Gravel doesn't sound realistic.
Ask yourself - where is the money going to come from?
The official (not unofficial) defence budget is at 4% of the GDP - $480 billion which happens to be the largest component of the national budget. To provide universal health care under a profit-model will result in the government paying HUGE costs. In fact I don't see any indication that he'd allow for the importation of generic drugs from Canada, India, etc which are significantly cheaper than the US counterpart. US's current health spending per capita is $5,711 per capita. In contrast Finland spends $2,104 per capita and they do better in every health care measure while Japan does even better under that multi-tier health care system that costs roughly the same as Finland. My point is whatever the health care model that is chosen, it CANNOT be the current model. I'd cost the US over $1.6 trillion versus $631 billion if outsourced directly to Finland for example. The former is prohibitive while the latter can easily be absorbed (5% vs. >12%).
Some facts to quench our thirst for knowledge and us to independently conclude the health-care situation:
The reasons for the especially high cost of health care in the U.S. can be attributed to a number of factors, ranging from the rising cost of medical technology and prescription drugs to high administrative cost resulting from the complex multiple player system in the U.S. For example, it has been estimated that between 19.3 and 24.1 percent of the total dollars spent on health care in the U.S. is spent simply on administrative costs. The growing shift from non-profit to for-profit health care providers, such as the growth of for-profit hospital chains, has also contributed ot the increased of health care providers, such as the growth of for-profit hospital chains, has also contributed to the increased costs of health care. By 1994, research has showed that administrative costs among for-private had increased to 34.0 percent compared to 24.5 percent for private non-profit hospitals, and 22.9 percent for public hospitals.
In addition, the high proportion of people who are uninsured in the U.S. (15.5 percent in 1999) contributes to expensive health care becauase conditions that could be either prevented or treated inexpensively in early stages often develop into health crises. Treatment of cris conditions later on is much more expensive, such as emergency room treatment, or intensive care when an untreated illness progresses to a more serious stage. Finally, the aging of the population in the U.S. is also contributing to mounting increases in the cost of health-care.
LinkNow lets take a look back at history.
New York City during the 70s followed a fairly socialist economic model during the 70s. Free university education, development of public parks and what not. However this New York City of the 70s went bankrupt. How? The NYC government operates at a loss so were dependant on banks for loans in order to pay for programs. The banks stopped providing loans which lead to NYC announced that they were bankruptcy. Even President Ford himself told NYC to
drop dead. Unless you're ready to except a straight Marxist economic model where the state bleeds for the community (not military ala USSR), inefficient spending isn't going to be compatible under the capitalist financial system.
Realistically speaking. Even a decrease in defence (officially $480B) wouldn't absorb the costs but a Finish/Japanese model would definitely be enough to to absorb the costs.
Education:"
Gravel speaks nothing significant about education. He seems more like a follower than one who would really apply reform the stone age education system in the U.S. There has been tremendous proposals and reviews on education models in all three levels in the academia suggesting effective teaching methods, environment, and what-not. What most studies do suggest that is a higher level, more theoretical education is most preferable inside and outside of economics.
That is why there needs to be more grants in university. What is most preferable is free education for those who cannot afford it. These grants could rewarded through work, but seriously tertiary education should be free as long as one can meet the requirements. The poor helped build the nation as well. Hell if you funded ALL 17 million students for four years, it'd cost $340B (20k per head). That 17 million is mainly from the 3 largest upper income quintiles (~60% of population). Lets say that the lower two income quintiles (40% of the pop) couldn't afford to attend tertiary university then you're dealing with 10 million students who need to be covered (@ 10% acceptance rate). At ~200B over 4 years (<0.4% of GDP per annum), you could even take <0.7% GDP per annum and provide FREE education to the current 17 million. Both would probably take a ~1% hit on the US GDP or any other nation that adopt a similarly policy. The defence budget is STILL 4x greater.
The most popular topic on the forum - foreign affairs:Mike Gravel to me, represent a typical European American mindset. It is "they take our high-end jobs" while NAFTA took away jobs from farmers. For gods sake, Mexico wasn't any better before NAFTA. No Mexican would really want to see the Mexico that was pretty much colonized by the Spanish and then the Americans. NAFTA gave Mexico the gardens and roads of the American dream. It was half-backed but probably better than the imperialist, 100% usurp model of model.
That is manifest destiny - the nature of the inferior races is to be subservient to the "White Order".This mindset still taints white America which I happen to find ironic since 'white' America is a hybrid population composed of slaves/unskilled labourers. You'd expect sympathy. This isn't the land of blonde hair, blue-eyed giants who defeated the dark skinned Elamo-Dravidians in Caucasus. The reasoning behind NAFTA is that it brings nation's like out Mexico out of poverty which means that it has a more 'cleaner' purpose than the directly racist ideology dominant when Western nations were openly imperialistic. Now its a bit harder to realize the imperialism behind much of our nations foreign policies.
The alternative model that individuals like Gravel is what I call the genocidal model (yes, very unoriginal). To make the the ego-centric American voters accept the fact that US must compromise Mexicans (ouch). What do I mean? Well, middle class America has a problem with the shift of large scale high-end manufacturing jobs that are being by 'taken' by Mexicans inside or outside Mexico. The reason why corporate America likes Mexico is because of its low cost pool of high skilled labourers. It is true that the shift south is due to low labour costs but its not like larger corporations would if it meant no subsidies. You see, corporations are trying bargain hard. What would decrease costs in manufacturing is raw material cost. That is why we see a war in Iraq. Similarly most, including the nationalists who seem to be dominating US politics just want Mexico's resources rather than Mexicans. To them Mexicans must be farmers so that they could work at slave-like rates in American agriculture operations in Mexico and this can please all sides simply because this isn't allowed in the US. No American would work in such conditions so why not allow Mexicans do it in their nation away from the American children?
However shifting jobs from Mexico to US would shift just lead to Mexicans trying to compete for these jobs in US illegally and legally. That is what President Bush seems to be thinking if his successor had to move some jobs from Mexico to US. However the nationalistic stock really want to shift jobs from Mexico to US. All of them. To Bush it doesn't really matter. He's an elite, his family for many generations were not unskilled labourers like most Euro-Americans with an unknown ancestry. As long as his clique can profit, its good.
What is this solution to this Nationalism-Corporatism clash? Keep the CIA and friends there. Increase the US Armed Forces presence around the Mexico-US border. Just destroy the land and turn it into a giant ghetto (that defines much of Mexico today) that even engulfs the middle-class centres which depends on corporate America for income. That would mean reduced competition for the US labour force and it'd allow the corporations to actively usurp a nation without any opposition from the majority. This is what Hitler's world view entailed with Jews and other non-Aryans being the lower castes. In fact that's what the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and what-not were doing in the ghettos. Labour. Some were even used in scientific experimentations that is even illegal now in order to test various hypothesis regarding human ancestry to those that are application-based.
How do we know? Simple answer. Iraq. That was the simple purpose. To totally destroy the land, its social-infrastructure, education institutions, etc in order to implement a repressive regime. One that would allow US and UK to import cheap oil. The Afghanistan war was initiated because it will be used as a transit point for natural gas from Central Asia which would then exist the world through Gwadar, Pakistan (undergoing ethnic cleansing to keep port stable for Western interests) and a number of other ports in Iran (when invaded). Its being handled by Singapore so its going to be a very Chinese and Western-friendly port and that is what a nation like Pakistan which receives aid from both China and US would prefer.
How about our leaders? Sad news. None of these nations even address the genocide. In fact I only knew of this information when eagerly searching for this information. Those who don't give a shit about foreign affairs wouldn't know anything and possibly dedicate themselves to the Sudan situation which is clearly just a campaign to pressure the government into accepting the US world order. A fanatical believe in an absolute moral order dangerous. Its no different from nationalism. Such ideologies sway populations because they are so straight forward and absolute. Any leader can say, "Nation does not follow our moral standards", and then initiate a war. But much of our morality is either from religion or logic, and none of the sources would ever suggest that nations that conflict with our ideology must be destroyed. Especially when these regimes that clash with our moral values were introduced by us.
None of these leaders address the fact that we install regimes that are genocidal and oppressive. Yes many in the Western governments are indeed mass murderers. The voting population gave them consent, though. Never mind that fact. But ask yourself - why isn't US trying to undo their ways. If Mexicans are a big problem them why not allow Mexico to establish itself? The nation is RICH in resources and they can realize higher living standards CAN increase. Yes, I am yelling because I do not understand how a population that has access to the library or web is totally unaware of this fact.
Its obvious. Guys like Gravel are told not to allow nations to command their own wealth. No, it must be commanded by a small elite who are US puppets. The fancy factories and malls because keeping people in ghettos (after Hitler arrived) is an evil act. Yes, the media is trying to turn a ghetto into an acceptable habitat rather than eliminating this condition in US and the world. All the ghettos in the world can easily fall if these nations were allowed to command the nation rather than Western puppets. I know US isn't alone, Canada, the West also have bloods in their hand by not allowing the poor nations to command their own wealth. That is why we must realize that the economic prosperity in Mexico and the third world is a fabrication. We didn't give these nations shit. Nations like Japan, Singapore, etc were allow to thrive because they have no resources and imperialists left them alone.
Once again: No they aren't taking your jobs, instead YOU owe them your wealth. If these nations were allowed to control their wealth, these nations wouldn't be subsidizing US firms and allowing corporate America to profit with the middle class receiving the scraps. This is a reality that most Americans don't want to accept. Hell, most Mexicans work in the low-end of the service sector so I have no clue how that affects middle class white America. This is just bullshit to make Mexicans appear as wrongdoers in some sort of Inquisition panel.
