Healthcare: More regulation or less?

Originally posted by sh76
sh76: It's a means to an end of making the people of society more comfortable and making their lives easier and more pleasant. [b]The primary way to do that is through economic growth;

eljefejesus: you fail to acknowledge that growth is a major long-term contributor to human welfare.






Why don't you actually bother to read my posts before criticizing them?

🙄[/b]

Yes, Kazet already pointed that out about 5 posts ago, but you started the FMF-style distortions by claiming that I was prioritizing growth over welfare.

Man-up, the criticism even of those posters I respect and often agree with will not stop, nor do I expect differently of my posts. If I distort, I will hopefully get called on it. You distorted my view first, so there you go.

Originally posted by sh76
They were not as heavily destroyed because the surrendered and thus were in the war for less time. That has nothing to do with being neutral.

Are you sure they were not invaded and barely had time to give up because the blitzkrieg was not already staring them in the face?

They were invaded.

They were neutral.

What's your proof to argue otherwise? Please cite.

Originally posted by eljefejesus
You should finish reading the rest of it, the purpose was to show economic fats related to the issue of taxes & growth. The first page does not concentrate on that so you would not be getting the most relevant parts yet.

I skimmed through the rest of the article. It continues the recital of libertarian dogma. I'm sure pastor Friedman would be proud, although in a rare "concession" the author does concede government funded infrastructure is more efficient. Bizarrely, the author then goes on to claim the government does not need to fund education or health care because "people will invest in it". How do you invest if you don't have any money? Oops... The author then "solves" this issue by recommending draconic redistribution far outpacing those even in Nordic Europe?! (i.e. giving the poor so much money they can afford the same health care and education as the rich - I suppose the author does not realize the contradiction here) Which coincidentally also does not solve the problem of having parents who are not willing to buy education or health care for their children.

Not much actual facts thoughout the article. For example, if private health care and education are so much more efficient, why is it that say US health care is so expensive, compared to say the government-run NHS?

Originally posted by eljefejesus
Are you sure they were not invaded and barely had time to give up because the blitzkrieg was not already staring them in the face?

They were invaded.

They were neutral.

What's your proof to argue otherwise? Please cite.

I'm sorry; I've lost track about what we're debating here.

What exactly do we disagree on in this context?

Originally posted by eljefejesus
Yes, Kazet already pointed that out about 5 posts ago, but you started the FMF-style distortions by claiming that I was prioritizing growth over welfare.

Man-up, the criticism even of those posters I respect and often agree with will not stop, nor do I expect differently of my posts. If I distort, I will hopefully get called on it. You distorted my view first, so there you go.

Well, I didn't mean to imply anything about your priorities. I was making a general statement as to my opinion of what I thought the appropriate priorities are. If I misrepresented what you said, then I apologize. Perhaps I should have substituted the work "one" instead of "you" in that final sentence.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I skimmed through the rest of the article. It continues the recital of libertarian dogma. I'm sure pastor Friedman would be proud, although in a rare "concession" the author does concede government funded infrastructure is more efficient. Bizarrely, the author then goes on to claim the government does not need to fund education or health care because "p ...[text shortened]... y is it that say US health care is so expensive, compared to say the government-run NHS?

This is actually an interesting idea.

Phase-out all publicly run school systems, hospitals, and health insurance. Replace it with a direct redistribution of wealth to the poor until the poor are given enough money so that they can afford to purchase these things from accredited providers in the private marketplace.

But liberals would distrust relying so much on the private sector - and the conservatives would blanch at the level of wealth redistribution needed to make this work. And most people find comfort in familiarity and tradition, and would fear anything this revolutionary. So the real challenge would be to find more than a dozen people in the entire country willing to support this idea.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
This is actually an interesting idea.

Phase-out all publicly run school systems, hospitals, and health insurance. Replace it with a direct redistribution of wealth to the poor until the poor are given enough money so that they can afford to purchase these things from accredited providers in the private marketplace.

But liberals would distrust relyi ...[text shortened]... ge would be to find more than a dozen people in the entire country willing to support this idea.

The main problem I have with the idea, not regarding the issue of whether or not the private sector is more efficient in prodiving these services, is that irresponsible parents can and will disadvantage their children.

Another problem is that the amount of redistrubution requires huge benefits - which in turn requires a large minimum wage - increasing unemployment.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The main problem I have with the idea, not regarding the issue of whether or not the private sector is more efficient in prodiving these services, is that irresponsible parents can and will disadvantage their children.

Another problem is that the amount of redistrubution requires huge benefits - which in turn requires a large minimum wage - increasing unemployment.

So, what about my idea regarding schools?

- abolish public schools

- sell off the schools to private people or companies

- give each parent a voucher check for the amount an average public education would normally cost

- the voucher can only be spend on tuition for accredited schools (supervised by accrediting agencies, as exists already with colleges) and certain other limited educational purposes, such as educational books and tutoring

That way, you have the advantage of the private sector competition and parents don't have the ability to misspend this money on themselves.

Plus, the government makes a bundle selling off existing schools.

Originally posted by sh76
So, what about my idea regarding schools?

- abolish public schools

- sell off the schools to private people or companies

- give each parent a voucher check for the amount an average public education would normally cost

- the voucher can only be spend on tuition for accredited schools (supervised by accrediting agencies, as exists already with colleg this money on themselves.

Plus, the government makes a bundle selling off existing schools.

It's an interesting idea, that might work. One possible issue however is that parents cannot judge the quality of the schools very well, but that's also true in the current situation. And of course you still need the government to set up the curriculum. Another significant issue would be that you get for example many evolution-denying schools.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It's an interesting idea, that might work. One possible issue however is that parents cannot judge the quality of the schools very well, but that's also true in the current situation. And of course you still need the government to set up the curriculum. Another significant issue would be that you get for example many evolution-denying schools.

The government can set the minimum curriculum criteria.

In the college accreditation process, when a school comes up for re-accreditation every 4 years, subject specialists from other schools review your courses, including textbook selection, syllabi, outcome determination procedures and even recorded lectures, if available.

The same can be done for all schools.

As for "Evolution-denying," I seriously doubt any schools deny the existence of evolution as a scientific doctrine. What they dispute is whether evolution is the method by which human beings actually came to exist. That's a minor issue and I don't see why the government should be forcing parents to send children to schools that don't teach the possibility of another force being at work in the creation of human beings.

Are children being irreparably harmed by being taught the concepts of evolution and the scientific rules upon which they are based but then being told that some people believe that a deity might also have had a hand in the creation and evolution of species?

Originally posted by sh76
The government can set the minimum curriculum criteria.

In the college accreditation process, when a school comes up for re-accreditation every 4 years, subject specialists from other schools review your courses, including textbook selection, syllabi, outcome determination procedures and even recorded lectures, if available.

The same can be done for all ...[text shortened]... e believe that a deity might also have had a hand in the creation and evolution of species?

Are children being irreparably harmed by being taught the concepts of evolution and the scientific rules upon which they are based but then being told that some people believe that a deity might also have had a hand in the creation and evolution of species?

Yes.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
[b]Are children being irreparably harmed by being taught the concepts of evolution and the scientific rules upon which they are based but then being told that some people believe that a deity might also have had a hand in the creation and evolution of species?

Yes.[/b]

Care to elaborate?

Originally posted by sh76
So, what about my idea regarding schools?

- abolish public schools

- sell off the schools to private people or companies

- give each parent a voucher check for the amount an average public education would normally cost

- the voucher can only be spend on tuition for accredited schools (supervised by accrediting agencies, as exists already with colleg ...[text shortened]... this money on themselves.

Plus, the government makes a bundle selling off existing schools.

I like the idea in theory. However:

You'd have to make sure that schools weren't allowed to cherry-pick. An easy way for a private company to make their school "stand out" would be to require a rigorous entrance exam that would weed out all but the smartest kids (or at least the kids most likely to pass rigorous exams).

So even if Cherry Picker HS actually had a very mediocre program, it would still be likely to produce test scores and graduation rates that greatly exceeded the average. People would erroneously think that Cherry Picker HS was much better than the other schools which would allow this school to make a huge profit that it didn't deserve.

Actually, this sort of thing is already a major problem plaguing the current college system.

Originally posted by sh76
Care to elaborate?

Here in the Netherlands they have a rather bizarre education system in which every ideology can basically set up their own primary and secondary schools (with taxpayer funding). So you have, apart from general public schools also christian schools, muslim schools, etc., but also "free schools" with a hippie-like mentality, etc. Anyway, people who attended these religious schools often have a warped view of what science is and how reliable it is because they have been served a deliberately distorted view of science. What if the next Einstein attends one of these schools?

Originally posted by Melanerpes
I like the idea in theory. However:

You'd have to make sure that schools weren't allowed to cherry-pick. An easy way for a private company to make their school "stand out" would be to require a rigorous entrance exam that would weed out all but the smartest kids (or at least the kids most likely to pass rigorous exams).

So even if Cherry Picker HS a ...[text shortened]... ctually, this sort of thing is already a major problem plaguing the current college system.

This issue is fairly easy to address: just force every primary and secondary school to accept every student.