Universal goods vs. state provision

I actually find this quite hilarious, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

You have a tendency to endlessly gnash your teeth over the failures of capitalism, yet say nothing about the state system. The implication, of course, is that state systems are of course flawless because the technocratic elite of a socialist state would simply legistate that everything be done correctly.

For example, here you say that a private system could give uneven results.

Earth to Balbus - state systems given uneven results. State systems are perfectly capable of favoring high income children. State systems are perfectly capable of failing generation after generation of poor children and being nearly impervious to change.

 

Hipstatic

Well of course you’re going to claim to find my arguments funny, ridicule is all you have. I mean you’re not really putting up any counter arguments, it is a very old trick, laugh at what someone says in the desperate hope that no-one will notice you haven’t addressed what’s been said let alone refute it.

But I don’t think you’ve been so lucky here, I think people will notice.

**

LOL but I’m always criticising state systems, overtly or by implication, that’s why I’m always calling for reforms of one type or another and the attacks on what I see as failed or failing government or administration policies.

I’ve said why I think the US system is currently failing and I’ve attacked the present British education system in broad terms and the New Labour policies on it specifically.

To me education policy is a difficult problem that isn’t going to be solved by the simplistic application of ‘free market’ principles in fact that is likely to make things worse.

 

I’ve explained at length in a previous thread that to me the problem with the education debate is there seems to be an overemphasis on what we term secondary level schools and a belief in short term fixes.

In my opinion there needs to be a much more of a holistic and long term approach.

Here are some ideas –

Tackling low parental educational levels (paid evening classes and work place schemes)

Educated parents are more likely to produce educated children .

Free and subsidised nursery (kindergarten) places and those places to follow not just a play culture but also a educational culture.

The thing is that if you can instil a love of learning early it often roots for life

Steps to be taken in limiting the effects of anti-intellectualism - the belittling of intelligent discourse or the sometime equation of intelligence with ‘elitism’.

(Try reading “The Age of American Unreason” bySusan Jacoby, “Anti-Intellectualism in American Life,” by Richard Hofstadter or “Amusing Ourselves to Death” by Neil Postman,”)

The discouragement of private and religious based educational institutions and rigorous monitoring of home schooling.

Segregation of any type is divisive and teaches a wrong lesson.

State payment of University fees for first degrees (for medical degrees this would be tried into X years working for a National Health type service).

To encourage anyone to take up degree level education.

A national and above all independent board, involving representatives from the business, scientific and judicial community, charged with overseeing educational standards in all educational establishments.

To try and limit political manipulation of educational standards for short term political gain.

The outlawing, on pain of dead, the use of multiple choice tests.

A personal hatred.

Every effort should be made to reduce class sizes to 20 (at the very maximum).


*

Of course this would entail others changes and reforms but I think that’s enough to be going on with.

 

It can be a good thing if the state provides the highest quality of such services. Then there will be no need for private education or health care provided also that these services are free from political influence.

 

Sorry Aqua

It would be hard for them not to become a political issue and therefore become prone to political influence.

Most of the right and especially the dogmatic right are ideologically opposed to the public provision of services.

So they would constantly be trying to undermine or dismantle such institution even if they worked perfectly.

In the US there is a very well financed infrastructure of lobbying groups and think tanks etc set up to promote the ‘private’ alternatives to public service provision and to ward off and brief against additional public services or public service type framed reform of present services.

 

That's the thing though, the state never does provide the best, show me example of where they have. Take Canada, Britain or well basically any country with some form of universal healthcare, yes the fact everyone is insured is great, but at the same time people with money who can afford it come to the US for treatment. I don't know about other countries but same reason why a high school diploma from a private school here is worth a lot more then a public school one

 

Very true. Generally speaking, this is the cancer of modern democracy and I don't think its limited to the US. Its a product of this failed system of unregulated capitalism were corporations have become powerful enough to effectively although indirectly dictate government policy on such issues.
There is nothing that prevents the state from providing high quality education and health care except those lobbying groups.

Well here is another perspective, a fully equipped school facility remains a school facility whether private or public.. Add to it the academics and teachers, those are the elements that will guarantee quality education. A good teacher will not waste his time teaching in an underpaid and poorly equipped schooling system so he/she will naturally sell their time to the highest bidder in this case private schools.
So the only difference between a private school / private health care and public system is the quality and finance, and as mentioned earlier its nothing the state cannot handle instead it has conveniently delegated this responsibility to private enterprises.
I don't know much about Britain's universal health care system or Canada's, but if people truly go out of their way to be treated somewhere else then these governments need to work more on the quality of their systems.

 

That's not entirely true. Our government pays the bills for people who cross the border to have procedures performed.

Nice try though. It's amazing how little people understand about universal healthcare. Oh well.

 

Again though, what would be the need to cross the border to begin with, I've never heard of anyone going to Canada for actual medical procedures, just for cheaper drugs. Capitalism in the medical market might not be the most ethical system but it does make for great doctors.

 

My aunt went to Ford Hospital to have her stomach stapled. It's an elective procedure, and yet my government paid for the whole thing.

What cheap drugs? I've never heard of people going to the USA for cheap drugs - ever. Maybe they're cheaper at Wal-Mart because of the Prescription Drug Act that Bush passed in 2004, which allowed drug companies authority to charge whatever they wanted at competition prices and bargain basement rates with less government regulation.

But eh. What do I know?

I'm only a Canadian who lives in a capitalist system with shitty doctors, apparently.

 

Mad

There are always those that choose to go outside the system, are you saying that they shouldn’t be able to?

I’m a supporter of the NHS but I don’t go to them to get a simple painkiller (although in theory I could) I just go and buy one from a chemist.

I know people that use (or practice) ‘alternative’ treatments that are not covered by the NHS, such things as homeopathic or acupuncture treatments, but none of them would want to loose the NHS.

The NHS is always there if needed I mean if you have an accident or collapse in the street it is unlikely that your first choice is to seek emergency treatment in the US.

And of the millions of people with serious complaints that are treated by the NHS every day few actually choose to seek treatment beyond the UK even when they actually could afford it.

You see the NHS is a cradle to the grave system, covering virtually all ailments, so people don’t have to worry about going to a doctor or hospital out of fear of the bill, oh a person might pay for single treatments outside of it, but taken as a whole most people are thankful for it, because most people wouldn’t be able to cover all of what it covers on their own. And the fact that the rest is covered makes the choice to go outside of it much more possible for most people,

*

Another thing about the NHS is that you don’t get doctors and hospitals ‘playing’ the insurance system, that is, giving unnecessary treatment to those that have insurance to bump up a bill while not doing tests on those without insurance to save money. In the NHS everyone basically get about the same level of care be they a day labourer or a company executive.

 

Mad

So are you implying that if two students got exactly the same marks in everything but one was from a private school and the other from a public one, you’d think the private one ‘better’ in some way?

Is this due to personal prejudice or a some kind of belief that wealthier people are superior somehow?

In the UK we don’t use this system preferring more quantifiable examination results.

“Education systems based on the British model have independently marked national examinations for each subject instead of a High School Diploma…
wiki

This means that it doesn’t matter if a pupil has been at a private school or public one they take the same aptitude tests. So an ‘A’ is an ‘A’ wherever the student studied.

In fact if someone has got an ‘A’ in a run down inner city state school they’ve probably shown more drive and aptitude than a student who’s received all the advantages of a private education, like one to one tutoring.

 

That could be because they are not covered under the Canadian National Healthcare plan. But an increasing number of US citizens are seeking health care abroad because it is cheaper:

http://www.tmsspecialtyproducts.com...leave/200903161441TMS_____SPECIAL_ctmsp_24904

I know of a friend that had to go to Belgium to have her hips resurfaced because she couldn't afford to have them done in the States. Including her airfare, recovery, and rehabilitation it was a third of the cost here. Yet the procedure was equivalent if not superior to what she would have received here.

There are a growing number of physicians promoting the idea of a single payer plan:

http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/physicians_proposal_intro.php
http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_re...for_singlepayer_national_health_insurance.php

 

The fact is that if private insurers controlled health care inflation as well as Medicare has over the past decade, businesses and families would see much lower premiums than they do today. Between 1997 and 2006, per enrollee spending in private insurance grew 59% faster than spending in Medicare. And Medicare has the tougher job, because it cares for the most expensive population: the elderly and those with serious disabilities.

How many years shall we give the private free market model to prove they can deliver a better product for a cheaper price? It just hasn't proven to be true. It appears the government can do some things better than the private sector.

 

In terms of a prejudice in favor of rich people being superior in private schools, wtf? It's called reality, I went to a shitty public school and one I can tell you are supplies and ect were much crappier then most private schools, and anyone who's ever applied to a college in the US can tell you a private school history and diploma looks far better then PS*enter number here*


And again, I made no points on to which system is cheaper, more cost effective, I was making the point people go to Canada for cheap drugs, I'm just making the point if you can afford it, we can have the best healthcare in the world here, it's not cheap, it's not ethical, it's not availibly to a lot of people, but it can be awesome. And I say this as someone who can't afford it and doesn't even have health insurance.

 

i could agree that we could! but we dont!
we probably have close to the best emergancy care!
but our HEALTH care is way behind most!!

 

Mad

Sorry, I must be misunderstanding, are you saying you think ‘rich people’ are inherently superior to other humans?

That was my meaning (it was a bit of ironic humour – as in ‘well no-one could think that’) but you seem to have replied that you do, which is rather disturbing and not what I was expecting.

The idea that the wealth of an individual has a direct correlation with their intelligence is to me rather fascistic, it’s like saying that the colour of a person’s skin has a direct correlation on their intelligence.

I have made clear that I think that a child’s upbringing and environment can have a effect on their educational attainment and that that can be effected by the parent standard of living, but I’ve also made clear that I think the quality of life of everyone can be raised to a level where discrepancies in such standard can be evened out.

In other words the advantages’ of wealth could be duplicated to some degree among the general populous.

You have to ask yourself why, why does a private school history seen more favourably, why does a private school diploma seen to have greater influence?

As I’ve hinted maybe the ‘high school diploma’ system should be scrapped in favour of a system that’s based on more quantifiable examination results, so that an ‘A’ grade is an ‘A’ grade whichever school the student studied at.

If the US also had a national curriculum and examinations board it would also mean an ‘A’ grade is an ‘A’ grade wherever the student studied in the country.

*

As to healthcare

Isn’t that the problem?

In my view a good system is one that not only can achieve awesome results but also share those results with most people.

 

LOL! Calm down Balbus. I can't put up a counter argument until you are on topic, which took you about five attempts.

You mean your huge fan club?

O RLY? Where, here at hip forums? Perhaps you mean criticising government by saying there isn't enough of it? Perhaps you mean criticising Bush's foreign policies is 'criticising government'? Do tell.

There is nothing simplistic about it, and this is not theory. It has been put in practice, and it has worked. Perhaps you just don't like people being given a choice - maybe you are a unionised public sector worker?

 

Hipstatic

Well of course you’re going to claim to find my arguments funny, ridicule is all you have. I mean you’re not really putting up any counter arguments, it is a very old trick, laugh at what someone says in the desperate hope that no-one will notice you haven’t addressed what’s been said let alone refute it.

Again with the fatuous and fallacious quips BUT I’m sure I’m not the only one that’s noticed YOU STILL HAVEN’T addressing any of the opposing comments or criticisms levelled at your ideas.

Why are you so afraid to actually debate these things openly and honestly?

I mean these replies address nothing, take this one for example -

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus
But I don’t think you’ve been so lucky here, I think people will notice.

Ohhhh like I’m sooooo put down…

I think vacuous is the word that springs to mind

Does it answer anything?

My point was that you were trying to hide the fact you were not addressing your critics - your reply is to…well…refuse to address those critics.

I make’s me wonder again, why are you so afraid?

*

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus
LOL but I’m always criticising state systems, overtly or by implication, that’s why I’m always calling for reforms of one type or another and the attacks on what I see as failed or failing government or administration policies.

Oh really, yes really, for example how about criticising the very way the government is set up and our representatives chosen?

How about calling for a new US constitution (and a written one in the UK).

Is that in no way criticism of state systems?

*

Are you honestly implying that you’d only accept criticisms of the very concept of government existence? WOW are you implying you want to do away with all government? Have you suddenly decided to become an anarchist?

No of course not, you’re just pushing another of the right’s simplistic arguments.

I mean the problem with all this right wing sloganizing about ‘big government’ or ‘little government’ is that its sole purpose seem to be to drive out debate over what constitutes a ‘good’ government.

It tries to dumb down the debate into yes or no, black / white, with us or against us, in which ‘big government’ is evil and ‘small government’ is good.

Of course this is simplistic and misleading, what do they mean by ‘good’ and ‘bad’ or ‘big’ and ‘little’ in this context?

I remember the banks and financial sector calling for ‘smaller’ government and of wanting the government off their backs, and the right wing politicians who supported them demanding the same and in many ways achieved it.

Of course it was a con game, they took the economy over the brink, and only government help has (hopefully) pulled it back. In the end those who wanted less government reaped the profits and have lumbered the people with the losses and a government bill they will be paying for years.

Basically when they asked for ‘small government’ what they wanted was a weak, ineffectual government that let them pay lower taxes and couldn’t stop them from fucking up the world.

But have the right learned?

I don’t think so what I think they’ll do is try and make the majority of people pay even more through cuts in services.

*

Yes I did criticise the Bush administrations’ foreign policy, and weren’t you one of those supporters that utterly fail to defend it?


*

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus
To me education policy is a difficult problem that isn’t going to be solved by the simplistic application of ‘free market’ principles in fact that is likely to make things worse.

Well you’ve given no explanation beyond the simplistic so there is little more I can say?

You’re refusing to defend it against criticism or opposing comment other than in such simplistic replies as above.

I mean here again we get another of those simplistic slogans the right seem to like so much, that much toted ‘choice’.

But as I’ve pointed out numerous times the choices often promised by the right some times happen but often turn out to be nothing more than ephemeral mirages.

*

 

Hipstatic

You refuse to talk about your ideas so I’m still unsure what type of system you’re proposing.

In education you have pointed to the Swedish model but that model doesn’t seem to be the one suggested by the right for the US and it actually covers most of my concerns as set out above.

The Swedish Research Institute of Trade.

I said –

“I don’t think public funds should be going into the pockets of private educational schools unless those institutions are non-profit making and fully and publicly accountable and imposes no limits on the in-take on religious or academic grounds”

Well these schools have to have the same educational standards and targets as the state schools making them accountable.

They are open to all and are not allowed to discriminate.

And they can’t charge fees on top or the state provision and as a result it seems many such schools are non profit organisations such as teacher co-operatives (although I’d probably prefer to make that more clear).

*

Even the Guardian doesn’t dismiss the system out of hand although it notes some warnings signs.
Wanted: attractive Swedish model

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2007/nov/20/schools.schoolsworldwide

The system

And that

I think it might be an experiment worth watching.

**

But this still doesn’t tell me if this is the model you envision for the US?

From what I’ve read it seems to me that the system many on the right favour in the US is to give a voucher to every parent to spend as they wished.

Meaning a system without any of the safeguards and provisions of the Swedish model.

This would mean state money often going to ‘private’ institutions that the state had little or no control over.

Going to subsidize institutions that discriminate on religious, academic (and even racial grounds).

And being used to subsidize those who were rich enough to send their children to private schools anyway and whose fees above the state provision will still keep out most children.

*

Could you please enter the debate and stop with the snide and pointless remarks?