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.

Higher minimum wage would not be required, just reallocation of resources from public schools to vouchers.

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.

Here we're agreed!

Originally posted by eljefejesus
Higher minimum wage would not be required, just reallocation of resources from public schools to vouchers.

That could work. But it's not what the author says. He says "give money to the poor who will be smart enough to spend it on education which is more efficiently provided through the free market". The reason this ties in with the minimum wage is that you would have to give the unemployed money, too. And because the unemployed now have a significant amount of money, you would need to raise the minimum wage in order for it to make sense for the unemployed to seek work.

Originally posted by eljefejesus
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 ...[text shortened]... re reasonable. That is totally different than having universal public health coverage.

The quality of health care is a bit hard to measure. Of course you can look at life expectancy, which is mediocre in the US compared to other industrialized nations, but lifestyle choices significantly impact life expectancy. Nevertheless, educating the populace about healthy lifestyle choices, taxing unhealthy choices and preventing producers from making their products too harmful for human health is also a part of preventive health care.

Originally posted by eljefejesus
Here we're agreed!

was bound to happen sooner or later 😉

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
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).

Yes, but it doesn't prove anything, correlation doesn't mean causation.

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.

It would seem more effective than a whole new bureaucracy, and 2500 pages of regulations.

On the other hand, waste, fraud and abuse are rampant in all the current government programs, and costs are higher in those than elsewhere. Is anyone really happy with Medicaid, Medicare or the VA?

The real culprit is the removal of the consumer from any equation. From the current government programs to the Cadillac insurance plans, health care has become viewed as an entitlement. The reality is that it is a service provided by other people who need to be paid for their service. The best and fairest way of doing that is direct bargaining between provider and user (Doctor and Patient).

If you took any commodity and place the majority of it under a third party pays plan. costs would rise fast.

The closest I can think of is Auto insurance, which when it is compulsory escalates in costs beyond all reason. If the State says you must have insurance, and dictates the limits, then the consumer has no "walk away" bargaining power.

Walk away bargaining power is the only thing that reduces costs of anything. Think about food. Government food subsidies are a small part of the overall market. Most food is chosen by consumers on the basis of quality, price and value. This is totally lacking in health care, with a huge portion of costs being paid by other than the recipient of the services.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The quality of health care is a bit hard to measure. Of course you can look at life expectancy, which is mediocre in the US compared to other industrialized nations, but lifestyle choices significantly impact life expectancy. Nevertheless, educating the populace about healthy lifestyle choices, taxing unhealthy choices and preventing producers from making their products too harmful for human health is also a part of preventive health care.

You always look at life expectancies, but that just shows a few differences in health habits, that it measures people who grew up in poor developing countries and moved to the US, and the fact that the poor in Europe are indeed being granted free healthcare. That is not the same as saying that healhcare services produced in the US are not higher quality than health care services produced in Europe and you know that. You dodged the argument and switched to talking about morality in policy outcomes. That is not the same topic. We can talk about the morality of underinvesting in the future for a temporary bump, but I think it is immoral to screw over a huge number of future generations for a temporary bump.

It's also not right to try to sneak in a distortion of the argument.

US health care provided allows more choice and more varying quality.

The US is over-indebted. We need to pay down are debt, not increase it with massive new government programs. Taxes are not the solution to everything, especially not during this recession.

I do, however, agree that policy can include taxing unhealthy habits, whether people agree with the proposals or does not mean it should not be policy.

There is even more agreement here about the importance of education so people can decide for themselves and make more informed decisions.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
That could work. But it's not what the author says. He says "give money to the poor who will be smart enough to spend it on education which is more efficiently provided through the free market". The reason this ties in with the minimum wage is that you would have to give the unemployed money, too. And because the unemployed now have a significant amount ...[text shortened]... need to raise the minimum wage in order for it to make sense for the unemployed to seek work.

redistributing from government means instead of the money spend on government providing a service, that same money already being taxed or paid is then sent to the individual in the form of a voucher.

Originally posted by sh76
was bound to happen sooner or later 😉

yeah exactly, it's inevitable even in a debate form lol ...

Originally posted by generalissimo
Yes, but it doesn't prove anything, correlation doesn't mean causation.

So what was your point then?

Originally posted by eljefejesus
You always look at life expectancies, but that just shows a few differences in health habits, that it measures people who grew up in poor developing countries and moved to the US, and the fact that the poor in Europe are indeed being granted free healthcare. That is not the same as saying that healhcare services produced in the US are not higher quality ...[text shortened]... e importance of education so people can decide for themselves and make more informed decisions.

Well, if you look at the quality of a health care system, you should look at the quality it delivers to the entire population. It doesn't make any sense to just look at the quality it delivers to the rich. I'm sure the rich in most places get quite good health care.

As for debt, the US has a large deficit but its debt it about average compared to other industrialized nations - and much smaller than Japan's, which has a universal health care system.

Originally posted by eljefejesus
redistributing from government means instead of the money spend on government providing a service, that same money already being taxed or paid is then sent to the individual in the form of a voucher.

I don't oppose a voucher system, in principle. But once again, that's not what the author is saying.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, if you look at the quality of a health care system, you should look at the quality it delivers to the entire population. It doesn't make any sense to just look at the quality it delivers to the rich. I'm sure the rich in most places get quite good health care.

As for debt, the US has a large deficit but its debt it about average compared to oth ...[text shortened]... strialized nations - and much smaller than Japan's, which has a universal health care system.

First you make a value judgement, then you say that such a value judgement is the only statement and position that should be made by anyone. That is just bias, not logic or debate. It's not even an argument, in fact.

Here is the difference between the US private system and Europe's public systems:

Quality healthcare in Country I is indeed provided by Doctor A to Patient X, and great medical resesarch is indeed pefromed by Researchers 1, 2, and 3. There is much ingenuous innovation and brilliance coming out of Country I with the help of private donors and private enterprise, resulting in great improvement in human welfare. Doctor B would provide quality care to patient B but he is free to charge too much to care for patient B, and patient B is free to underinvest in his own education and job search, so he goes to Doctor C, who provides mediocre care on a very occasional basis for a low fee and otherwise only treats patient B for emergencies. Counry I would benefit by paying for more preventative care for patient B when it can afford to but instead chooses to look at more radical options as found in Country II.


Country II contains Doctor D who provides generally decent but generally restricted care to Patients X, Y and Z under price caps, and the country's homegrown Researchers 4 and 5 who have contributed decent medical research, with only occasional contributions to innovation and brilliance.

Citizen 1 of Country I is proud of the freedom and options in his adopted home Country I, which he contributes to because Country I provided a better life of freedom and opportunity than his home country. His is willing to support minor changes to Country I's healthcare model without radically changing the model. He believes the independent research and nonpartisan groups like the CBO say that radical reform proposals to switch systems do not bend the cost curve in their current forms and he is aware that radical changes would force everyone to pay the government more taxes in the form of either "premium" or "penalty." He believes that it is not the right time to so radically adopt such an expensive program if ever.

Citizen 2 of Country II believes that Country I's model is inferior in every aspect and believes such a model ough to be wholly replaced by the model of his home Country II. He believes that the idea that Country I can improve its system without massive government involvement is not a valid believe, as he believes all countries should adopt the model of his home Country II. He believes taxing more by government in Country I is necessary but thinks benefits can be greatly expanded while spending less, contrary to what independent sources like the CBO have outlined.


Okay, that is my logical presentation, feel free to rebut with your own.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I don't oppose a voucher system, in principle. But once again, that's not what the author is saying.

Well at least you don't oppose the principles involved. If you at least understand the analysis presented, then there is value added as it helps to dispel the idea that economics does not add valuable logic and facts. The science is sound and increasingly adding to factual and usable knowledge, and various contributors have even made it more mathematical.