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