Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What if the next Einstein attends one of these schools?

The original Einstein attended one of "these" schools.

Einstein attended a Catholic elementary school from the age of five until ten.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Early_life_and_education

There's no reason the next Einstein can't also attend one of "these" schools.

Originally posted by sh76
The [b]original Einstein attended one of "these" schools.

Einstein attended a Catholic elementary school from the age of five until ten.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Early_life_and_education

There's no reason the next Einstein can't also attend one of "these" schools.[/b]

Ha! I'm saying "Einstein" metaphorically, of course. When I look at my colleagues the vast, vast majority are atheists. It's a bit of the chicken or the egg, but religious schooling definitely does not aid the cause of science.

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

Cherry Picker HS decides to locate itself in an extremely affluent area - so pretty much everyone going to this school would come from affluent families and all of the advantages that affluence brings.

To further attract only the most affluent students, Cherry Picker HS charges a very high tuition. And wealthy parents become especially eager to pay it after a couple years of exceptional student test scores. So much profit!!

Originally posted by Melanerpes
Cherry Picker HS decides to locate itself in an extremely affluent area - so pretty much everyone going to this school would come from affluent families and all of the advantages that affluence brings.

To further attract only the most affluent students, Cherry Picker HS charges a very high tuition. And wealthy parents become especially eager to pay it after a couple years of exceptional student test scores. So much profit!!

If I understand sh76's plan correctly, it would not be possible to charge any tuition.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Ha! I'm saying "Einstein" metaphorically, of course. When I look at my colleagues the vast, vast majority are atheists. It's a bit of the chicken or the egg, but religious schooling definitely does not aid the cause of science.

When I look at my colleagues the vast, vast majority are atheists

So a minority isn't atheist.

but what point does it prove anyway? thats like saying "a vast, vast majority of my colleagues are vegetarian/communist/hindus therefore vegetarianism/communism/hinduism is right"

It's a bit of the chicken or the egg, but religious schooling definitely does not aid the cause of science.

I don't see how that could be, there clearly is a distinction between religious education and science, they're not (and shouldn't be) overlapping. You're never going to have questions of religion in a science lesson, so actually it doesn't harm the cause of science.

btw, here's an interesting article I read the other day:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527506.100-where-do-atheists-come-from.html

Originally posted by generalissimo
[b]When I look at my colleagues the vast, vast majority are atheists

So a minority isn't atheist.

but what point does it prove anyway? thats like saying "a vast, vast majority of my colleagues are vegetarian/communist/hindus therefore vegetarianism/communism/hinduism is right"

It's a bit of the chicken or the egg, but religious schoolin ...[text shortened]... :
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527506.100-where-do-atheists-come-from.html

The most straightforward explanation for the discrepancy between undergraduates and post-graduates is age - older people tend to be more religious since atheism is on the rise (especially in wealthy countries).

Originally posted by sh76
First, I'm going to make a big concession right off the bat. Something has to be done. I was watching the Lauer report this morning and the astounding rate at which premiums have risen recently, mostly to fuel larger and larger bonuses for insurance company executives, is disturbing. I have no problem with big executive bonuses per se; but when it comes at the ...[text shortened]... t, but fighting over that is not really what I'm looking to do with this thread.

Are you aware that most health care is already third party payor?

Are you aware that there are already four Federally mandated health care plans which cover up to 40% of the people?

Medicaid
Medicare
The VA
CHIPS

Could it be that some, perhaps the majority of the problems in health care today are the result of government programs?

Do you really believe that squeezing everyone into a new third party single payor plan would reduce costs or improve care?

If you do believe that, then why not simply reduce Medicare eligibility age to newborn?

Originally posted by normbenign
If you do believe that, then why not simply reduce Medicare eligibility age to newborn?

I agree. I would support that idea. You'd probably have to raise the Medicare premiums and the Medicare tax by a point or two; but in all, it's not a bad thought.

Of course, no one should be forced to use Medicare; private insurance companies should still be allowed to function as normal; IMO, with much reduced regulation.

Could it be that some, perhaps the majority of the problems in health care today are the result of government programs?

Unlikely. The problems are not poor care. Healthcare services are quite good in the US, actually. The problems are economic wastage and premiums that price out too many people.

Originally posted by sh76
I agree. I would support that idea. You'd probably have to raise the Medicare premiums and the Medicare tax by a point or two; but in all, it's not a bad thought.

Of course, no one should be forced to use Medicare; private insurance companies should still be allowed to function as normal; IMO, with much reduced regulation.

[b]Could it be that some, perhap ...[text shortened]... e US, actually. The problems are economic wastage and premiums that price out too many people.

[/b]So there we have it. "Medicare option for everyone, and private insurance and out-of-pocket payments fill in the gaps, and pay for it by raising the Medicare tax and-or premiums."

Replace those 2200 pages with one sentence. Everyone would understand it. The GOP's actions show even they agree Medicare is a good program. Everyone's on board. Let's do it.

Then we can focus all our attention on the economy and balancing the budget.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
So there we have it. "Medicare option for everyone, and private insurance and out-of-pocket payments fill in the gaps, and pay for it by raising the Medicare tax and-or premiums."

Replace those 2200 pages with one sentence. Everyone would understand it. The GOP's actions show even they agree Medicare is a good program. Everyone's on board. Let's do it.

Then we can focus all our attention on the economy and balancing the budget.[/b]

Yup. Of course, deregulation of private insurers is probably necessary for their survival when competing against Medicare; but yes, that's the gist of it.

Now, to that budget... 😲

Originally posted by sh76
Yup. Of course, deregulation of private insurers is probably necessary for their survival when competing against Medicare; but yes, that's the gist of it.

Now, to that budget... 😲

In Europe there are several systems where private and public insurance are combined, for example in Germany and Finland. It seems to work alright, I'm not sure to what degree those private insurers are "deregulated" though.

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?

Tisk, tisk, not an impartial analysis at all. You don't have to hate the economic facts and ideas so much early on, just get familiar with some of the concepts and try to accept that most of them are entirely logical even to a critical eye, as long as it is not hostile. Your analysis is seething and hostile.

Don't take my word for it, but you would greatly benefit from a couple of classes in economics, even for fun or online, or just read from a few textbooks online or at home.

Existing tax money from coorporations and individuals already consits of billions and billions of dollars, that's many billions of dollars, and the population including people done with school in the us is 300 million people. So somehow you think vouchers must be more expensive that the government paying union workers to build and run and teach in schools? Ooops...

I do agree that there are irresponsible parents out there and that as far as protecting children and their education, that is a necessity, hence vouchers rather than cash and a requirement to check attendance by kids and progress. The fact remains that kids respond to how involved the parents are in their schools, so that is still not something that public schools in the US have been able to counteract, nor would that be expected to be changed by vouchers.

You keep saying US healthcare is "expensive" by noting the value in percentage of GDP or some other such measure of "expense." What about the portion of that percentage which represents quality, extensiveness of treatment, high expense people choose to keep spending to keep people alive without government limits, more things covered, more quality coverage by insurance, more litigation, etc. This means those numbers you cite do not represent "expense" differentials between public and private, but rather the freedom and unregulated nature of the US system and expenses people choose to undergo and freedom to litigate, etc.

For all we now, the US system spends a lot more keeping old people alive longer than the European system with its limits. For all we know people are willing to pay more for quality care in the US under a private system. Maybe some reforms like paying for more primary and preventative care are reasonable. That is totally different than having universal public health coverage.

Originally posted by sh76
I'm sorry; I've lost track about what we're debating here.

What exactly do we disagree on in this context?

Maybe we can get to the point and agree that the Scandinavian countries did not get destroyed during world war one, and instead were initially largely neutral until being invaded. Either way, the point is there was less loss of valuable lives and of valuable capital and of valuable knowledge and there were less social costs and were at an advantage in building back after the war.

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?

Rather than skim, at leats read page 5 instead of page 1, and this from page 4 to show you the balance gives you options depending on what you believe:

"On the whole, if you believe that those who can afford it will buy an efficient amount of health care and education, social programs tend to be a deterrent to economic growth. Programs which focus on agents who are unable to afford these items have a greater benefit to the economy than those that are universal in nature."

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.

Here I agree, the status quo is difficult to change.

It costs money now to run public schools and pay unions their nice sallaries and benefits and to not be able to fire even underperforming teachers. It would be a avaluable experiment to try vouchers with strings attached and requirement and giver public schools a 10 years break, so for 10 years, a big "suck it" to the teacher's unions. Gauge results on wealth creation and quality of education then. Keep requiring school attendance, but allow freedom of choice to any school, not local monpolies. Don't just pay for attendance, pay for performance and improvements. Fire the worst teachers at least once every 5 years.

Conservatives would love the idea of saving money from generous teacher benefits and their tax dollars being used more efficiently in general.

Many people would be interested. Weather the unions would allow the politicians to act without fear is another story.
Change is difficult.

I'll be one of the first dozen supporters on this forum alone. Any others here?

Maybe we need a ballot initiative.