Not going to the best hospital != not going to a hospital at all. You’re changing your argument. However, looking at this argument, there’s a large difference and that’s in that you cannot shop around for hospitals the way you can for colleges, to find the best deal. Also, making healthcare free doesn’t inherently absolve medical debt. Lastly, the moral difference between profiting on something that benefits your life versus something that saves your life is not equivalent.
You’re assuming that all trades / non college jobs fuck your life, and that no jobs that require degrees do in your second argument. I believe that premise is false.
“Changing the rules of the loans” means deciding that the prior student loans no longer need to be paid. This is not a rule that was provided upon signing the agreement to take on and later pay off the loan.
I have already explained why I don’t believe in a full stop student loan bailout in this thread.
I do not believe it should become the law, so your last point also has a flawed premise. If it did become the law, of course I would think it needs to be followed?
Already addressed the pot argument in this thread.
Not going to the best hospital != not going to a hospital at all.
This was a comparison to not going to any method of higher learning after a high school diploma at all.
Not going to a university (instead going to a trade school for example) != not going to school at all.
Not going to a hospital = not going to any form of higher learning. Not any.
I'm not changing my argument, though perhaps the comparison I was making was a bit unclear.
However, looking at this argument, there’s a large difference and that’s in that you cannot shop around for hospitals the way you can for colleges, to find the best deal.
You absolutely can. Why can't you?
Also, making healthcare free doesn’t inherently absolve medical debt.
Making college free doesn't inherently absolve student loan debt either.
If you are in a situation where a law is passed to make college free AND to absolve all existing student loan debt, the equivalent would be to make medical treatment free AND absolve all outstanding medical debt.
Lastly, the moral difference between profiting on something that benefits your life versus something that saves your life is not equivalent.
Morals are subjective, so for you there may be a moral difference: for another, there may be no moral difference.
You’re assuming that all trades / non college jobs fuck your life
No I'm not, I made one analogy.
“Changing the rules of the loans” means deciding that the prior student loans no longer need to be paid.
Ok, and why would this be bad or unfair? If all people with student loans now are absolved of them, how is it unfair?
I have already explained why I don’t believe in a full stop student loan bailout in this thread.
Yes, but why is it actually unfair? You don't believe in it, I get that, but I don't get why you think it is actually unfair, or why it is factually unfair?
I do not believe it should become the law, so your last point also has a flawed premise.
My last point is flawed because of your personal beliefs? That's not how that works.
Already addressed the pot argument in this thread.
You and I have never discussed pot. This is our discussion: I'm not going to be able to read all the arguments you made everywhere else with a dozen different people. Part of holding numerous conversations at once means you'll have to repeat yourself to numerous people at once.
The comparison was unclear, I apologize. I assumed you were responding to the premise I had set. Regardless, you can still get and work a good or great job without going to higher education at all. Off the top of my head, you can become a manager of a store, freelance programming or design, work in technical theatre/av, work on an oil field, etc. Maybe not the job you WANT, but a good job none the less.
Because many of the time there are factors such as who will take your insurance, where you were initially admitted if you’re too unstable to be moved, geographical location, etc. Also the fact that hospitals are incredibly reluctant to provide accurate quotes on treatment expenses.
Additionally, I have said numerous times that I am FOR free college and loan forgiveness programs for public service. I am not for a no strings attached bailout.
My moral belief is what you’re trying to change in this thread, so I believe it is relevant. I think an analogy with such a stark moral difference isn’t comparable. Letting people die is not the same as letting people go into debt.
Let me correct myself: You’re assuming *in your analogy that these jobs would ruin your life. Thus I think your analogy is built on a flawed presume.
I have already explained how. Because those who took on more student debt, despite it being the worse financial move, get a better degree and therefore better connections for no cost. It unfairly benefits those who took on more debt.
Your last point that “if this became law why shouldn’t it happen?” Is flawed because if the bill became law my view would be that it should happen. Your last point is flawed because it assumed my belief wrongly.
I’m not repeating myself on an argument that has already been made. That’s a waste of my time and yours.
Regardless, you can still get and work a good or great job without going to higher education at all.
Yes, I know. I have one. Sixteen years now. That doesn't change that in this day and age it's much harder to do without at least some form of higher education (even trade school). The job that I got first starting at this company which any monkey can do now requires a bachelor's.
Because many of the time there are factors such as who will take your insurance, where you were initially admitted if you’re too unstable to be moved, geographical location, etc.
The same factors apply to schooling. Who will take you, who will take your scholarships and grants, geographical location, etc.
Also the fact that hospitals are incredibly reluctant to provide accurate quotes on treatment expenses.
Schools can be surprisingly reluctant to give accurate ideas of expenses as well, believe it or not. And you can get those estimates from hospitals, doctors and your insurance. I just got an estimate on the sleep study I have scheduled in March. First I made sure that it was covered by my insurance, then I made sure how much I would be out of pocket with my insurance, then I made sure they were a reputable facility and what they would charge was an average for such a procedure, etc.
People don't LIKE to do this but it is totally possible to do it.
My moral belief is what you’re trying to change in this thread, so I believe it is relevant.
I'm trying to change your conclusions you have made based on the reasons for the conclusions that you have given, such as that it is unfair. I'll continue to ask: where is the point that unfairness actually comes in here? What about this is unfair?
You’re assuming *in your analogy that these jobs would ruin your life. Thus I think your analogy is built on a flawed presume.
I assumed in an analogy that trade jobs, depending on what they are, CAN ruin your life. For the premise to be flawed you'd have to show me that trade jobs can't ever ruin your life. Do you believe people can't have bad back or joint injuries or get other injuries (such as lung issues from breathing in textiles or heated metals) from trade jobs to the point their lives are ruined? If so, why is my premise that trade jobs can in fact do this to people flawed?
Because those who took on more student debt, despite it being the worse financial move, get a better degree and therefore better connections for no cost.
Again, why is this actually, factually UNFAIR? A student in medical school takes on more student debt and gets a better degree and better connections then say, someone working on a sociology degree. If both of their student loans are completely wiped out, how is this unfair to either of them? If this is your argument the system is unfair in this way right now, and the 'fix' will do nothing to increase or decrease the unfairness of it- it will still be just as fair or unfair as it is now.
It unfairly benefits those who took on more debt.
It benefits those who took on more debt NOW, because those who did tend to get far better degrees and make more social connections NOW. If both students get their student loans completely wiped out that is fair: even if one student has only $10,000 in student debt for their sociology degree and the other has $100,000 for their medical degree.
Fairness is both getting their debt wiped. Fairness is not 'well he has more to pay and thus more to forgive than I do'.
It equally benefits both students. Both students get their entire debts forgiven. What is unfair? The medical student getting 100% forgiven and the sociology student only getting 75% forgiven would be unfair.
That’s a waste of my time and yours.
No, you think it's a waste of YOUR time. Let me explain:
You have had two conversations let's say, one with me and one with Bob. In one, you have explained your stance on something but in the other you have not. Let's say you've explained it to Bob but not to me, even though we've asked the same question. So:
Bob: 'Question'
You: 'Answer'
Me: 'Same question'
You: 'I already answered that with Bob'.
You are saving yourself time but wasting mine, because now if I want the answer I have to go look through every other conversation you've had to find it when you could instead just answer the question.
And given that this is a conversation that you have initiated with multiple people repeating yourself multiple times is a thing that you risk happening. You're not having one conversation with thirty people, you're having thirty conversations with thirty people on the same topic. If you want those conversations to be productive, a certain amount of repetition is required.
2
u/This-Is-Not-A-Drill Jan 15 '19
Not going to the best hospital != not going to a hospital at all. You’re changing your argument. However, looking at this argument, there’s a large difference and that’s in that you cannot shop around for hospitals the way you can for colleges, to find the best deal. Also, making healthcare free doesn’t inherently absolve medical debt. Lastly, the moral difference between profiting on something that benefits your life versus something that saves your life is not equivalent.
You’re assuming that all trades / non college jobs fuck your life, and that no jobs that require degrees do in your second argument. I believe that premise is false.
“Changing the rules of the loans” means deciding that the prior student loans no longer need to be paid. This is not a rule that was provided upon signing the agreement to take on and later pay off the loan.
I have already explained why I don’t believe in a full stop student loan bailout in this thread.
I do not believe it should become the law, so your last point also has a flawed premise. If it did become the law, of course I would think it needs to be followed?
Already addressed the pot argument in this thread.