Universal goods vs. state provision

No, its not a good start, since its hard to imagine having less choice other than being forbidden to move.

I think the example applies elsewhere too, its hard to supress market forces.

It is, which is why I'm going to leave that one alone for a moment. But I would point out that the comparison isn't between the UK and the US - it is between the UK and anywhere, since the UK is one of the most state dominated heathcare systems anywhere. Continental European systems are far less dominated by a monopolistic state health care system.

It is an option for me, and more appealing now with the non-domiciled status changing.

I'm not proposing that you would save anything. In fact you would probably be forced to save at least as much for yourself, its just that you would have some choice as to how you invest it.

Nothing compares to eastern europe though. Council cities.

Correct you are still tied to the government. But choice = freedom = competition, and this will improve the standard of the service.

Well no because they dont automatically get in for being near the school.

But it frees you from relying on a state monopoly provider of education.

The more urban you are the more it helps you, since the more school options you are likely to have in your area. In Sweden the impact on rural areas has been near zero.

The state still needs to guarantee that everyone gets an education, rich or poor. The market can never fix that. But government doesn have to be the supplier of the education, just the the entity that funds it. The Swedish example is to me the minimum reform needed. I think they could go further.

 

I have not the time - today - to repond.
Catch up with it soon.
Cheers for the reply.

 

Hipstatic

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.

As far as I know you are American and this is a site that has traditionally concentrated on US issues. So it’s not odd to frame this in an American context. But the point is still valid - that there are differing views on ‘private provision’, from the fundamentalist to the extremely moderate.

The problem is that your refusal to discuss the issues openly and honestly (beyond sloganizing about ‘choice’) means I’m unsure what you’re actually proposing. I’ve asked you to explain and you’re refusing and Gardener has asked you to explain and you’re refusing – what are you afraid of?

For example in education you say that you’d go further than the Swede’s have – can you explain?

*

And I didn’t say Americans are racists, only that racism exist in the US (are you claiming I’m wrong?) and I don’t say Americans are stupid only that an American academic has written a book (as others have) on the phenomena of anti-intellectualism in US society (are you claiming these books are wrong?).

In other words this is just the spinning of what I posted to put it in a ‘bad’ light while refusing to address the serious issues they raise.

*

The problem is that it is very hard to discuss the topic when you refuse to address anything you feel could reveal the flaws in your argument.

I and others set out our criticisms of private provision and you seem to be refusing to address those criticisms or to even explain what you’re proposing in anything beyond simplistic platitudes.

This is a case in point.

I set out my concerns regarding private educational provision (you still haven’t addressed those) and then I explained that the Swedish model addressed many of those concerns but pointed out that this was not what others seemed to be suggesting (e.g. for the US). I therefore asked you what you were proposing all we seem to have had so far is a vague comment that –

In what way, how and why?

*

 

An experiment can take a nano-second or a century and it can be said of a recipe or a policy, even a country as Sigmund Freud said of the US “America is the most grandiose experiment the world has seen”

The Swedish independent school model is an experiment whose ultimate outcome is unknown, 16 or so years is nothing.

But the thing is from articles I’ve read even in those places with the schemes biggest up-take the level of parents opting for this alternative is anything from 10 to15% in other words 90 to 85% are not choosing that alternative and in some areas the uptake is half that.

Overall, (according to the Swedish government) - “In the autumn of 2005, 7.4 percent of compulsory school students and 13.1 percent of high school students attended independent schools.”

In other words 92.6% of compulsory school students and 86.9 percent of high school students DIDN’T attend independent schools.

And these figures seem to be rather stable; there was an initial jump since there were virtually no ‘private’ schools before the reforms but after that it’s not exactly taken over.

*

 

The difficulty with this subject (state vs private provision) is the matter of motivation. Are people truly working in the best interested of their society or in the promotion of a certain ideological model or interest group?

And that can go for both sides but the problem is that for me much of the American right seem to fail that test.

I mean from reading right wing articles on this Swedish experiment there does seem to be a fair degree of spin.

For example did the introduction of ‘independent’ schools improve the education system overall as many of the articles imply or claim or did that have more to do with the numerous reforms in Swedish education that have been enacted that these articles don’t mention?

Also these articles (just like Hipstatic) praise this ‘successful privatisation’ but they don’t actually say that they would follow the Swede’s restrictive route or do they want something very different from the Swedish idea?

Which begs the question are they prising the Swedish model because it’s a good educational system or just because it’s a ‘private’ educational system?

Are they motivated by the desire to create a good educational system or just by a desire to privatise the education system?

If it was the former I can’t see why they wouldn’t want to discuss things in an open and honest way however if it is the former I could see why someone would want to evasive.

 

Well I’ve given it a couple of days and Hipstatic doesn’t seem able or willing to address the issues raised.

This is the problem I’ve encountered many times now – the right are strong on slogans ( ‘choice’ being the one repeat over and over in this thread) but when it comes down to it they seem as reluctant as Hipstatic is at actually addressing their critics.

*

The original post mentioned four services or areas of responsibility.

Retirement Provision
It would seem that many on the right would wish to return to the failed systems that existed before the advent of compulsory and government back schemes.

Education
In education they seem much more interested in forcing through ‘free market’ reforms than they are in creating a good educational system.

Heathcare
In healthcare they seem to attack ‘socialist’ systems, yet the UK’s ‘socialist’ NHS seems to work a lot better, for more people and is cheaper than the much less ‘socialist’ system in place in the US.

Public Housing
As for public housing the proposal in the OP seems to imply the state should help make already wealthy landlord’s richer at public expense.

*

The question asked was –

And the answer seems to be that in many cases the state provision is the more preferable and most equitable way of providing such services.


Much more preferable and far fairer than most ‘free market’ alternatives, which it must be noted, are not even being defended by the very people who seem to be proposing them.

 

Here's an experiment being tried in public schools funded by the Gates Foundation that seems to be working as far as advancing scholastic achievement. But then it doesn't redirect funding away from public education to private so it probably won't satisfy the republicans as workable.

http://www.earlycolleges.org/

 

When internet metering takes affect will it still be so cheap?