"Kids are fundamentally different in this respect. Each one is, at all times, entirely unique."
"If we want to compete with surrounding districts, and other schools, we quite simply have to open up our schools to out of district kids."
"But the object of the school system isn't to make money for it's owners, it's to provide the education we want for our children. So we have a system that serves different needs, and different things that parents want from schools."
"Sure, if that's what parents want, if that's what our society needs, if that's what gives us a competitive over our neighbors."
"People choose their house based on location, neighborhood, convenience--and they'll choose their school based on the academic equivalents--choices that feel like the right fit for their family."
Now I am stating the following comments as fact, though please feel free to argue them if you disagree:
- It costs more to create and maintain more different curriculums and classes.
- The marginal benefit to America decreases the further we venture from the core. (ie reading, writing, math, science, social studies, history, art, etc)
For those that want an infinite number of curriculums (ie school types) and class offerings:
- How do you believe the necessary higher funding levels should be raised ? Remember that taking kids from another district usually does not raise the state funding level. It justs moves money from one pocket to another. (ie Hopkins to RAS, Beacon to RAS, etc) From the perspective of the citizen paying taxes, there is no additional funding provided to pay for the complexity.
- Are you willing to cut the Health and Human Services budget to pay for this level of complexity? (ie Education and HHS make up the majority of the state budget. Assuming a fixed budget, one increasing means the other decreases.)
- If you believe raising taxes is the answer, who specifically would you like to pay more? (considerations: who owes more than they are currently paying... how much of the bill are they already paying... does their paying more make sense... what benefits are they gaining from what they are paying...)
- What do you think the possible consequences would be of raising the taxes on these citizens? (considerations: lose businesses or jobs in MN, more of these folks move to our state, actually lose revenue, etc)
- What argument would you make to your fellow citizens to explain your rationale for chasing these declining marginal dollars of benefit with their money? (ie why is cutting HHS funding or raising OUR taxes a good idea in order to offer more variety? why is preventing intradistrict transfer and limiting choice to "in district" families a good idea that they should support, etc)
Note: The "Government" has no money... Other than what they collect from us citizens. So please make a good argument for investing my money wisely... (ie returns to us citizens)
46 comments:
You raise an interesting point, towit: Assume for the moment a system of universal vouchers. This lets any parent choose any school they want for their kid. What, then, prevents these "magnet schools" from being "overrun" with kids from all over, rather than local kids? My theory is that the voucher should be based, certainly for some long introductory period, on the per-pupil spending of the local school district. This would prevent "cheap" districts from sending their kids in, and generally keep "rich" district kids, with a bigger voucher to spend, looking for something "better."
But suppose your district's STEM school, say, was the best in the land? Kids wanting that would flock in from all over, bringing their cash with them. Local kids might be given preference, but why not just expand the program for all comers? Which brings me to my basic point: Why NOT choice, for everybody? This day and age, it costs very little, if any, more to have multiple courses of instruction, and the evidence is that educational excellence is enhanced, often significantly, by this "tailoring." I would argue that it's a good thing AND free.
J. Ewing
I was more interested in hearing the rationale from the "pro-public status quo more funding" crowd. I really want to understand the what, how and why of the MN Miracle II mantra. (ie just give us more money and demand no changes or oversight)
However, these are fightin words.. "This day and age, it costs very little, if any, more to have multiple courses of instruction, and the evidence is that educational excellence is enhanced, often significantly, by this "tailoring." I would argue that it's a good thing AND free.
Here are the additional costs I see right off the top:
- personnel to evaluate and select school, curriculum or class
- personnel to setup and maintain the school, curriculum or class
- training of Teachers in each variation or recruiting costs of finding the right Teacher(s). (special skills = higher cost?)
- advertising of school, curriculum and class
- Q&A with Parent's & Students
- low volume purchase of materials
- Another admin group for small school if applicable
- etc, etc, etc
And just think... Not one child has been taught with any of these dollars...
Now I do agree that the privates, charters and online classes do offer some opportunity to do more for less cost. This is because they come with varying Mgmt groups that will constantly challenge the status quo in order to cut their costs. Also, they would not be bound by Ed MN. However, more complexity will drive up the costs for them also. (ie see above)
But when status quo Public Schools with all their bureaucracy and rules start setting up multiple schools. We know the marginal cost will definitely increase from the get go. (ie see above)
Now how do we or they cost justify and pay for it? That is the question...
Here is a comment from my Facebook account:
"Each set of parents provides home schooling to their children in areas that they value the most and let the other subjects be outsourced to the school district. This provides the right parenting ownership and an increased value to society per tax dollar." Jason
This make sense to me... Whether the Parent's teach these areas of special interest at home, or enroll their children in special classes/clubs outside of school, or use the PSEO track. If you want something outside the norm or you want to develop a specialized expertise/proficiency, please take on the responsibility and let us use our tax dollars where they do the most good.
Traveling sports clubs are a good example, Parents and Students that want to be the best they can be rely on these for what they would not learn in School. It allows them to be more proficient than their peers so that they can secure positions on the varsity teams, and possibly a college scholarship. There is no reason this would not work for academic endeavors...
I am still anxiously awaiting some answers to the questions posed in the post. You want a lot from us. So tell us how it can happen and why we should support it? Thoughts?
I think course and extra curricular activities beyond reading, writing and arithmetic have a great deal of impact, maybe a lot more than a lot of educators are willing to admit.
I think all of us agree with your comment. Especially getting a basic exposure to a variety of concepts. (ie people skills, art, music, language/culture, life skills, etc) This helps kids develop into well rounded adults/citizens and gives them ideas for further study beyond or outside our K - 12 system.
Now how far do you think we should go? (ie every language? every instrument? every art form? psychology courses? critical thinking courses? philosophy courses?, Basic exposure or Doctoral level?, Basic grasp or absolute fluency?)
If you want a wide variety in great depth within K - 12, who should pay and why?
How do we ensure that the schools are succeeding in the core courses with almost all the kids, before they start spending significant money on these broadening courses?
Remember: I love continuous learning and am always striving to learn more. The question is what should K - 12 offer vs what is the Student/Parent's personal responsibility.
Thanks for your comment !!!
So no comments from the Left?
You want to keep expanding K - 12, however you do not want to explain your boundaries, rationale, funding plan, accountability plan, etc...
I'll never understand this idealistic view. We should offer everything because it is the right thing to do???
It is kind of like the Neocons saying that we need to force American policy around the world. "It is the right thing to do. No matter what it costs..."
Between the Left and Right idealists, the USA will soon be bankrupt...
"We should offer everything because it is the right thing to do???"
I don't think the idea that we should do more, necessarily implies that we should do everything. In any event, the question on the table now and for a while is how do we retain what we have?
It seems to me that the answer of how much "we" do, keeping in mind that "we" are those overtaxed taxpayers, is that we should do as much as we can with the amount "we" are willing to spend. And by "we" I don't mean the educrats and parents willing to squeeze every last drop of blood out of the taxpayer turnip.
Having no constraints on how much to spend simply eliminates any drive for efficiency OR at providing what could or should be provided. Since monopolies become less efficient over time, vigorous competition might seem to be the only answer, leaving to the wisdom of the marketplace these questions which none of us has the wisdom to answer otherwise.
J. Ewing
"Having no constraints on how much to spend simply eliminates any drive for efficiency OR at providing what could or should be provided."
We are looking at a 6.2 billion dollar budget deficit which represents 20% of the state budget, and last year we cut school funding by 1.9 billion dollars. I do not anticipate we will the issue of unrestrained spending will be one we will have to deal with in the foreseeable future.
"Since monopolies become less efficient over time, vigorous competition might seem to be the only answer, leaving to the wisdom of the marketplace these questions which none of us has the wisdom to answer otherwise."
I always wonder about comments like this, what basis they could have in fact. Monopolies have the capability of being very efficient since they reduce duplicative competition. That is, after all, much of the point of mergers. Internally, monopolies can be under a lot of pressure to become more efficient because that's one way to increase profitability.
"Monopoly" is a broad and complex subject. The fact that a company happens to be in a monopoly in it's particular is something which is external, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how the company actually operates. Internally, monopolies can be quite competitive and demands for efficiency can be great. Monopoly or not, companies still must provide an adequate return to their investors, and managers who don't do that are unlikely to incur favor from their owners whose expectations of profitability are enhanced, sometimes unreasonably so, by the knowledge that their company is in a monopoly position with respect to it's market.
I don't want to explore the far reaches of definition or of analogy. "No limits on spending" refers to the fact that public schools are political entities and as such can employ the taxing power to "charge" as much as they can get past the taxpayers and, since most funding comes from the state, they don't even have to convince local taxpayers for most of it, just a few state legislators. The idea of something for nothing tends to run rampant in education, so if "the state" WILL pay, there are many people willing to demand that the state DOES pay, regardless of what is given as a result. It's the magic of Other People's Money.
The public schools are a monopoly, though not a perfect one. For one thing they have an essentially captive audience within their "region" (i.e. a regional monopoly) because every kid must be sent to a school and most parents cannot or will not pay tuition to opt out of the public system. They therefore do not have the constraints normally imposed on private companies that is provided by competitors, nor do they have the incentives offered by the option of consumers to NOT buy the product at all. Considering that catbird position, they actually don't do as badly as expected but ONLY because most of the people in the system, on both sides of the student, care about results as a matter of personal incentive.
Back to the question, then, another way of saying it would be: Before we spend one more dime on public education, I want some check on how much more can be accomplished with the steep price we already pay. It's not my highest priority to worry about STEM or language immersion offerings when half the kids in some districts drop out before graduation, and 20% of all public school graduates are functionally illiterate. Of the problems public education has, a wide diversity of offerings is not chief among them.
J. Ewing
"how do we retain what we have?"
It seems we are discussing creating a new magnet school, or doubling the size of an existing magnet... Isn't this adding? Somewhat different from retaining... I would say...
As for the comments regarding monopolies being competitive... especially over the long run... I think I will have to respectively disagree...
By the way, I do agree that monopolies can make huge profits over the short run. However this is due to their huge revenue generating power. Not necessarily their quality or productivity...
In fact it seems they all disappear in time... Except those created and maintained by the government. And we know how much they cost to keep running.
"Of the problems public education has, a wide diversity of offerings is not chief among them."
I guess that is why I raised this whole question. It seems to me that Public Schools already offer plenty, if not too much variety.
The kids that want special classes have many choices, yet it may be at the detriment of the kids that are challenged with just the basics.
Just think, which children's Parents have the skills, time, money and influence to shift things for the benefit of their kids?
And given the choice of "Opening a new Magnet" or "Struggling to Raise Scores in the Community Schools", which do you think the Admin/Board would prefer to work on? The Magnet sounds like a lot more fun to me...
Finally, what happens to the struggling Community Elementary when another 10% of their best role model students and families head for the new magnet... Do we pummel them for their slipping scores? Do we combine some more Community Elementary schools and close another one of them?
This is definitely a complicated topic that is worth some lively discussion...
""No limits on spending" refers to the fact that public schools are political entities and as such can employ the taxing power to "charge" as much as they can get past the taxpayers and, since most funding comes from the state, they don't even have to convince local taxpayers for most of it, just a few state legislators."
The amount that they can persuade legislators to fund schools is, in fact, limited. In the last session, the legislature cut 1.9 billion dollars from education funding. Education is not the area of the state budget which is out of control, driving the massive budget deficit we will have to deal with in the next legislative session.
"The public schools are a monopoly, though not a perfect one."
What is it that public schools monopolize? What is the market in which it is the sole provider?
"As for the comments regarding monopolies being competitive... especially over the long run... I think I will have to respectively disagree..."
Again, monopolies are a complicated subject, and there are all kinds of monopolies, but the fact is, monopolies can be brutally effective competitors, and that's one of the reasons we view them with suspicion.
Take for example Microsoft's Windows. Windows is a dominant gateway to the internet, and a classic monopoly. What Microsoft could do, and on occasion has been accused of doing is now allowing it's competitors access to the internet when their products compete with Microsoft's own. Similar things could be said about Apple.
Where public schools are concerned, we don't and really shouldn't perceive private schools as competitors. I would vigorously oppose any Microsoft like effort to drive private schools out of business. I am in fact, a strong supporter of cooperation between public and private schools, which by the way, if it happened in the private sector would raise anti-trust concerns.
Does this mean you are willing to cut Health and Human Services to fund Education ??? If so, then we are beginning to make prgress with regard to living within our budget. Excellent !!!
Of course Public Schools are a Monopoly. They are the only School provider given a $10K+ per student tax payer generated subsidy for providing the service. This gives them a hefty competitive advantage, especially when the customers often could not or would not be able to afford to pay this at another school. In part because they are paying higher taxes to fund the $10K+.
Since I am not up for vouchers, this discussion triggered another concept. At a minimum, we should probably not be applying school taxes to households that have kids in Private or Home Schools. This would make quite a bit of sense. Then they could start paying again after their oldest graduated. Seems fair.
Microsoft certainly is a strong player, especially in certain areas. (Windows for PC's & MS Office) However with Apple, Google, IBM, Sun, HP, etc always nipping at their heals, I do not think I would consider them a monopoly. They are always one technological advance or shift from being made obsolete, and they know this very well. (ie very motivated to improve...)
To make sure these Monopoly discussions do not get us too far of track...
You want to keep expanding K - 12, however you do not want to explain your boundaries, rationale, funding plan, accountability plan, etc...
"Does this mean you are willing to cut Health and Human Services to fund Education ???"
Health and human services is growing at 20% a year. I don't think anyone thinks that can be sustained indefinitely. It's pretty much accepted across the political spectrum that something needs to be done about that, it's just no one has developed a political strategy for making that happen. Whenever folks on my side of the political divide start talking about reining in costs, we are immediately accused of favoring death panels, rationing, and socialism.
"They are the only School provider given a $10K+ per student tax payer generated subsidy for providing the service. This gives them a hefty competitive advantage, especially when the customers often could not or would not be able to afford to pay this at another school. In part because they are paying higher taxes to fund the $10K+."
Which is it? Monopoly or just a competitive advantage? It is indeed true that there are advantages to attending public school, but there are advantages to attending private schools, otherwise they would not exist, as they most assuredly do.
"However with Apple, Google, IBM, Sun, HP, etc always nipping at their heals, I do not think I would consider them a monopoly."
Google, IBM, Sun, and HP exist on the internet because Microsoft allows them access to their desktop. There is sniping around the edges with such things as Linux, but Windows remains dominant. The relationship with Apple is different. Apple has it's own monopoly issues, but in any event, it isn't in quite the same business as Microsoft.
Take a look at this video from Joel Demos' campaign for Congress:
http://www.votedemos.com/
Joel lost of course, but this was the Republican message nationwide and it was a successful one. When I see something like this, I always ask, what's missing? Here, as with a lot of Republican commercials, it's old people, the care of whom is driving the debt Joel is complaining about. And the message Joel is presenting is a fairly blunt one. In effect, he is arguing that we have to get away from this notion, that those of us living and working today, owe a debt of more than just gratitude to those who have gone before. That given a choice between the care of our elderly, and our children, we must choose our children.
I think that's a harsh message, one that Joel went to some lengths to prettify, but it was a winning one. I am looking forward to seeing how my Republican friends implement it.
I don't like pitting the old folks against the kids. It isn't right, even though the teachers' unions seem to have no problem with it. We have accepted for centuries that education of "all the children" is a public good, to be delivered at public expense. This does not require it to be done by government employees, but that's a different argument at this point. It also doesn't give those delivering said education a blank check to spend as much as they can think of, with no consideration for efficiency or desirability.
We have also had decades of liberal politicians making promises to the old folks on our behalf. To the best of our ability those promises ought to be kept. I do wish to note that these are largely federal promises, while education, for the moment, belongs to the several states. What we CAN and should do for seniors and future seniors is to quit making promises that cannot be kept and should never have been made in the first place.
Which brings me back to the original question as to how much variety the schools should offer, and how much we should "pay" for that. And to my original answer, which is that we shouldn't spend another nickel until education improves. Whether that's by expanding the diversity of offerings or reducing the number to concentrate on core subjects doesn't matter to me and it's not my call to make. The educrats have told us that they know how; let them prove it.
My personal take on the question is that it's possible, using technology, to offer near-individualized instruction for every student for less than we now spend in total. And we should be working towards that-- results would be better.
J. Ewing
"I don't like pitting the old folks against the kids. It isn't right, even though the teachers' unions seem to have no problem with it."
Right or not, in a time of limited resources, that's a choice we face or at least have made for ourselves. I don't know about the teachers' union but it's a choice I like to avoid. Joel Demos made that commercial pitting kids against debt, i.e. old people and their rising health care costs. There were a bunch of others with that theme as well. Erik Paulsen's commercial with the kids presenting himself as the numbers
I think we should find a way to take care of both our elderly and our kids. But that's not the way the election turned out.
Your last statement is interesting. To me it implies that you believe Republicans do not want to do both... Where as I believe they do.
I mean they have both Parents and children...
The difference to me is that the Democratics seem to believe that additional funding is the only answer... Where as the Republicans seem to want to force some productivity gains and real prioritization by holding the budget stable. (ie burning platform)
Of course, it is interesting that the National Debt seems to grow more during the tenure of Republican Presidents... Gotta stop going to war...
I don't think the election said one thing about pitting the old folks against the kids, and I don't think we can make any predictions about what the newly elected will do about that "problem" other than that they will likely continue to sweep it under the rug. Besides, "in a time of limited resources" we can find ways to improve efficiency, thus doing everything that truly needs doing without spending any more money. It isn't that difficult. It requires more effort of the bureaucrats and administrators, that is true, to watch out for program quality AND the amount spent but if they can't do that, then perhaps their salaries can be our first cost-cutting measure.
Back to the topic again, I just read a piece excoriating US public schools for being a "one-size-fits-all" system, and on further reflection I think it may be correct. All of this talk of magnet schools is really just a variation on the theme of the 150-year-old public school methodology and approach. It spends more money but accomplishes no more-- actually less when you consider the growth of knowledge taking place.
J. Ewing
"I mean they have both Parents and children..."
But children appear in their commercials, and problems associated with the aging of the population are dealt with by indirection and euphemism, "debt" being one of the big ones.
I don't actually believe that Republicans don't want to care for our elderly, but it's a long term problem they just don't want to deal with in the short term.
Additional funding is necessary because of the aging of the population. People who grow older need more medical care, and as they retire, they contribute less to the economy. There are ways to economize, to slow the growth of this trend, but the moment any of them are proposed, they are immediately shot down.
"Back to the topic again, I just read a piece excoriating US public schools for being a "one-size-fits-all" system, and on further reflection I think it may be correct."
I see quite the opposite around here, and that's what the local district is being criticized. Public school offer so many choice and services. You just won't find that in the typical private schools, which often appeal to a much narrower market.
So the problem isn't that Republicans or anyone else wants to sacrifice oldsters for the sake of the children, but the fact that the liberal side of the argument wants to use both as props for their big-government nanny-state agenda. The "problem" could be easily solved if one side didn't scream bloody murder at the first hint of a good idea. Those who claim to want to "save" Social Security, for example, are certainly going to destroy it because it is unsustainable.
As for public schools and their breadth of offerings, I claim there is almost none. Private schools are generally smaller and as such can tailor their instructional approach, philosophy and curriculum to those attracted to same. The much larger public schools cover a much wider student cross-section with a single instructional approach and, within even large districts, curriculum and philosophy. The occasional calculus course offering does not make up for the fact that 90% of the kids don't get basic algebra. Call me a revolutionary, but I like the "let a thousand flowers bloom" idea. What public schools need most is a productivity increase, and we are still using the same methods we used in 1860.
J. Ewing
"to use both as props for their big-government nanny-state agenda."
Why would I want to do that? Look we have old people, and they cost money, more all the time. Do we pay it, or don't we? Just tell me where to send the bill.
By the way, the basic political problem Republicans have and always have had, is that they have a mandate to cut spending in general, but not in the particular. You see that in the Demos commercial, where Joel talks about reducing the debt, but not what the debt pays for. Gov. Pawlenty finessed this problem, first by raiding every pot of money in the state government, that existed when he came into office, second, by borrowing in off the book ways, the education shift being one such method, and thirdly by shifting the burdens and he would argue, the responsibilities of state government onto local governments.
The general view, the conventional wisdom, is that these tactics are now played out. Whatever reserve accounts the state once had are now depleted. In the last session, the state was reduced to raiding the rainy day funds of those school districts saved up by a remarkable combination of fiscal prudence and political foolishness. The state may still try to borrow money perhaps by securitizing future cash flows, as Pawlenty tried to do, but the only sense that ever made was political. Or the state can shift more of the burdens it has assumed elsewhere. It's just finding someone to take them that's the issue. Budgets can't be zeroed out more than once.
1. I don't think either side wants to pit young vs old. The Old vote for candidates, and I hope most responsible adults are concerned about the mess we are leaving for future generations. (ie the young) The challenge is one of balance. (my immediate wants/needs vs the long term debt/burden)
Though I am confused why these old folks are costing the younger Citizens so much money ??? Shouldn't there be a negative consequence for those who chose to not save enough for retirement or retired too early???
A story, I visited the nursing home for 2 relatives awhile back. One had chosen an exciting life and spent as money was available. One was more conservative, had saved and become fairly wealthy. Ironically they had rooms and services that looked nearly identical, though one was public and the other was private funded. (and remember... the the wealthier relative was paying part of the poorer's bill through continuing taxation) Maybe a I should spend some more... Is this really motivating making the right choices earlier in life?
2. I think that one Private school would offer less variety than a Public School district. However, a number of unique unaffiliated Private Schools would likely offer more variety than a Public School District.
3. Now stop that exagerating. Almost every student in RAS is taught Alegbra based on my review of the course guide. I assume most Public Schools are similar. Then again, you may be correct that 90% still don't get it even after being taught... I know many adults that roll their eyes when I start talking in X and Y's...
4. It seemed to me that Pawlently only controlled one thing... No more State taxes...
Of course this left the Legislature and Bureaucracy three choices, become more efficient, cut lower priority programs and services, or find the money elsewhere. They seemed to typically choose the "Find the Money Elsewhere" option. (ie usage fees, push costs to Local, borrow from schools, higher sales taxes, etc)
Maybe the new Governor, Legislature and existing Bureaucracy will be more creative and responsible this time around...(ie put in place a longer term solution) Maybe...
Or they will wait til the economy improves. (ie rising water hides the rocks)
"I am confused why these old folks are costing the younger Citizens so much money ???"
It's the trade off for when as young workers they were overpaying into the various systems for the older generation of that time.
"Maybe a I should spend some more... Is this really motivating making the right choices earlier in life?"
I think you are describing the way disincentives are established currently. As a society, we have made the choice that those who cannot pay for their own health care are not to be allowed to die unattended. So what happens is that the cost of that care is shifted onto someone else, the hospital, the doctor, the nursing home, the shareholder. In answer to my question, "Who gets the bill?", that's where we are currently sending the bill now. We are encouraging people to spend all their assets knowing they won't ever have to pay the bill.
I saw a Republican Congressman challenged on this issue yesterday. The issue was young people just starting out. In the short term, health insurance is a bad bet for young people. Since they typically have no assets to pay for any serious care they might need, and because they know they will get such care anyway, it doesn't make sense to buy health insurance. What that means is that their care, when they need it is paid for by older people, who because they are older, are more expensive to insure and care for. One solution is to require the young person to buy insurance, participate in the insurance pool and lower the overall costs. But that's a mandate, said by the congressm to be unconstitutional.
What was his solution? It was to hold the young person permanently liable for the cost of any care he might receive. What's the problem? Well, in the case of catastrophic care, it's unlikely that the kid will ever make enough to compensate the state for his care. The cost of collection might be too high, the kid may not be in a condition to work at all, and the fact that any money he made beyond a certain level would go to pay off his health care debt is a power disincentive to work. It's an issue of freedom the Congressman says, but what he would do is condemn that kid to lifetime of supervision by s government constantly demanding that he pay his old medical bills. I know that's not my idea of freedom, but it does work for Republican Congressmen whose own government health insurance, incidentally, is paid for by us.
I am puzzled by this attitude that some taxpayer in Ohio ought to be paying for MY medical care. Why? Why am I not responsible for my own health care and, if I am worried about the possibility of some huge but unlikely cost, why am I not responsible for buying insurance?
The reason we have these problems and conflicts is because we have been told by the politicians that they can give us everything while costing us nothing. It was never possible, and at some point in time we have to recognize it.
J. Ewing
"I am puzzled by this attitude that some taxpayer in Ohio ought to be paying for MY medical care. Why?"
Because we are unwilling as a society to just leave people to die. Of course, it might not be taxpayer, it may be a hospital, or a doctor, or a shareholder who picks up the tab for uninsured care. Somebody other than the person who gets the care, pays the bill.
The congressman does want to hold uninsured people responsible for the cost of the care they receive, but he offers no way to do that other then the establishment of a bureaucracy with scope and powers such as you would find in a police state.
But that's the great myth, isn't it, that not providing "free" medical care to everybody and instead leaving them with the responsibility is equivalent to "letting them die"? How stupid do you think "they" are? Being responsible doesn't mean you can afford it, it just means you have to be grateful to private charity or, perhaps, just quit making poor personal decisions that redound to health problems. Making the taxpayers "responsible" in essence makes NOBODY responsible. That's always been the problem with government management of any distribution of goods and services, such as education: there is no sense of responsibility to the customer, or to quality, or to cost.
"Hey, let's just offer this spiffy new 'magnet school' thingie."
"What does it cost?"
"Who cares?"
"What does it DO?"
"Hey, it's new; that's better, right?"
J. Ewing
"Making the taxpayers "responsible" in essence makes NOBODY responsible."
That's the status quo. The taxpayers are among the groups that foot the bill for uninsured care now. At other times we send the bill to various private charities. At other times, we hold bake sales. But the bill is there, and it has to go somewhere. Unless we make the decision to establish death panels, whose job it is to deny care.
The bill is NOT there. People seeking treatment ought to and used to have the responsibility for their own care. It never was and never should have been the general taxpayer's obligation or responsibility for that bill. It was a contract between private parties-- a patient and a health care provider-- and as such should remain so. The doctor can "forgive" the cost, refuse the patient, or have a private charity step in, or some combination thereof. There was a time doctors were paid in chickens or chicken dinners, nothing wrong with that. Yes, we have a status quo. It ought to change.
J. Ewing
"People seeking treatment ought to and used to have the responsibility for their own care."
They didn't have cat scans back then. It is a given both legally and morally, that we provide health care to those who need it. Surely, we can hold them responsible for the costs of such care, but in the real world in which we live today, the costs generated by any serious health issue are beyond the ability of the vast majority of us to pay. That always means that someone else ends up paying the bill.
"The doctor can "forgive" the cost, refuse the patient, or have a private charity step in, or some combination thereof."
Well, hospitals can't refuse emergency care. That's the law. As for the other contingencies, those are among the folks we are sticking with the bill. Why shouldn't we stick the bill with the patient in a meaningful way by requiring him to have insurance?
The freedom being defended here is the freedom to be a deadbeat, the freedom to stick their bills to me, bills that somehow I don't have the freedom to refuse to pay.
"It is a given both legally and morally, that we provide health care to those who need it."
Who is this "we" you speak of? It is OK with me if YOU want to be charitable, but "we" means that government extracts this "charity" from me by force, and while legal, it is the most immoral thing under the sun, IMHO.
"Surely, we can hold them responsible for the costs of such care, but in the real world in which we live today, the costs generated by any serious health issue are beyond the ability of the vast majority of us to pay. That always means that someone else ends up paying the bill."
Ah, but it is precisely because somebody ELSE is paying. It is the classic problem of all government programs and other "third party payer" systems that costs increase without bounds. If everybody had to pay or was at least responsible for the costs of their own care, costs would come down dramatically.
"Well, hospitals can't refuse emergency care. That's the law."
Exactly my point. If folks knew they would bear the cost of emergency room care, many of them would take their routine ailments to regular doctors and find a way to pay that lower fee. It is precisely because of the law that indigents and "freeloaders" pile into emergency rooms for the "free" care. You are correct that all of us end up paying for it, in some fashion, but ONLY because government has failed to leave the responsibility with folks who are thus able to choose to be irresponsible.
"Why shouldn't we stick the bill with the patient in a meaningful way by requiring him to have insurance?"
Because "we" have no such right. Requiring everybody to have insurance simply removes the responsibility, once again, from those who need to be responsible, and the current Obamacare requirement is far worse than that.
"The freedom being defended here is the freedom to be a deadbeat, the freedom to stick their bills to me, bills that somehow I don't have the freedom to refuse to pay."
Again, you have the problem exactly backwards. The freedom being defended here is the freedom to refuse to pay for some deadbeat's care, when he has made no effort and taken no responsibility on himself for such.
Now, can we get back to discussing school policy? Believe it or not, the analogy is still an apt one. I am required to pay school taxes to support a school system from which other people gain the vast majority of immediate benefit. Many parents want everything the school system can offer and are offended when someone quibbles about the cost, because THEY are not responsible for the cost. Imagine how different schools would behave if every parent had to come up with the money to send their kids to school, or to buy "school insurance"? Even something as simple as giving every parent a taxpayer-backed check for a large portion (or all) of a school's cost would make a vast difference in the breadth and depth of offerings. Come to think of it, maybe that's the answer? Hey, you want IB or SLI? That'll be $150/year, please. It wouldn't have to cover anywhere near the whole cost, any more than extracurricular fees do (typically only 20%) to be effective. It would sure ground the discussion.
J. Ewing
"Who is this "we" you speak of?"
That's the law, and it also represents a consensus view. Republicans contrary to what the occasional Democrat will tell you, are not in favor of denying health care based on the ability to pay. The disagreement between the parties is over what the best way is to do that.
It's pretty generally understood that market theory doesn't apply to medical care. I recently made an appointment with the doctor. I asked the person making the appointment, what the charge would be. She was unable to tell me, and directed me to someone else. That person was only able to give me vague outlines. Markets require more transparent pricing than that. For the service I required, I had to go to a doctor, not a nurse practitioner or some other kind of medical professional, clearly a monopolistic restraint of trade. Blood was taken. I wasn't given the option of taking that to some other service provider, or in any way to compare prices. Lab work on the blood was done. I had no choice as to lab. And I had no choice as to which doctor would review the tests, a task that could easily be outsourced at great cost savings, perhaps to a doctor in India.
If we instituted free market principles in the health care industry, just about everything I have described would be changed.
"If we instituted free market principles in the health care industry, just about everything I have described would be changed."
Yep. And the reason it doesn't change is because government has intruded itself into that free market and taken away the mechanism by which prices are set-- that of individuals making choices.
"It's pretty generally understood that market theory doesn't apply to medical care."
Again, only because government has massively distorted the free market. At root, there is no less logic to free-market health care or free-market schools than there is to free-market food. I suppose we could conceivably do without schools, but not without food or, at some point in life, without health care of some sort. So what?
You have your choice of two fallacies, both of which apply to schools and to health care. The first fallacy says that by having the taxpayers pay, we can all get more medical care than if we each paid individually for the care we needed. The second fallacy says that so long as somebody else pays, it's free and unlimited, so I can have all I want, need or not. That last is what we have in the schools right now. Charge a few bucks for these "choices" and watch the situation change.
J. Ewing
"And the reason it doesn't change is because government has intruded itself into that free market and taken away the mechanism by which prices are set-- that of individuals making choices."
I look forward to seeing legislation from Republicans in the legislature implementing those changes.
I look forward to that, too, but I expect liberals to fight tooth and nail to insist that free markets cannot possibly produce the greatest good for the greatest number, and that only having some bureaucrat take from one of us and give to another to take care of a third is the compassionate ideal. Dismantling that huge bureaucracy and its dependent class is a massive undertaking, unlikely to be sustained in the face of ongoing political posturing and demagoguery. I think the only hope here is to strike swiftly with a simple and effective alternative approach, such as medicaid in the form of vouchers, or education reform by enforcing the rules of NCLB, that failing schools must "pay" students to go someplace else, that they get to choose.
J. Ewing
"I look forward to that, too, but I expect liberals to fight tooth and nail to insist that free markets cannot possibly produce the greatest good for the greatest number, and that only having some bureaucrat take from one of us and give to another to take care of a third is the compassionate ideal."
Am I the only one who follows the events of the day? Are all these conservatives who are so proud of canceling their subscriptions to the Star Tribune unaware that they won last November's election, and they can do what they want at the state legislature, no matter how many teeth and nails, liberals throw into the fight?
If Republicans want to open up the health care market to competition, they have the power to do it. That's what it means to win elections, to be the majority party in the legislature.
The point you are missing is that liberals "fight tooth and nail" rather than engage in rational decision-making, debate and legislating. They will mount furious attacks on the personal and public morality of ANYONE who threatens the gravy train of government largesse that they consider their birthright, or at least their right by virtue of their own overwhelming moral and intellectual superiority. They do not and seemingly never will acknowledge that their ideas were defeated at the polls, and absolutely not admit that their ideas are wrong (not possible), so they take it as a personal affront and attack their opponents accordingly. It's just what liberals are and what they do.
And the disgusting piece of it all is that this tactic has worked too well for too long. Government isn't the debating society it was intended to be, where the best ideas are brought forth, tested and melded into the best course of action. It's professional wrestling. Lots of grunting, bravado and taunts, followed by a fake contest won by the script-writers.
"The point you are missing is that liberals "fight tooth and nail" rather than engage in rational decision-making, debate and legislating."
The point you are missing is that we lost the election. We are no longer a part of the decision making process. It's up to the Republicans to pass legislation. I am waiting to see what they come up with. No doubt Republicans will be criticized for the decisions they make. That's a phenomenon we were familiar with when we were in the majority. But that's just goes with the territory of winning elections.
Elections have consequences.
"They do not and seemingly never will acknowledge that their ideas were defeated at the polls, and absolutely not admit that their ideas are wrong (not possible), so they take it as a personal affront and attack their opponents accordingly."
I hereby acknowledge and affirm that my ideas were defeated at the polls. I acknowledge the possibility that I am wrong, but I don't think my views are wrong otherwise I wouldn't hold them. Presumably, Republicans don't disagree with their political views either.
Elections decide which ideas get implemented, not which ideas are right.
Post a Comment