| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott stuns frtzw906 with his very left-of-center appraoch to both policing and education.... WOW!" ===================== I don't disagree at all. Moreover, I would like to see monies collected for schools brought into a central, state-operated distribution center, and distributed to the individual schools (not districts) based on per-capita attendance and demonstrable need or sub-standard facilities and/or equipment. That would eliminate the disparity in facilities, equipment, supplies and qualified teachers seen between wealthy communities and inner-city areas. ==================== Your point about "individual schools (not districts) very much mirrors the German model (there are no districts -- there are just schools within the state). I'll have to agree with you fully on your proposal. The district model has always confounded me because it exacerbates the discepancies. OK, Scott, explain the logical inconsistency between your position on policing (and apparently schooling -- I'm still picking myself off the floor!! GRIN), and healthcare. It seems we could/should apply the very same logic to medical services as we do to educational (police) services above. Just curious.... Well, as to policing, everybody has to pay for it anyway, I merely propose a different way of organizing the police, not any fundamental change in how they (or firefighters) are funded. As to schools, the caveat is the "if public schools are to be supported by taxes" part of my statement. I still believe public schools are inefficient and wasteful and that the need for schools can be much better served by the free market combined with government stipends to economically disadvantaged students. But, so long as the public school system is going to exist, it ought to be run much more efficiently and fairly than it is now. It's a lemon/lemonade argument. As to medical services, I have said previously that I have no objection to providing public medical care for indigent CHILDREN, but when it comes to adults, I believe that they should be responsible for their own lives and health. I also firmly believe in a two-tier system where indigent children can obtain the best possible care at public expense while, unlike Canada, those who can afford it can obtain better, faster care by paying for it. The argument made in the various letters from the Health Ministers of Canada worrying that a two-tier system would cause problems because the clinics would "cherry pick" the easy cases while leaving the hard, expensive cases to the state is idiocy. I would expect that any reasonable person would *welcome* off-loading as much of the medical care expenses as the public is willing to pay for privately. The Minister's claims are idiotic because the way the system works now, neither the "easy" or "hard" cases can be excluded, and everyone is entitled to care, so the costs to society are much hither, and the system discourages, and functionally outlaws the "second tier" private market. Thus, the taxpayers have to pay for *everyone*, easy and hard cases both. It would save significant taxpayer money if the state ONLY had to take on the "hard" cases and care for the truly indigent and poor who cannot afford or don't want to spend their own money for better care, while allowing the system to be unburdened of the "easy" cases that the wealthy can easily afford to pay for. Note that this doesn't change the way the national system is funded. Everyone can still be required to contribute through taxes, but they would have to contribute less while being free to buy better care than the national system provides if they have the extra disposable income. What's the downside of doing so? None, that I can see. The only excuse for not allowing such a two-tier system is *socialist dogma!* The Minister's statements reveal quite clearly that the real issue is not economics, but political egalitarianism by force of law. The government WILL NOT ALLOW rich people to buy better care because it offends their socialist sensibilities of "fair play." They firmly believe that EVERYONE must suffer under the same inefficient, wasteful, slow medical care system merely because SOME people would have to do so in a two-tier system. It's the "queue" mindset that says that everyone is equal and all must suffer equally, so the rich cannot be allowed to "jump the queue" because it is seen as "unfair" to those who aren't rich. It has nothing to do with medical care. Pure, unadulterated socialism. Bad, very, very bad. I have no intrinsic objection to a public health care system paid for by taxes that would provide essential or critical/trauma care to all persons at public expense PROVIDED that the taxes imposed to pay for such services are the result of a VOTE of the people who have to pay the tax, not a tax imposed by legislators. In Colorado, that's not a problem because of TABOR (Taxpayers Bill of Rights) that requires a taxing authority to put the matter to a public vote for *all* new or increased taxes. Unfortunately, TABOR is not a national policy, but should be. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scott:
=========== The argument made in the various letters from the Health Ministers of Canada worrying that a two-tier system would cause problems because the clinics would "cherry pick" the easy cases while leaving the hard, expensive cases to the state is idiocy. ============ Idiocy to you, but true. If one believes in a universal program of any sort (I know you may not), then that program needs to be protected against exactly that: cherry picking. Here in BC we have a "universal" auto insurance plan: if you want to drive, you MUST have insurance. Allow me to paint with a broad brush to make my point -- there are minor and trivial exceptions to what I'm about to say. And the insurance you buy MUST be provided by a Provincial Crown Coporation. You may not buy your BASIC coverage from anyone else. Why? Because, if the corporation is to gain the benefits that come from having this monopoly and is to be able to provide the blanket, global coverage the corporation was set up to provide, then it cannot afford to have private insurers cherry-pick the low-risk clients, leaving the crown corp to pick up the difficult, expensive clients. [BTW, the premiums compare quite favorably to other jurisdictions across Canada that use the private model] Further, an anecdotal example of cherry-picking (that really ****es me off): in the elementary school my daughters attended, there were two sisters, one of whom was severely handicapped. The parents, dissatisfied with the education their daughters were getting at this school, took the daughter who was not handicapped, and sent her to a very expensive private school. By doing so, they further diminished the academic calibre of the school by taking a very bright girl out, and leaving a handicapped one. This sort of cherry-picking diminishes our ability to provide quality to everyone. I understand that you may not ascribe to that philosophy, but I do. If one ascribes to that philosophy, then cherry-picking can not be permitted. frtzw906 |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
"BCITORGB" wrote in message ups.com... Scott: =========== The argument made in the various letters from the Health Ministers of Canada worrying that a two-tier system would cause problems because the clinics would "cherry pick" the easy cases while leaving the hard, expensive cases to the state is idiocy. ============ Idiocy to you, but true. If one believes in a universal program of any sort (I know you may not), then that program needs to be protected against exactly that: cherry picking. Here in BC we have a "universal" auto insurance plan: if you want to drive, you MUST have insurance. Allow me to paint with a broad brush to make my point -- there are minor and trivial exceptions to what I'm about to say. And the insurance you buy MUST be provided by a Provincial Crown Coporation. You may not buy your BASIC coverage from anyone else. Why? Because, if the corporation is to gain the benefits that come from having this monopoly and is to be able to provide the blanket, global coverage the corporation was set up to provide, then it cannot afford to have private insurers cherry-pick the low-risk clients, leaving the crown corp to pick up the difficult, expensive clients. [BTW, the premiums compare quite favorably to other jurisdictions across Canada that use the private model] Further, an anecdotal example of cherry-picking (that really ****es me off): in the elementary school my daughters attended, there were two sisters, one of whom was severely handicapped. The parents, dissatisfied with the education their daughters were getting at this school, took the daughter who was not handicapped, and sent her to a very expensive private school. By doing so, they further diminished the academic calibre of the school by taking a very bright girl out, and leaving a handicapped one. This sort of cherry-picking diminishes our ability to provide quality to everyone. I understand that you may not ascribe to that philosophy, but I do. If one ascribes to that philosophy, then cherry-picking can not be permitted. frtzw906 If I may, for many a person with a disability, "handicapped" is like the n-word to many a person with black skin. I realize no offense likely intended frtzw906 :-) Now to your point, that is exactly what will happen. It's so obvious...poor people and/or those more difficult to work with will be left behind. What is the incentive of a profit-driven school to serve them? None. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks to KMAN:
============ If I may, for many a person with a disability, "handicapped" is like the n-word to many a person with black skin. I realize no offense likely intended frtzw906 :-) ============= You're right, none intended. As I was writing, I occasionally was about to write "disabled" but wasn't sure if that was perhaps the taboo expression. In another lifetime, I was in the public school system, and was more "aware". Now I occasionally get caught using n-word equivalencies... Sorry! As to the anecdote in question, you can't begin to imagine how the hypocrisy of those parents ****ed me off. And for them to malign the public system as they were in the process of diminishing it! It stills makes my blood boil! If I were king for a day, private schools would be on the chopping block. [I might be persuaded that "choice" in education *might* be a good thing through some sort of voucher system so long as -- ditto the medicare program -- nobody could spend more than the voucher amount. I'd have to think this one through.] frtzw906 |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Thanks to KMAN: ============ If I may, for many a person with a disability, "handicapped" is like the n-word to many a person with black skin. I realize no offense likely intended frtzw906 :-) ============= You're right, none intended. As I was writing, I occasionally was about to write "disabled" but wasn't sure if that was perhaps the taboo expression. In another lifetime, I was in the public school system, and was more "aware". Now I occasionally get caught using n-word equivalencies... Sorry! As to the anecdote in question, you can't begin to imagine how the hypocrisy of those parents ****ed me off. And for them to malign the public system as they were in the process of diminishing it! It stills makes my blood boil! If I were king for a day, private schools would be on the chopping block. [I might be persuaded that "choice" in education *might* be a good thing through some sort of voucher system so long as -- ditto the medicare program -- nobody could spend more than the voucher amount. I'd have to think this one through.] frtzw906 The challenge is to promote flexibility and excellence in education without ending up with nothing but elite schools for the gifted/rich and slums for everyone else. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Thanks to KMAN: ============ If I may, for many a person with a disability, "handicapped" is like the n-word to many a person with black skin. I realize no offense likely intended frtzw906 :-) ============= You're right, none intended. As I was writing, I occasionally was about to write "disabled" but wasn't sure if that was perhaps the taboo expression. In another lifetime, I was in the public school system, and was more "aware". Now I occasionally get caught using n-word equivalencies... Sorry! As to the anecdote in question, you can't begin to imagine how the hypocrisy of those parents ****ed me off. And for them to malign the public system as they were in the process of diminishing it! It stills makes my blood boil! If I were king for a day, private schools would be on the chopping block. [I might be persuaded that "choice" in education *might* be a good thing through some sort of voucher system so long as -- ditto the medicare program -- nobody could spend more than the voucher amount. I'd have to think this one through.] frtzw906 The challenge is to promote flexibility and excellence in education without ending up with nothing but elite schools for the gifted/rich and slums for everyone else. Well, the free market, combined with stipends for the genuinely poor solves that problem. However, in the present system, if "slum schools" happen, the blame falls on the government, not on the parents who put their children in private schools...while usually simultaneously paying for a by-right public school education for the same students. The fact is that the more students who are moved to private schools, the more money and resources available to those remaining in public schools. What on earth could be wrong with that? -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Thanks to KMAN: ============ If I may, for many a person with a disability, "handicapped" is like the n-word to many a person with black skin. I realize no offense likely intended frtzw906 :-) ============= You're right, none intended. As I was writing, I occasionally was about to write "disabled" but wasn't sure if that was perhaps the taboo expression. In another lifetime, I was in the public school system, and was more "aware". Now I occasionally get caught using n-word equivalencies... Sorry! It's not the "handicapped" that bothers me...people can be handicapped and I don't subscribe to the pressure to use "politically correct" speech, what offended me is the compartmentalizing of the handicapped child as a debit to the system and your presumption that this debit ought to be leveled out by abusing her sister out of egalitarian zeal. As to the anecdote in question, you can't begin to imagine how the hypocrisy of those parents ****ed me off. There's nothing in the least bit hypocritical about what they did. Their handicapped child is entitled to a public school education, according to your own vociferous arguments, and the parents are perfectly entitled to exercise that right. Her sister, however, is fortunate enough to get a better, private education at her parents expense, who, by the way are *still paying for her public school educational right!* Thus, while the bright sister's private education reduces the burden on the public school system, thus freeing up resources for other students, her parents are now, in effect, paying DOUBLE for the handicapped sister's education. What on earth is your complaint? It's not only no skin off your nose, it's actually beneficial to the school system as a whole. Your complaint sounds remarkably like sour grapes to me. And for them to malign the public system as they were in the process of diminishing it! How did they "malign" the system? By wishing to give their gifted daughter an education commensurate with her abilities? By exercising their handicapped daughter's fundamental right to a public school education while paying double what you pay for your child? Please enlighten us as to how they "maligned" the system. It stills makes my blood boil! If I were king for a day, private schools would be on the chopping block. Why? Because YOU can't afford one for your own kids? You would bind gifted children, or even ordinary children lucky enough to have wealthy parents to academic slavery merely in order to assuage your own guilt and anger over not being able to provide a premium education for your own children? How unbelievably arrogant. How astonishingly selfish and petty. [I might be persuaded that "choice" in education *might* be a good thing through some sort of voucher system so long as -- ditto the medicare program -- nobody could spend more than the voucher amount. I'd have to think this one through.] I think you ought to examine your motives first. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 4/1/05 11:23 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: Thanks to KMAN: ============ If I may, for many a person with a disability, "handicapped" is like the n-word to many a person with black skin. I realize no offense likely intended frtzw906 :-) ============= You're right, none intended. As I was writing, I occasionally was about to write "disabled" but wasn't sure if that was perhaps the taboo expression. In another lifetime, I was in the public school system, and was more "aware". Now I occasionally get caught using n-word equivalencies... Sorry! It's not the "handicapped" that bothers me...people can be handicapped and I don't subscribe to the pressure to use "politically correct" speech It's not about being politically correct. My awakening on this issue comes simply from listening to people with disabilities and understanding how the rest of the world views them and how this impacts on the way they view themselves. I don't know one person with a disability who wants to be labelled as handicapped. Of course, they would prefer not to have any label at all. But there are times when it is pragmatically necessary, in which case, whatever the label, understanding that it is "a person with a disability" not a "disabled person" makes a huge difference. It's semantic politically-correct pettifoggery. Disabled people are disabled. It's just a fact of life. They are handicapped. They have a "disadvantage that makes achievement unusually difficult." It's only a pejorative term if one uses it in a pejorative context. Otherwise it's simply a statement of fact couched in a way that is, if anything, supportive of their disadvantage and it recognizes the fundamental strength of character that's implicit in their successes. Unless one is using it in a pejorative context, saying "That man is black" or "That woman is Asian" or "That child is Indian" or "That person is handicapped" is simply a statement of observed reality and ought not be cause for all this histrionic gum-flapping. Engaging in politically corrrect sophistry doesn't help anybody, it just masks the *real* problem, which is that many people consider the handicapped (or disabled, or "person with a disability") as somehow inferior to others. That's not the case. They are not inferior, they are not superior, they are equal in every way but one: they have a disadvantage that makes achievement unusually difficult. Lots of people have such disadvantages. Blacks. Indians. The poor. So what? Big deal. Denying that they are disadvantaged doesn't help them overcome the disadvantage and help them towards achievement, it merely silences the debate because people are too afraid of being politically incorrect to take ownership of the problems the disabled/handicapped face in life that each person can help to resolve. Getting all het-up about calling someone "handicapped" is just a way of avoiding the issue entirely. It makes it easy to say "hey, he's not handicapped and he doesn't need my help" and go on about your life with nary a thought to how you could ease the burden. It also allows people to ignore the issues entirely by claiming that they don't want to be seen as being insensitive or discriminatory by noticing someone's disability, so they just *ignore the person entirely.* If you don't think this is the case, spend a week in a wheelchair sometime. You become positively invisible. Sorry, but I believe in telling it like it is and facing things directly, not finding semantic refuges and dodges that allow me to avoid the issues. what offended me is the compartmentalizing of the handicapped child as a debit to the system and your presumption that this debit ought to be leveled out by abusing her sister out of egalitarian zeal. As to the anecdote in question, you can't begin to imagine how the hypocrisy of those parents ****ed me off. There's nothing in the least bit hypocritical about what they did. Their handicapped child is entitled to a public school education, according to your own vociferous arguments, and the parents are perfectly entitled to exercise that right. Her sister, however, is fortunate enough to get a better, private education at her parents expense, who, by the way are *still paying for her public school educational right!* Thus, while the bright sister's private education reduces the burden on the public school system, thus freeing up resources for other students, her parents are now, in effect, paying DOUBLE for the handicapped sister's education. What on earth is your complaint? It's not only no skin off your nose, it's actually beneficial to the school system as a whole. Your complaint sounds remarkably like sour grapes to me. Or you are being incredibly naïve and/or disingenuous. The outcome of this will be the erosion of funds for the public school system because support for paying the taxes to sustain public schools will plummet. Only if you let it happen. And if it does, what does that tell you about the value of a public school education? Moreover, it won't happen because if it was going to happen, it would have *already happened.* But it's not happening, is it? People still pay taxes for public schools, and many of them put their kids in private schools anyway. No big disaster looming. Never has been. The further outcome will be schools that are comprised entirely of the poor and people with disabilities. So what? So long as they are receiving a top-notch education funded by the public, which can afford to provide far more resources to each public school child than they could before, when children who had the means to get a private education were forced into the public system, thus clogging it up, who cares? Think of it as a way of providing much better, specialized education for those students. And for them to malign the public system as they were in the process of diminishing it! How did they "malign" the system? By wishing to give their gifted daughter an education commensurate with her abilities? By exercising their handicapped daughter's fundamental right to a public school education while paying double what you pay for your child? Please enlighten us as to how they "maligned" the system. It stills makes my blood boil! If I were king for a day, private schools would be on the chopping block. Why? Because YOU can't afford one for your own kids? You would bind gifted children, or even ordinary children lucky enough to have wealthy parents to academic slavery merely in order to assuage your own guilt and anger over not being able to provide a premium education for your own children? You are leaping to the faulty conclusion that a publicly funded school is incapable of serving giften children appropriately. It's hardly a faulty conclusion. Every study ever done shows that private school educations are far superior, particularly when it comes to individualized instruction for the gifted, than public schools. It's a simple fact that public schools, by their nature, have to provide a uniform curriculum to every student because there is always insufficient money, resources and teachers to provide individualized instruction for gifted students. Even in the best public systems, which provide special "charter schools" and special schools for the gifted, the quality of education is far inferior to a private school education targeted at an individual student. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| OT Bush propaganda against Kerry | General | |||
| Bush fiddles while health care burns | General | |||
| OT- Ode to Immigration | General | |||
| OT-Think government-controlled health coverage will work? Think again! | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
