up on the wrong side of history.