Thanks for sharing personal stuff.
That said, you don't speak for anyone else, just like I don't. You would pay more in taxes, others wouldn't. You think it petty and can't believe cancer relatives would think disparate treatment (in a financial sense) unfair, others may not agree. You can always donate money, if you think taxes aren't sufficiently high.
So, first, I know I speak for a whole bunch of people who agree with me. I don't know anyone who has had to deal extensively with our healthcare system as patients that think it's remotely decent. It's not lost on me that you are presenting a hypothetical person as your example and not anyone who actually exists.
Second, I mentioned being OK with a tax increase, and I am. However, the reality is, full universal healthcare, not just for cancer but for everything, would cost less to the vast majority of people than private insurance does.
Similarly, for tuition free public college, the benefits that everyone in society gets means that for at least for the medium and long term they get way more benefit than the cost. The financial savings alone from people not depending as much on unemployment, SNAP, and other social safety nets, as well as not going to prison as often, would make up for the costs, and and that's before looking at the difference in lifetime income tax based on level of education. tuition free public college is a good investment.
Is your point that wealth disparity is inherently unfair? Sure, some of us are born into better circumstances than others. The question whether government's role is to equalize or at least minimize natural unfairness, is an interesting one.
That doesn't change the FACT that forgiveness will be unfair to some, no matter how you structure it. Again, we as a society might conclude the unfairness is worthwhile (I'd probably disagree, but I'm one voice), but let's not gloss over the unfairness.
Basically public policy benefits some more than others, so, all public policy decisions are in some way "unfair". Do you think it's "fair" that home owners get to write off mortgage interest every year while renters don't get any comparable tax benefit? Allowing public policy to be driven by people feeling petty is stupid.
Also, WTF is "natural unfairness" The economy is a construct created by people. There is nothing 'natural' about it. Given that the economy is a massive social construct, there is no issue with society changing the rules to better fit our needs, including changing the rules so it minimizes instead of exacerbates inequality.
LOL...on the flip side, the argument seems to be "education good" (without factoring in the cost of forgiveness to society and ROI issues, incentive distortions that are inherent with such a policy, etc.).
The arguments in favor are not just 'education good', but honestly, looking at the data, 'education good' is pretty unassailable as an argument.
As you imply above, there's no need to get into this. Government-paid is free to the patient/relatives, but not to them as taxpayers, and obviously not to any taxpayer.
Yes yes semantics, but it seems we often forget that forgiveness DOES come with a cost (duh). It's not free, from an overall standpoint.
I don't have a conclusion, but the questions to me are obvious. Is forgiveness (however structured, and however many rounds of it) of net/ROI benefit? People here assume so ("education is good"), but without any deeper thinking or support (at least that I've seen). Would forgiveness lead us away from the deeper issue of ridiculous education costs? Does forgiveness distort incentives, such as leading a person to choose a ROI-poor major, since one has no skin in the game?
No one forgets that "Free" means taxpayer funded.
On the ROI argument, there is pretty good evidence that younger people today are holding off on engagement with the economy, buying houses and cars, getting married, etc. largely because of student loans, and this has a large long term effect on the economy.
There is also evidence that the 'cost' of forgiving student loans completely isn't actually that big of a deal. The federal government has not been collecting on student loan debt for like 2 years, and it doesn't seem to have changed all that much. The reason is pretty obvious when you think about it. honestly for the government, the 70 billion a year they collect on student loan debt is not a huge source of revenue. We could more than make that up simply by freezing spending increases on the DoD for a couple of years.
Also, if more people choose their academic pursuits based on what they are interested in and good at a bit more, and what leads to more money a bit less, I don't see that as a bad thing.
