@Combo_Kid:

Except for your brief personal comments on "religion", (which we disagree on, and, which we will not discuss here in this thread), I just want to tell you that your most recent post here in this thread was an **excellent, excellent** rebuttal of Mr.F's claims about the public school system here in the United States.

Good job, Combo_Kid!!


Chess Fan

Ed, I'm not sure I follow how giving parents money, if that is what you're saying here, will make for better education. What am I misunderstanding, or overlooking?

Ken, it is the problem with single-payer/single-buyer/single-provider. If you have a situation where the state pays for everything, buys everything, and provides everything, you run into problems. One is insufficient supply. There is a certain percentage of the population that will always say "I have contributed enough. Let the others make up the balance." Those who oversupply eventually say "the hell with this" and suddenly suppy does not meet demand. In a free market this is compensated for by the pricing mechanism. In the event of shortage prices fluctuate, and those who really want the item will pay more and those who do not simply skip it. The second problem is distribution. In the single- system, you wind up with shortages, e.g. bread lines. Or rationing.

By providing the parents with the money directly, those who genuinely value education will spend every cent on their children. Those that do not will not. I am counting on the parents' having enough awareness to realize that the "more" they invest in their children the better off the children will be. By "more" I do not necessarily mean money; I do mean providing the metaphysical side of education.

The only way we measure education is with money, which is obviously misleading, as the P.J. O'Rourke essay above shows. By giving the money directly to the parents we create a system with a single payer (the state, or the taxpayers, if you prefer) with multiple buyers (the parents) and multiple providers (the free market in education). I expect this would provide two advantages: one, more fitting education (each student would get the education that fits his needs); two, lower cost, as the overhead of education(massive schools, huge bus fleets, and, most of all, gigantic administration costs) will be eliminated.

I admit that there will be inefficencies, failures, and rip-offs. Yes, some parents will abuse the system. We can define those abuses and use law enforcement to deal with them. But it will be a much more managable problem than what we have now.

Hmm, that won't work. People are not good at long-term planning. Otherwise, more people would be investing for their own retirement. Only a small minority are. Chances are only a small minority would have the awareness or the wherewithal to actually invest in their children's future. Maybe trying to enforce it with laws would motivate some to do better, but it would just clog an already clogged law system--and lead to cries of the gov't is being too intrusive.

I also think your argument breaks down with the single buyer analogy (e.g. state pays for everything). If that were the case we'd have medical breadlines (i.e. shortages) in Canada. For the most part, the system works very well, and based on our experience here, I'd say the same system would work for education. Not perfect, but better than what is there now (for education in Can/U.S., and in the U.S., for medical issues).

It won't work? Of course it won't work! Nothing will work! I don't pretend to provide an answer to a problem that cannot be solved. I'm simply proposing something that will give much greater freedom to the parents and, at the same time, save money and drain education of the political power plays.

One of the drawbacks to democracy is that every issue, no matter how trivial, eventually becomes a fight. I want to divorce education from political fights.

Regarding health care, I don't know enough about HealthCanada to give you an answer on that. I have heard horror stories--from you, of all people. I recall one about you waiting in an ER for eight hours to get a prescription written. I can say that providing health care is much easier than providing education. If it it hurts, it hurts. Hematology, urinalysis and X-rays don't lie. Politicians and educational bureaucrats do nothing but lie. Give me six months in Canada's educational system and I'll find the lies.

Yep, did wait in ER for a long time when I was out west. But this past week, I've had several more tests, all booked within a week, and had take-home medical monitoring equipment provided for me within six days. There is a backlog for the next piece though...today they told me I had to wait 11 days for my appointment to pick it up. Cost to me = my tax dollars and the tax dollars of my fellow Canucks (thanks, folks), and no need for me to carefully check my bank account to see if I can afford such tests. Like I said, the system isn't perfect, but it works pretty well, and my mom is mobile (knee replacements), and my dad is alive (stent) despite being on fixed pensions.



Well, why didn't you say so in the first place?

I do know your agenda though--you want to only educate a few promising people, have some trades people, and let the rest go uneducated so they can be happy in their menial labour jobs.

I read an article by Anne Applebaum where she provided a link that asserted that only 13 percent of Americans pay for health insurance themselves; the rest either get outright government coverage (Medicare/Medicaid) or employer-provided insurance, which is subsidized by federal tax breaks. The real issue here are the people with problems, not people like your parents. And to be frank, we have another thread for that.

As for my agenda, well, so what? My plan will actually work much better than the current system, will cost less, will take politics out of the schools, and everyone will be happier, especially the Category III, IV and V students who will no longer be told fairy tales about college. I, at least, am honest.

By the bye, in post # 157399 on page 255, I did say this, though in longer and more oblique form.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/25/AR2010112503638.html

Ken, here's an interesting article on two points. One is the problem created by Medicare cuts, which are needed to fund Obamacare. The other is the use of red herring to distract the issue. In the middle of the article a commentator says that claims that Medicare doctors can't feed their kids are "absurd." I've never seen that claim. You must read all the way to the end of the article to find a more a counterview by a doctor who explains the problems caused by Medicare cuts. If you reread my earlier comments on the single-payer you will see them reflected in this article.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-275926--.html

Ken, spock, MrF--here's what I'm talking about. 170 grand a year for a drama teacher? That's a million dollars in just six years! Is it worth it? We don't know because this is shielded from free market competition.

There's the usual drivel comparing these salaries to private sector pay--like any of these guys could gets jobs in the private sector. How much are doctorates of education actually worth? We don't know because their value is shielded from free market competition.

Apply my plan and these costs will drop to zero, because the free market will reveal these services as grossly overpriced.

Except, there aren't any cuts to Medicare.
Even the AARP, who are ferocious in defending retired people, say there aren't any cuts in their Myths vs Facts page.

As the article points out though, Obama gov is getting the same medicine (pun unintended but kept) that they dished out to McCain when they took out two ads saying he was going to cut Medicare. McCain wasn't, they distorted his statements, and now they're even using some of his ideas--and in the process are now getting accused of cutting Medicare. Karma can be a bi***.