Government run health care and government run schools

[Ziggurat]

Um. But you're paying for government funded healthcare at the moment. Just like we are. The only difference is you can't access it.

First off, you presume falsely if you think I'm satisfied with current health care conditions. And secondly, that's irrelevant to my criticism of parky's statements about public education in the US.

 

[shawmutt]

We're already paying for health care we don't get. The US government pays among the most, per capita, for health care among the industrialized nations.

 

[Biscuit]

My fear is that congress is to far gone up the road the health care lobbyists want them to be on and what the american people will get is a public option that is so mangled with ridiculous restrictions and red tape that it will be destined to fail. Then the GOP will jump up and down screaming, "The government can't run anything!!!"

I will site medicare not being allowed to negotiate for cheaper drug prices as one such handicap the Congress has imposed to the detriment of the people.

I have dual citizenship with the U.K. and lived there using the health care system for several years in my late teens and early twenties. During that time I had a bad accident and seriously wrenched my lower back, I was able to see a doctor the next day, was fully checked out, got prescriptions, and had several follow up visits with no trouble. I do not recall hearing anyone in England wishing there was only a private option despite what reservations they had about the public one.

Several years later, back in the U.S., I re-injured my back. This time it took a week to see my primary care who insisted I had only torn a muscle and sent me away with pain pills despite the fact I had pain down my leg. Three months of seeing him and insisting it wasn't a torn muscle I was finally sent for an MRI and guess what, it was a ruptured disc! I eventually had to have surgery on it and got an infection from the hospital where I had had the surgery.

I had insurance through my job but still had to pay around $6,000 for the first surgery. Now get this, the same hospital that gave me the infection in the first place came into my room after the surgery to remove the infection with a bill for another $3,000 for the second operation. I had barely come out of anesthetics when this occurred and they wanted me to sign for the bill to be charged to my CC. My mother was in the room and stopped me as I had no idea what I was signing. The hospital hounded me for months for that money and I fought with them over it. I ended up settling for half the amount. So now I have a pre-existing condition and can't get any kind of reasonably priced insurance. There is no way I could ever be covered in our private system at an affordable rate so I go without for now.

I know I am just one of millions of hard working, mostly healthy americans, that needs an option that we can afford.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm paying for public schools, and I have no children! I should be able to opt out.

It sure is. I should also be able to opt out of paying taxes for the upkeep of the streets and traffic lights since I walk to work.

Isn't a poor education better than no education? Government-run education isn't about having an advantage over private education, it's about providing a minimal standard of education to all children. Likewise, I'd like to see all people have access to health care, not just people with jobs. I'd like a system where getting cancer doesn't bankrupt a person because their health insurance provider finds a way to wiggle out of paying.

You're understating the case, Thaiboxerken.

At the moment the US taxpayer is paying just as much as the British taxpayer to fund publicly-funded healthcare. The only difference is that the US taxpayer doesn't get to access the system he's paying for. People who carp about being "forced to pay for a public system even if you don't want to use it" seemto forget that at present they are forced to pay for a public system they can't use even if they want to. And paying just as much as we are in Britain for the system we can all access, too.

Publicly-funded healthcare doesn't have to be poor. Given the amount of money America currently pours into healthcare, it could be very good. Which still wouldn't stop some people from wanting to pay extra for luxuries like a choice of time, and a swanky posh room, and a hospital where none of the Great Unwashed can be seen. They do that here, and that's fine.

Basic, sufficient, universal care need not be poor in quality.

Rolfe.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, and you have to pay for the police even if you hire your own bodyguards, and you have to pay for federal highways even if you own a private jet.

So?

So don't pretend that it's a level playing field. You want to argue that it's better that way? Fine. In the case of police, for example, I'd agree. But education in the US isn't simple an unconstrained choice between public and private: it's very constrained by the fact that you pay for public education even if you don't use it. To not acknowledge that reality (and parky didn't) is to tell a half-truth.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm paying for public schools, and I have no children! I should be able to opt out.

Boy, you really don't understand what I'm saying at all. Not that I'm surprised.

 

[Thunder]

I'm paying for public schools, and I have no children! I should be able to opt out. .

you don't think the children of American should be educated huh?

I also don't have children, but I am happy to have my tax dollars fund NYC schools.

I am also not on Medicare, but I'm happy to have my tax dollars pay for the health care of older folks.

I'm sorry, but your view seems very selfish and frankly unAmerican.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Boy, you really don't understand what I'm saying at all. Not that I'm surprised.

Oh, I do, I really do.

 

[thaiboxerken]

you don't think the children of American should be educated huh?

I also don't have children, but I am happy to have my tax dollars fund NYC schools.

Perhaps I should've placed the at the end the posts above. I was being sarcastic and showing the ridiculousness of Ziggy's arguments.

 

[Rolfe]

First off, you presume falsely if you think I'm satisfied with current health care conditions. And secondly, that's irrelevant to my criticism of parky's statements about public education in the US.

It is entirely relevant. You are working from the premise that the public system will inevitably be so poor that even people on low incomes would wish to access the private system. If you have that problem with your schools, i suggest you need to deal with that separately.

The objection, however, does not apply to healthcare. The existence of universal healthcare in Britain is exactly why private health insurance is so cheap here. The insurers know that certain events will inevitably be dealt with entirely by the public sector, so they only need to offer cover for additional items.

It's more as if the public schools taught a range of basic subjects well, but if you wanted your child to learn Sanskrit or musical compositioin then you could access the private system for extra lessons - far cheaper than paying for all the kid's education.

Rolfe.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're understating the case, Thaiboxerken.

No, he's going off on a tangent because he thinks I'm talking about something other than I actually am. And you seem to have made the same mistake. Let me clue you in: the fact that the choice between public and private education in the US is constrained does NOT mean that it's necessarily wrong to have set the system up this way. But it does mean that it's foolish to pretend that we have complete choice in the matter. You seem fixated on proving that this is better than an anarcho-capitalist approach to the problem, but ignoring the actual point I made that our choices in education are constrained. Whether or not that is worth it is a separate question. But if you can't even acknowledge that our choices are, in fact, constrained, then there's really no point in any further discussion.

 

[Thunder]

A healthier America is a stronger and better America. That's the gist of it. And I have no problem with my tax dollars going to pay for some of that.

I think selfishness is behind all those folks who don't want their tax dollars paying in ANY WAY for the health-care of someone else.

But yet, they pay for Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and the FDIC. These are all programs that help someone else. So whats the big deal????

 

[Rolfe]

So don't pretend that it's a level playing field. You want to argue that it's better that way? Fine. In the case of police, for example, I'd agree. But education in the US isn't simple an unconstrained choice between public and private: it's very constrained by the fact that you pay for public education even if you don't use it. To not acknowledge that reality (and parky didn't) is to tell a half-truth.

Frankly, I don't think he had to say something quite that obvious. It was integral to his point.

You already have systems in place where everyone has a right of access to a publicly-funded service without further charge in addition to normal taxation, but where private provision can also be bought in addition. Nobody gets a rebate on their taxes if they pay for private education, or evenif they have no children.

And yet the country hasn't fallen apart.

The private security firm is an even better parallel. You don't lose the support of the police if you employ one. You have more protection over and above the police force. You can still call on them, and they are still the most appropriate means of dealing with certain eventualities.

Just so, someone who wants to pay for private healthcare does not lose access to the public sector, and may well still use it for a number of issues. This will greatly reduce the cost of the private insurance.

Rolfe.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Ziggy, if there were no public schooling, do you think there would be greater choices for education? I would think this would simply eradicate the choice of certain people to get any education, particularly poor people.

 

[leftysergeant]

And secondly, that's irrelevant to my criticism of parky's statements about public education in the US.

We understand that. It's all about you.

That isn't the way civilization works, above a feudal level.

You aren't paying to have your larvae educated. you're paying to have an educated, productive society.

A healthy nation is also going to be a more productive nation.

In a nation with an ecconomy so driven by consumption, how can it be good for any segment of that ecconomy other than financial services that we are spending about 50% or more of our individual income on things that do not neccessarily result in a single factory order, but move more and more money into fewer and fewer hands?

Right wingers are so short-sighted.

 

[thaiboxerken]

This will greatly reduce the cost of the private insurance.

Rolfe.

This may well reduce the profits of private insurance companies as well, which is what I think the real obstacle is in Washington.

 

[Rolfe]

No, he's going off on a tangent because he thinks I'm talking about something other than I actually am. And you seem to have made the same mistake. Let me clue you in: the fact that the choice between public and private education in the US is constrained does NOT mean that it's necessarily wrong to have set the system up this way. But it does mean that it's foolish to pretend that we have complete choice in the matter. You seem fixated on proving that this is better than an anarcho-capitalist approach to the problem, but ignoring the actual point I made that our choices in education are constrained. Whether or not that is worth it is a separate question. But if you can't even acknowledge that our choices are, in fact, constrained, then there's really no point in any further discussion.

Look, your choices are always going to be constrained. It's a tough world.

Can I repeat what I said about the limitations of the education analogy. Once a child is enrolled in a private school, there is generally little benefit being taken from the public school sector. In contrast, private healthcare running aongside a public system is more akin to having the money to pay for extra classes or extra subjects on top of the basic curriculum.

So long as the basic curriculum is sufficient, then those who do not have the money to go beyond it are not, in my view, unacceptably disadvantaged. Those who have more money will always be able to buy privilege. This should not be an issue.

Rolfe.

 

[Thunder]

How come conservative Republicans, who claim to care soo much about human life, are soo unwilling to pay an extra dime to make sure their fellow Americans are healthy???

They will fight tooth and nail to defend life within the womb, but once he/she pops out..you're on your own to sink or swim??? And if you sink..it ain't my fault or my problem?

Pro-life my ass. Hypocrites all.

 

[Ziggurat]

It is entirely relevant. You are working from the premise that the public system will inevitably be so poor that even people on low incomes would wish to access the private system.

Inevitability is irrelevant. In many places they are poor, and people want a choice. Without something like a voucher system, many don't have any realistic alternative. That's the reality of it.

The objection, however, does not apply to healthcare.

I doesn't make what I said wrong: if you have to pay for government-run health care, your choices about health care are constrained. Regardless of the advantages that this might provide, my statement is still true. You're so hung up on our previous conversations that you can't actually evaluate what I actually said here.

 

[Ziggurat]

We understand that. It's all about you.

When you want to talk about what I actually said, we can talk. I have no interest in spending my time burning your strawmen.