Universal goods vs. state provision

You have any studies that support that today? I don't think it holds true in today's world. It may have in the eighties, but I think even the wealthy are going overseas for treatment.

And since you don't have health insurance what are you basing your judgements on? If a patient is refused service because they don't have insurance how can that service be seen as superior?

 

I have never been asked to produce my high school diploma for a job. I have been asked for a copy of my college degrees because a position required a certain degree for certification for that position. It's been my experience that a portfolio of actual work or work experience is much more important to an employer.

But then I haven't been trying to play with the high and mighty that love to exclude based on shit they make up as they go along.

 

What exactly is this that has worked so well? Please I'd like to research it.

 

Gardener

I think he is referring to the Swedish model that he linked to – but as I’ve pointed out above that system doesn’t seem to be the one US right wingers seem to advocate.

I’ve been trying to find out what Hipstatic is actually proposing but he seems unwilling or unable to say.

 

Well that looks like another good reason for ending the High School Diploma model.

In the UK employers usually do look at a persons exam result, just as a guideline, and usually only for those straight out of schools (after which as you say it becomes more about employment history).

But of course a person’s exam results are of great importance when applying for university, where they can influence which college will take them and which course they are best suited for.

 

Well I'll be interested to see his reply.

 

Most employers are only interested in if you can legally perform the work, ie certification, and what has your previous experience demonstrated you can perform. All other measures seem extraneous to the discussion, unless you are attempting to establish a closed group.

 

A lot of what you say is a waste of space and not worth responding to. I have responded to questions you raised which I felt were worthy of a response.

When did you stop beating your wife?

I think the real problem here is that you don't like people talking to you the way you talk to them.

Not in the context I raised the issue, no. Is saying elections should be held every five years instead of every four "criticising government"? Please try to answer the question properly.

Methinks he doth protest too much.

Er... no, I never said any of those things. Please calm down.

Oh I see, you weren't claiming that. You were just... talking. Do you think you could give your posts a good edit and delete pointless 'musings' like that?

Have the left learned? It looks to me like the Conservatives are going to win and Labour is going to get sent packing. Funny that, since the masses are supposed to be clamouring for socialism now. Perhaps their state educations didn't quite teach them correct thought, and they still insist on voting incorrectly?

Ha ha, I don't think we'll ever have to worry about you having little to say. And sure enough, another lengthy post followed.

I never anywhere said this is about the USA or claimed to be on "the right". All I asked was what people thought about the principle of state monopolies and the importance of choice. Which is why I found it odd that your first comment was something about how Americans are racist and followed that up by asking us to read a book that claims they are stupid. I figured you'd catch on eventually, I mean people like Piney got it right away.

Congratulations, about 10,000 words later Balbus figures out the topic and realises that he can grudgingly take a neutral view on it. But is something that has been working successfully for 17 years an "experiment"?

 

Please summarize for me Hiptastic what is your solution to education.

 

Forgive me if somebody has mentioned this. Too much to read.

Even though state schools must follow the National Curriculum...there is room for each school to interprete it in many different ways. Also, the ethos of most schools is different. This, imo, gives parents (and children) a choice - if they do not like a particular school they can move (in the ideal world).

I'm sure somebody else has mentioned private medicine.
I'm not sure if you meant gaurateed health care...I assume so.
If you did, then:
Also, the same thing applies with hospitals as it does with schools, imo.
A person can now choose wich hospital they wish to be admitted in to.

http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/choices/Pages/ChoosingyourhospitalFAQ.aspx#q02

?

I think we can. Housing associations. Registered Social Landlords.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/SocialHousingAndCareHomes/HousingAssociations/index.htm

Sometimes in "Housing estates", yes...Not exclusively.

It works for me.

 

Saying the state should not provide basic services and infrastructure for basic needs is like saying every one that drives a car should build their own roads to travel on or be charged for traveling on all those private roads while still paying taxes to a government that does what?

 

I personally think all these hysteric screams for privatization come from interests that seek to profit from a market that was developed and served by state infrastructure paid for by taxpayers in the view of public good for all, but is now seen as a cash cow that without regulation can be milked for every last cent.

I remember Enron . Privatization didn't lower my rates or provide better services.

 

But I'm not saying this. I think this is the third time I have pointed this out.

Enron wasn't privatisation, it is deregulation. And deregulation of air fares and telecom services did lower your rates and provide better services.

Enron was bankrupted 8 years ago. I think its time you get over it.

 

Sorry no my telecom services are not lower, the few times I've flown my airfares have been outrageous and services you have to be joking?

Since the Enron loophole has helped our economy reach the point it is at today I don't think I am going to forget about it anytime soon.

 

Airline prices have dropped dramatically over the past 35 years, it was only recently when oil went through the roof that they skyrocketed again, and airlines are once again going dirt cheap trying to compete against each other now that oil is back around $40 a barrel and the economy is shot. And it is true with phones too, especially with the introduction of pre-paid phones it's so much cheaper to talk even on cell phones then it was 10 years ago

 

My land line is five times what it was before the breakup of MaBell and I receive fewer services. The taxpayers had to subsidize the airlines after 09/11, were we ever paid back? But that's really beside the point airlines and telecom were never provided by the government so within this discussion they are simply a diversion.

They were provided and remain provided by private entities.

 

Dude you can video call Japan for free with Skype, wtf. Please.

Again, this is ridiculous. Discount airlines didn't even exist until deregulation.

 

This has nothing to do with school choice. I'm talking about the parent's freedom to choose where their child gets their education. Also, I'm not talking about one country in specific, rather the concept that giving consumers of universal goods (i.e. universal education, etc.) freedom results in better services than state monopolies.

That's not really choice, especially since they can't even be sure which school their children will be assigned to. Also, this only results in rising property prices near catchement areas for the best schools, which is the same thing as letting people pay for it, just indirectly.

.I am familiar with it, yes.

Yes.

This is nice a start but you are choosing between different outlets of a state monopoly. Health care is the most complicated example of all though, its a tough one.

The option to opt out of state defined benefit plans.

I hope we never see another giant 'social' housing estate anywhere.

Please read the article I linked to. Why would you prefer not to have the freedom to choose?

 

Double post.

 

An Epic, Balbus lengh post ahead.

Feel free to do the same thing. Just wanted to get this off my chest

Schools:
I understand it is not true freedom, because not many get their first choice.
But isn't it also a good start?

I understand what you mean when you say:
"That's not really choice, especially since they can't even be sure which school their children will be assigned to. Also, this only results in rising property prices near catchement areas for the best schools, which is the same thing as letting people pay for it, just indirectly."

I hadn't thought of that point. It is a good one.

A person can now choose wich hospital they wish to be admitted in to:

I understand that. But, hospitals and schools are not run the same.
That was my earlier point. That is why I see a little bit of choice.
I understand partial freedom would be partial removal from the "system" but with the same benefits (voucher system).
I don't see that as true freedom, though. It is a tough one, for sure.

I see. Emigration seems the only option

How much would I actually save on a weekly basis if I stopped contributing to my state pension?
Would it be like £365 a year?
Which is £1 a day...wow, what to do with all that money!
I jest, but hope you get the point.
Perhaps you would not save enough for any true benefit.

I hope so too. Or Milton Keynes (though I here it is quite nice, actually.) http://www.mkweb.co.uk/

I did read it earlier. I do get the point (I hope.)
Are you still not tied to the government and all you really get is a few more options to the schools (or whatever) you can use?

The same issues arise, people gather or move to the better schools.
House prices will rise - as you said earlier.

I don't quite see much of a benefit of that particualar scheme.
Does it improve education or is it just for freedom?

2008:
In private schools inspected by Ofsted, 6% were rated inadequate, 37% satisfactory, 52% good and only 5% outstanding on the measure of "overall quality of education". Of state schools 5% were inadequate, 32% satisfactory, 49% good and 15% outstanding on overall effectiveness.

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/oxcare_providers/list/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/nov/22/ofsted-private-schools-child-safety

I don't think it gives you freedom from the state if they are handing you the money.

As far as schools go. I probably wouldn't want to move like a migrant just for the better school...because it doesn't mean you are any closer to a better hospital or I might not like the council that is running the area (if councils still exist ).

For true freedom are you suggesting the state removes its hands from us completly (or atleast those that choose to)?

I agree with what some others have said (I hope not out of context):

It as providing for the most vulnerable.
Every child deserves access to quality education and low-cost.
If you treat education as just another product in a free market, where the goal is profit. The lessons you’re teaching is consumerism and greed.
It would seem to me that a civilised society cares for its aged and young and so it seems sensible and prudent in a civilised society to build a community chest from which to fund that.
If an individual then wants to put money into another scheme (or gamble on the stocks) then that is fine many people do.

Hip:

I see true freedom as all state schools closed.
But it is unrealistic.
Not all will want to have your type of freedom.
Provisions would have to be made by the state.

Unless you think the UK state provision is so dire more options are needed.
Where are the benefits?

Social Security.

Does this apply to all state provisions?
If so, it must be a complete removal from the system.
I could go with an opt in/out for certain things you wanted freedom from.
But how much of my income would I actually see from doing this ?
Pennies, imo.
As you can't buy everything...what next Independent Fire stations.
Gee whiz, no thanks.

Your voucher scheme seems ok, If open to all "services", but like I said earlier, it isn't real freedom from the state.
It is - ultimately - cheating the system.
With lump sums from government funds.
Not spread out over the year, as is now.
Could the UK state afford such a thing?