Government run health care and government run schools

[ponderingturtle]

I think most of the conservative pundits describe a caricature of universal health care, where people bleeding to death are waiting days for emergency treatment

Wait we have this already...

 

[ponderingturtle]

The very idea of having to rely on my employer to provide my healthcare coverage scares me witless. Especially when I appear to have bugger-all employment rights or security of employment. How many Americans are hanging on to dead-end jobs they hate because they need the healthcare coverage?

We had a poster who was hanging onto a marriage for exactly that reason.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think the reason is that your position is perceived as unclear.

Because people keep trying to read more into my posts than what I am actually saying. What I'm saying really isn't that complicated. Parky tried to make a comparison between publicly funded health care and publicly funded education, based upon the notion that free choice in education was unrestricted despite the existence of public funding and so free choice in health care would be similarly unrestricted. But that's simply wrong, because choice is restricted because of public education, and under any public funding of health care. My position does not preclude the existence of other arguments for public health care, and it makes no judgment about whether the benefits are outweighed by restrictions on choice. It is, and was, simply an argument against a bad argument on Parky's part: choice is restricted by public funding. That's a reality, regardless of the benefits. It's kind of sad how rarely people are willing to recognize that bad arguments in favor of things they like are still bad arguments.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Except that they're still paying for public schools, even if they aren't attending. And many parents can't afford to pay for both simultaneously, so for many parents there is no realistic choice other than government-run schools. Which is why voucher systems have become attractive for many lower-income parents.

And what about non parents having to pay for the children of others? Does this bother you or not?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

You object to having to pay for a public education system you don't use, this seems to apply to people with out children just as much as people who want to send their children to private schools.

You seem to not know what you are saying.

 

[ponderingturtle]

There might not be better choice, but there would, without a doubt, be more choice.

And I'm not opposed to public education. I'm a product of public education, and I believe quite strongly that it should be universally available. Did you think otherwise?

You just seemed to think that only those useing it should have to pay for it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You all keep on about "government-run" healthcare. Why should your government want to run healthcare?

It's about the government paying for healthcare.

Rolfe.

You know us americans, we are not good at subtleties.

 

[ponderingturtle]

There is actualy a problem with cutting health care costs. In massachucets they have universal(well 97%) coverage, but no reduction in costs. In part this is because costs tend to be a part of national regulation, and in part because with 20% of the work force is in healthcare, cutting even unnessacary costs will have jobs attached to it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No. My position does not require that the costs in taxes equals the cost to pay for alternatives. My position only requires that if people could keep the money they pay in taxes, they would be able to afford alternatives. So for example, if they pay half the cost of private school in taxes, and could only pay for half the cost of private school after taxes, then without taxes they could pay for private school. Simple logic, Upchurch. Do you seriously think nobody falls into such a category? Given that incomes and expenses are distributed across a continuum, it's rather difficult to imagine how you could ever not end up with people in that position.

But you have not made a clear case why two people, call them A and B, should be treated differently.

A is sending his kids to catholic school, he would like to not have to support the public schools

B is childless, he would like not to have to support the public schools

Why should the desires of A and B be treated differently? Neither are using the public schools, so the benefit both get from it is the benefit to society.

You seem to be trying to give people tax breaks to help support private schools. Why should this be done?

 

[Rolfe]

You object to having to pay for a public education system you don't use, this seems to apply to people with out children just as much as people who want to send their children to private schools.

You seem to not know what you are saying.

I'm starting to think he's not saying anything. He's just making some random observations.

He thinks Parky should have referred explicitly to the fact that taxes to pay for education are compulsory, whereas I thought that was so obvious it didn't need saying. As far as that goes, the situation with a universal healthcare system is closely comparable. You have a publicly-funded system that you can't avoid paying for, which is (or bloody well ought to be) sufficient for any reasonable needs. But if you want extra bells and whistles you are free to pay extra for them. Though if you do that, you won't get a tax rebate.

I don't see the problem. Yes, we agree that if the tax take wasn't there, people would have more money for the bells and whistles in theory. Whether thinking along these lines is likely to lead to either a workable or an equitable solution is however quite a different matter. It seems as if Ziggurat doesn't really want to go there though, he just wants to pass an idle remark.

Rolfe.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Because people keep trying to read more into my posts than what I am actually saying.

This is because we are trying to make what you are saying fit into an overall framework. You are not being clear.

Interesting, the thing you suggest is similar to how the system in Germany works. There there is a payroll tax to fund public health care but you can opt out of it if you are in a private health care system.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm starting to think he's not saying anything. He's just making some random observations.

He thinks Parky should have referred explicitly to the fact that taxes to pay for education are compulsory, whereas I thought that was so obvious it didn't need saying. As far as that goes, the situation with a universal healthcare system is closely comparable. You have a publicly-funded system that you can't avoid paying for, which is (or bloody well ought to be) sufficient for any reasonable needs. But if you want extra bells and whistles you are free to pay extra for them. Though if you do that, you won't get a tax rebate.

I don't see the problem. Yes, we agree that if the tax take wasn't there, people would have more money for the bells and whistles in theory. Whether thinking along these lines is likely to lead to either a workable or an equitable solution is however quite a different matter. It seems as if Ziggurat doesn't really want to go there though, he just wants to pass an idle remark.

Rolfe.

He also seems to have some position that you should have tax breaks if you use alternatives to public systems. But not if you simply just don't need those systems.

 

[3point14]

Because people keep trying to read more into my posts than what I am actually saying. What I'm saying really isn't that complicated. Parky tried to make a comparison between publicly funded health care and publicly funded education, based upon the notion that free choice in education was unrestricted despite the existence of public funding and so free choice in health care would be similarly unrestricted. But that's simply wrong, because choice is restricted because of public education, and under any public funding of health care. My position does not preclude the existence of other arguments for public health care, and it makes no judgment about whether the benefits are outweighed by restrictions on choice. It is, and was, simply an argument against a bad argument on Parky's part: choice is restricted by public funding. That's a reality, regardless of the benefits. It's kind of sad how rarely people are willing to recognize that bad arguments in favor of things they like are still bad arguments.

Okay, I think I see what you're saying, but that's when the analogy between schooling and healthcare breaks down.

If UHC provides a base level for everyone, then that's paid for by public funds (paid through some sort of taxation obviously). If you want anything over and above that, you pay extra. The only removal of choice is that you are 'forced' into paying for the base level of healthcare via taxes. Unlike schooling, you can add to the baseline you are recieving, rather than having to opt out completely as you would have to with schooling.

At least, that's how it works here.

 

[nescafe]

Name me one single industry in which government control lowers costs. Just one. And just what is it that you think profits are and what is it that you think they do?

Air traffic control, police, military, health care, and justice off the top of my head.

You may note that they are all industries where having a profit motive results in worse outcomes via perverse incentives.

Why else do you think us 'merkins are paying around twice as much in taxes and health insurance premiums for health care than every other Western democracy, and somehow at the same time having worse outcomes than they do?

 

[Ziggurat]

This is because we are trying to make what you are saying fit into an overall framework.

In other words, you're trying to fit everything I say into either being in support of or opposed to public health care. The idea that I might be addressing the validity of an argument, and not of public healthcare itself, is apparently cause for confusion.

Interesting, the thing you suggest is similar to how the system in Germany works. There there is a payroll tax to fund public health care but you can opt out of it if you are in a private health care system.

Sounds like a reasonable compromise between the competing interests.

 

[Ziggurat]

He thinks Parky should have referred explicitly to the fact that taxes to pay for education are compulsory, whereas I thought that was so obvious it didn't need saying.

No. I think Parky should have admitted that many people are not free to choose between public and private education.

As far as that goes, the situation with a universal healthcare system is closely comparable.

Yes: which means if payments for healthcare are similarly obligatory, many people would likewise not be free to choose. And hence the entire premise of Parky's post comes crashing down: choice doesn't exist for many people.

I don't see the problem.

No, I don't suppose you do.

 

[Ziggurat]

He also seems to have some position that you should have tax breaks if you use alternatives to public systems. But not if you simply just don't need those systems.

And you probably can't imagine what possible logic could support such a position.

 

[ponderingturtle]

In other words, you're trying to fit everything I say into either being in support of or opposed to public health care. The idea that I might be addressing the validity of an argument, and not of public healthcare itself, is apparently cause for confusion.

No the problem is that people are trying to fit what you are saying into a relevent consistent position. Talking solely about schools is rather off topic and so not relevent. And wondering why you seem to care about why someone is not using the public school system instead of the simple fact that they are not using it is not clear to many people here how that fits into a consistent position

Sounds like a reasonable compromise between the competing interests.

Probably would not work in the US, as you need enough higher income people in the system to make up for the lower income. Of course income disparity might be less in Germany than in the US. The report also indicated that there was certain social considerations to people who use private health insurance to jump que's at doctors and the like.

 

[ponderingturtle]

And you probably can't imagine what possible logic could support such a position.

You can not possibly be clear about what your position actually is.

The argument you were useing is that people shouldn't have to pay for things that they don't use. This applies equaly to the childless as it does to people who want to send their children to private schools.

Changing this to that we should give tax breaks to people who send their children to private schools is a different position.

What about a family with two houses who has kids in public school, should they have to pay the school tax on the house that is not their primary residence as they are not using that school system? Yes would seem to fit with the first argument you presented. No would seem to fit with the current position you are articulating.

You have not presented a clear and consistend position in this thread.

 

[Ziggurat]

The argument you were useing is that people shouldn't have to pay for things that they don't use.

No, that is not the argument I am using. Where did I ever say that?