This is scary considering about 40% of millennials have a bachelors degree, compared to 25% of boomers. This may ultimately slow long-term growth. This will have a direct impact on the purchase of homes, marriages and retirement. This will have a domino effect on future generations, halting that progressiveness that Lakoff discussed.

Would like to better understand this study and its parameters. In saying that, it's pretty comprehensible that this would be the case; however, I would also like to understand other contributing factors- are we measuring apples to apples? For example, many times, we find the most vulnerable, low-income populations not attending college. We find those that suffer disabilities or health issues are less likely to attend high school. So is it the impact of not attending college that widens this income gap or could be these other extraneous factors, that although related, may not prove causation.

Nothing is free. Someone is paying for this.

Who makes up this 58%? It could very well be anyone of college-going age. It could also include anyone still impacted by paying off loans (anyone up to age 40), any any parents. Is it republicans or democrats? I would like to know more about the composition of this 58%.

This is an interesting concept and is an example of Lakoff's depiction of progressiveness in policy and procedure over time. This is another example of advocating for American freedom but at what cost? Who will then be paying these universities? Who will be paying for the upkeep of these institutions, the resources, staff compensation? If it's taxpayers, does it defeat the initial purpose?

It's clear that something needs to be done to the education system to make it MAKE SENSE. However, I am not convinced by some of the studies and statements here and more information is needed. I am also not convinced that taxing 401k's is a move towards individual freedom and progressiveness. I also wonder how it works for those that worked their way through college to pay tuition real-time.

But how do we do this? Do we limit the amount of degrees available? Get rid of the ones that yield little to no income jobs? What about make more opportunities available that really do not require a bachelors degree? Bernie discusses taxing the bonds/stocks involved in 401k retirement funds. Is this taxation counterproductive to people's right to save and retire, to progressiveness?

Although many can argue that the student debt is the students; this massive volume of debt causes a ripple effect of economic restraint for the rest of the population. Should education to be a right and a freedom? Why has college tuition risen so much faster than inflation? Could it be that the opportunities awarded by certain degrees are scarce or low paying (degrees in ancillary fields)? Could it be that the more degree-holders there are, the less the value?

One could say the same about healthcare. It comes down to the key question is healthcare/education a right? One could argue education is a choice, but is it? Our societal constructs limit opportunities without the golden ticket a degree affords. This could have a direct impact on actual and current rights.

This seems like a bit of a jump. Although it could potentially be a factor, I think the rise in anxiety and depression has many other contributors. The removal of the taboo around therapy for example has been shown to be a key factor. Surprised to see this opinion statement so casually embedded in this article.

The Title automatically frames the budget proposal in a negative light.

NYSPLTC allows residents who own a LTC Insurance policy to still protect their assets and still remain eligible for Medicaid if their care exceeds the period covered by their private LTC Insurance policy.

This seems meager but completely relative.

It wouldn't be until 2000 that Americans Act Caregiver Program established, authorizing grants to states to fund a range of supports that assist family and informal caregivers to care for their loved ones at home.

and the criteria is only getting stricter as costs grow higher.

It seems this very issue has been an issue for decades and the gap is only growing especially with the today's proposed budget cuts.

This is 1996. Now, costs may be upward of 6k annually.

The purpose of the HIP is to advocate for a more advanced, private-public health care system that promotes consumer choice, product flexibility and innovation.

This is alarming as well- why do nursing homes have this negative perception/reputation? Clearly work needs to be done on this front as well.

This is a powerful tool to learn!