Government run health care and government run schools

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.
Which is why I said "comparable" and not "equal", meaning that if they weren't paying the tax they could afford to pay for private school. Like I said (and you apparently agree, based on your second sentence), you need to show that this is the case.

(On a side note, I love how much you complain about straw men and people not understanding your point and then immediately jump to all sorts of conclusions about other people's positions.)

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.
You say the voucher systems have become attractive for many lower-income parents. How many of them could afford to pay for private school if they didn't have to pay the local taxes that go to public school?

Of course, there would be diminishing returns. Parents with multiple children don't pay more local taxes to fund public schools, but they would have to pay multiple tuition, even though the second/third/etc. kid is usually cheaper.

What evidence do you have to back up your claims?
 
No, that is not the argument I am using. Where did I ever say that?

your first post in this thread when your argument was this

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

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.

No. I said nothing about what people should and shouldn't have to do. I said something about a consequence of them having to do things (a consequence which has not been disputed). I also said something about what people like, but not only is that different from what they should have to do, it's also not something you're actually contesting.
 
You say the voucher systems have become attractive for many lower-income parents. How many of them could afford to pay for private school if they didn't have to pay the local taxes that go to public school?

I never claimed any particular number, so this is irrelevant to my position.

What evidence do you have to back up your claims?

Simple logic. Unless there is a discontinuity in incomes, then at some point in the income distribution, the tax burden going towards schools will make the difference in being able to send children to private schools. Can you really not understand that?
 
No. I said nothing about what people should and shouldn't have to do. I said something about a consequence of them having to do things (a consequence which has not been disputed). I also said something about what people like, but not only is that different from what they should have to do, it's also not something you're actually contesting.

You are structuring the statement as a criticism, so it seems reasonable to most here that it was intended as such regardless of what you intended it to be.

When everyone enterperates something you say in a particular way, there are likely good reasons for that.
 
Yeah: don't make arguments that don't make sense. Quite easy, really.

You know that many people here do make arguements like that. It is a very libertarian position, and skeptics are rife with libertarians.

So it is not a position that would be suprising to run into someone holding such a position here.

You were not clear as to why you were making random off topic observations and people tried to understand them. As you are refusing to consider that you were anything less than perfectly clear you must of course blame them for your mistake.
 
No one HAS to send their children to government-run schools. They can always go to secular private schools or religious run schools.

But the government does take taxes from those who want their kids in private schools and uses that money to fund the public system. Are you advocating that here? That those who want to use private healthcare pay for it twice ... once to the government and once to the private company?

Also, democrats (and specifically Obama) have acted to prevent the use of vouchers, which many say would introduce the same sort of competition that Obama claims the health care system needs ... into the public school system. Seems a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

And there is a third comparison we can draw between government run schools and government run healthcare. Government run schools have done an abysmal job of educating a vast number of children. It is shocking that with higher costs per pupil than ever before about half of kids in the public schools of major cities do not even graduate high school. And test scores continue to drop. In comparison, private schools in general graduate a much larger percentage of students at less cost. So is that what we can expect from the government run health care? Higher costs and poorer health care?
 
I never claimed any particular number, so this is irrelevant to my position.
You said "many". If "many" is 87% of lower income families for which a voucher system would allow them to send their children to private school, then your position is relevant. If "many" is 3 families, your position is interesting but irrelevant.


Simple logic. Unless there is a discontinuity in incomes, then at some point in the income distribution, the tax burden going towards schools will make the difference in being able to send children to private schools. Can you really not understand that?
Your "simple logic" makes some rather large assumptions. Namely that affordability is a function only of family income and tax burden. It is quite possible, if not likely, that the intersection of tax burden, standard of living, tuition, and portion of family income that could go towards tuition happens well above the income distribution of lower income families (however you are defining that).

But you don't know that because you aren't basing your position on any real-world data. That isn't logic. It's a WAG. A very simplistic WAG, at that.
 
For all the complaints about misrepresentation, I do agree that the problem is simply that Ziggy seems incapable of presenting a cogent position.
 
Originally Posted by FarmallMTA
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.

Can you prove any of that? I don't think so.

You can't honestly believe that our justice system is cost effective. Here's a article, for instance, about a study that found "privately run prisons produce results equal to or better than publicly run correctional institutions and at a lower cost": http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/sparksfly.shtml . And you can't possibly think the prosecutorial side of our justice system is efficient. The trial of OJ is a case in point.

Nor can you honestly believe that Medicare, Medicaid and other government run portions of the health care system are efficient and cost effective. Here's an article (http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/22...e-costs-rise-faster-than-private-sector-care/ ) on how government-run health care costs are rising faster than private sector care.

And do you really think the military can be fairly described as a "cost effective" organization? No, it's a get the job done no matter the cost organization. As the cost of numerous wars prove. As the cost of military equipment and parts prove. There is a reason that civilian organizations are asked to perform certain functions for the military. Cost.

As for police, I again challenge your claim. What proof can you offer that a government-run police organization is less expensive than a private one? I can offer sources like this:

http://books.google.com/books?id=_b...5rjmDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2

From a purely financial perspective, alternative service providers, such as private security firms, provide certain savings. For example, ... snip ... The private officers were paid $10.00 per hour for the patrol services. Conversely, public police cost 2.79 times as much as private police in 1979. More recent data reveals that it costs at least $100,000 per year per police officer when salary, benefits, and overhead expenses were calculated into the equation (Reynolds, 1994:2)

As for government funded air traffic control being less costly (you're not the first to suggest this one), are you kidding?

The cost inefficiency of the FAA is notorious. How could an organization that allows controllers to earn over $200,000 a year, not including benefits, be considered cost effective compared to a private run system? Even the FAA recognizes the problem (http://www.dot.gov/affairs/faa060205.htm ) but have they really done anything to fix it?

And if government run air traffic control is such a good idea, why have so many countries gone in the other direction? Here:

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-34639774_ITM

Commercializing air traffic control: have the reforms worked?(Report)

Publication: Canadian Public Administration

Publication Date: 01-MAR-08

... snip ...

This industry depends, in turn, on a network of air navigation service providers (ANSPs) that manage the flow of air traffic. A badly run ANSP can jeopardize safety, cause substantial travel delays, or impose heavy costs on cash-strapped airlines.

The ANSP sector has experienced extraordinary innovation over twenty years. By 2005, over forty countries had commercialized their ANSPs--a process that typically involves the introduction of new funding methods for the reorganized ANSP, new governance arrangements, and new mechanisms for safety and economic regulation. ... snip ...

The United States has not followed this path. Air traffic control remains within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which in important ways is still organized as a conventional government department.

... snip ...

In this article, we provide results from an unparalleled study of the performance of ten commercialized ANSPs, as well as the FAA, between 1997 and 2004. This study was undertaken by a team led by a former government executive who managed the commercialization of the Canadian air navigation system and overseen by an advisory panel of government and industry representatives from several countries.

We find that ANSP commercialization has generally achieved its objectives. Service quality has improved in most cases. Several ANSPs have successfully modernized workplace technologies. The safety records of ANSPs are not adversely affected by commercialization, and in some cases safety is improved. Costs are generally reduced, sometimes significantly. Other risks of commercialization--such as erosion of accountability to government, deterioration of labour relations, or worsened relationships between civil and military air traffic controllers--have not materialized.

So again, I challenge you to support your claim. :D
 
Your "simple logic" makes some rather large assumptions. Namely that affordability is a function only of family income and tax burden. It is quite possible, if not likely, that the intersection of tax burden, standard of living, tuition, and portion of family income that could go towards tuition happens well above the income distribution of lower income families (however you are defining that).

In other words, you think that the middle class, rather than lower income families, fall into this category. Sure, that's possible.
 
For all the complaints about misrepresentation, I do agree that the problem is simply that Ziggy seems incapable of presenting a cogent position.

Translation: I have nothing to add, but I'll follow the herd!
 
If everyone is telling you you're wrong, then at some point you have to face the fact that you're either (a) a genius or (b) wrong. Take your pick.
 
If everyone is telling you you're wrong

And is everyone telling me that? Why, no. The complaint is not that I'm wrong, but that I'm not being clear. So not only can you not get my position correct, you can't even get other people's position correct.
 
OK, you're wrong when you imply that you have clearly stated your position.

Is that better?

Rolfe.
 

Back
Top Bottom