Schooling And Health Care
RyoOhki
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Should governments provide them?</div> Interesting topic I've come across whilst reading the discussion forum is that of schooling and health care, two services which are generally considered nessessary for a nation. Differant nations though address this differantly, some provide free health care and schooling, others provide one, others provide neither. I guess the question being asked here is what part do you think governments should play in these services? Should they be totally funded by the government, partially funded, or kept in the private sector?
Btw this isn't an anti-American thread, I know the US doesn't have free health cover they seem to be doing pretty well for themselves <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Btw this isn't an anti-American thread, I know the US doesn't have free health cover they seem to be doing pretty well for themselves <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Comments
As far as health care, I don't lean to any one side. I'd like to see an efficient system of people paying what they can for health care, and never being refused treatment. Nobody deserves to die because they can't scrounge up the cash for a life-saving operation, but on the other hand, should the entire country pay more because of those few people that need transplants and other operations whilst not being motivated to find work to pay for them? This is where it gets touchy... Organizations like the Red Cross can only do so much. Charity only goes so far and can't possibly reach everyone. =\
I think this is the major dilemma with public health care. There are some amazing things that can be done with medicine and all of them cost quite a bit of money. Treatments are only going to get more amazing and more expensive over time. I don't have any idea where to draw the line. How much money should be spent keeping people alive who have already lived a very full life? What treatments should we consider to be indulgences and what should we consider essential? These are questions that I'm glad I don't have to answer.
I would like to see a universal health care system implemented in the US, but I don't have any idea how to make it work.
I suffer from a genetic (and therefore chronical) lung-disease and our druggist is a happy person.
Every two months he delivers us medicines worth a small car.
If we hadn't a proper health care, I would be either too ill to write this text or too poor to write it. So my position is very clear, I think schooling <i>and</i> health care should be provided by the government.
<!--QuoteBegin--Spyder Monkey+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spyder Monkey)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->... should the entire country pay more because of those few people that need transplants and other operations whilst not being motivated to find work to pay for them? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, this is, in my opinion, a <i>very</i> hypothetical question.
I've never heard that someone got cosmetical operations sponsored, and if someone needs a transplantation, do you <i>really</i> think he is still able to work?
Do you know how much it costs this person to be even alife untill he <i>possibliy</i> find a fitting organ?
<!--QuoteBegin--moultano+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How much money should be spent keeping people alive who have already lived a very full life?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, my father works in a hospital as a Anesthesist(?) and every day I hear storys of someone who is from a medical point of view already dead (no more brain-activities for example).
I believe that those patients should die in peace.
But there are more than enough people who have a fair chance to get back into their normal life, even if they may be disabled for the rest of it. Those people deserve that the doctors help them without having to pay for the rest of their life.
Kinda off-topic, but one thing I think the govt should drop is the us post office, and instead let UPS & Fedex do that sorta thing. That way my tax dollars won't go to a service I hardly ever use. And it would probably be even cheaper & more efficient to send mail that way...
For example USA driving 70% of its military budget to education would do wonders to that country, not to upset anyone here. That would probably lead in to better military-power balance around the world as other nations could lessen their military budget. Naturally this means that USA would have to start working with other nations aswell for peace-keeping actions, so "terrorist states" etc. would be handled by the whole world-community instead of one world-police. Now in 150years we would have paradise here <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Think about , if we were to have a goverment health care program, how far would it extend. Would it cover providing medication? I'd hope so. How about birth control? I'd wouldn't mind. Some very vocal people get all up in arms about birth control already here. I doubt either of side of issue would back down. And then there is always the abortion issue. There would be no way to get them covered, nor left out.
The point I'm trying to make is that while I personaly would love to see healthcare plan implemented by the government here I doubt, in todays politcal environment it would be possible.
Healthcare- As soon as things become free, people will overconsume. We cannot hope a wave of altruism washes over the nation once Healthcare becomes nationalized. You'll notice country's with social medicine have 2 tiers really: Those in the Gov't system, and those who can afford to come to America. By nationalizing health care, you're only giving the rich an advantage.
Government has 1 role: protect natural rights (aka Military, Gov't checks and balances). FDR added to that idea, saying that in order to truly have natural rights, a person must be in a position to excercise them. Hence the birth of the American social service state.
I have no problem paying for services of the truly needy. But we need to stop playing this game where everything can be 'fair' for everyone. My grandparents don't NEED universal perscription drugs coverage- they can afford it themselves. Same with my family's healthcare and schooling. We shouldn't just have blanket services- such things lead to the redistribution of income.
For example, good and bad social service.
1) Ms. Jones spends $400 a month for perscription drugs. She can't afford to pay this. The government picks up the tab. But, to make sure Mr. Senator appears a friend of elderly, he pushes for a Universal drug policy so ALL seniors are covered. Ms. Watson can afford to pay her $400 dollars a month, but the government buys them anyway. This is bad.
2) Ms. Jones spends $400 a month for perscription drugs. She can't afford to pay this. Her quality of life is severly degraded and she dies. Ms. Watson can and has a better and longer life. This is bad government.
3)Ms. Jones spends $400 a month for perscription drugs. She can't afford this so the Government pays for it. Ms. Watson can spend $400 a month. She buys her own drugs. This is good government.
WAIT! That last one isn't fair! True, but neither are the other ones. 1 is unfair to the taxpayer. 2 is unfair to Ms. Jones. 3 is unfair to Ms. Watson. However, who is in the best position to maintain their standard of living under less than fair circumstances? Not the taxpayer, since it would be a blanket statement. Not Ms. Jones, who will die. Ms. Watson is in the best position to endure unfairness.
Thats perscription drugs. Now onto Social Medicine.
National Health Care is a sham. It simply removes yet another of the dwindling rewards of living smart. Many in favor of socialist programs (Democrats) attempt to paint wealth as a static entity. Wealth is in fact earned most of the time, not inherited. If you remove the rewards of success, you remove the drive for success. This creates a stagnant marketplace with no innovation and little competition and ultimately a decline in new lifesaving technology. The way capitalism works is as new technology comes along, old technology becomes cheaper. Yet another example of how this affects healthcare.
-In the 80s, those with AIDs and were rich could afford new, experimental life extending drugs. The poor could not.
-In 2003, thos with AIDs and are rich can afford new experimental, life extending drugs. The poor get the pervious generation of (now cheaper) life extending drugs.
The goal of government should not be to make the results equal, but rather make the playing field to EARN better results (capitalism) equal. By nationalizing health care, you slow progress and bind everyone to the same level. By keeping it free, risk takers can advance medicine now for the rich, and later for the poor. This cycle ultimately benefits the poor, as previously too expensive procedures are now reduced in cost.
Of course, advocates of social medicine will cry "Why can't we make the rich standard the standard for everyone?" By creating a single standard, you remove the ability to have multiple standards of healthcare. And the cost of making today's "rich" standard available to everyone is self defeating: as demand rise, supply dwindles and cost goes up. Only by artifically limiting prices of medcine could such a thing, killing off the little interest in medical innovation that remains after nationalizing medecine.
Dread brings up an interesting point regarding education I'd like to address. He states that the Military should be scaled back for education. This is a VERY bad idea. The government's primary concern is the protection of natural rights from those who wish to remove them. We may have an educated populace, but what good is education without the ability to excercise it. Many will attempt to point to the fall of Russia as proof we don't need a strong military, but that is an empty point. China is emerging as the major threat to the US as well as Neo-Facist regimes such as Iraq and North Korea. Scaling back the military would only increase the odds of the loss of our Natural Rights.
Money also does not 'fix' education. Frankly, lack of funds is the not current cause of the crappy schools in the US. There are 2 main causes:
1- No parental interest
2- Abusive teacher unions.
No matter how rich or poor the school district, it has been proven that parental envolvment, NOT money spend per child, is the determining factor in success. Teachers unions, eager to extort (yes, its extortion) more money and benefits from the government, paint a bleeding heart case for America's schools. There is never enough money to fix the problem it seems- why? Money doesn't fix either of these problems.
Oh- and it wouldn't lessen military budgets. No country can Challange the US/Britain without WMDs. They know this so many countries have scaled back greatly on their Military budgets because they trust the US to protect them. If the US scales back, other countries will only build up to try to increase their bargaining power and protect themselves.
And Ramses: I support a government system that would pay for your medicine if you can't afford it. I would not support a government that would pay for you medicine if you COULD afford it within reason.
I win, you all lose. Good game though.
My thoughts are that everything that isnt run by the government is better than something that is. In a perfect world, the government wouldnt control schooling and healthcare. Unfortunatly, **** happens, and they end up controlling them anyway.
I believe that schools should not be government controlled, as with healthcare. In an ideal city, there are a couple of privatly owned schools around. People in the city can choose with school they go to, they are not assigned one that may or may not be bad, depending on how lucky they get. They can choose the school they like best, depending on the rules and stuff that goes on at that school. (One school might allow people to dress however the hell they like, another might not, for instance) There are, however, certain laws that dictate what must be taught at the schools. If someone can not afford to pay for their child to go to one of these schools, the government will give them enough money to send their child there.
I believe that healthcare should be handled the same way. Everything is privately owned, and people who cant afford to get the operations which they need get money from the government.
EDIT: Canada's healthcare is all on government budget, look how crappy it is
Remember, goods means companies, companies means competition, competition means lower prices and higher quality. Schooling and Healthcare are among some of the highest demanded goods today, and if its all private, that makes our world better
I believe that schools should not be government controlled, as with healthcare. In an ideal city, there are a couple of privatly owned schools around. People in the city can choose with school they go to, they are not assigned one that may or may not be bad, depending on how lucky they get. They can choose the school they like best, depending on the rules and stuff that goes on at that school. (One school might allow people to dress however the hell they like, another might not, for instance) There are, however, certain laws that dictate what must be taught at the schools. If someone can not afford to pay for their child to go to one of these schools, the government will give them enough money to send their child there.
I believe that healthcare should be handled the same way. Everything is privately owned, and people who cant afford to get the operations which they need get money from the government.
Remember, goods means companies, companies means competition, competition means lower prices and higher quality. Schooling and Healthcare are among some of the highest demanded goods today, and if its all private, that makes our world better
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very good points, and for the most part I would have to agree. Here is what I feel is missing though, private anything has been known to cut corners here and there to provide a competitive price and that putting that kind of control in the hands of private organizations (we don't vote who runs it) over things that determine our quality of life can be very dangerous. Don't we already have alot of problems with shady business practices that devestating affect our lives, our planet, and our political landscape? There would need to be a very serious government watch dog organization(s) with enough bite that the self-centered interests of big business don't undermine its authority with pay-offs, lobbying, and extortion. Checks would need to be in place that adhere to rules, not mere guidelines, so that a balance could be struct. A very tough task, but well worth the benefits of not having a fully corporation influenced government or a fully socialist influenced government. I hope you understand the point I am trying to make with this language.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
EDIT: Canada's healthcare is all on government budget, look how crappy it is
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, it sucks right now. Lack of qualified health care professionals favours the system south of the border of us, where they can have less stress because they have less hours than 12 hour working days and better pay insuring that they are able to pay back their 10 or so years of University and still be able to establish enough wealth to maintain a healthy life style outside of the workplace. And lets not even get started on the amount of research dollars they can get in the USA. But, it still manages despite all its hardship to be a jewel of the north, a symbol that voters actually get passionate enough about to rally behind. The current feeling seems to be that it won't matter how much money the government throws at its problems, it won't get solved because there is something fundamently flawed with it. Its like, we still want Universal Healthcare, but we realize the situation is so bad the current model needs to be torn down and built from scratch. A truly daunting task: Will the call for vision and leadership on the issue be answered or will the status quo be maintained while the system rots from the inside out?
We have a healthcare system that works miracles. If you are under a certain income level and a certain age, the gov't covers all your expenses. My doctors/dentist visits cost me and my family 0$, then I turned 18.
We need a Healthcare system that covers people under certain income levels, regardless of age. That is somewhat like Vermont's system but universal age-wise. I think it'd work the best because then rich people would still have to pay whereas poor people wouldn't.
On a side note, Birth control pills should be covered under as Rx.
On the note of school systems, I hate the idea of school privitization. I go to Burlington High, and I love it. The only other choice of school would be Rice High, which actively teaches Catholicism.
I disagree with Jammer on the part that gov't shouldn't intervene. Because my public school has to compete with the private school, we have some pretty good teachers and such. In fact, one kid in my class was accepted to Harvard (or Stanford, forgot which). And no, I don't think people shop around for schools as much as seem people seem to think. Once a parent has found a job, most don't want to switch just for the sake of a miniscule better education for their kid.
The reason we have such poor education is because the gov't doesn't want to actively help. they just assign more stupid tests for us to take, and then when we don't score well they seem to want to NOT give us more money.
In Vermont we have Act 60, which essentially takes all the money for the schools, makes a giant pool and then distributes the money evenly around. After the fact each district for vote to increase local school budget.
Go Vermont!
....
Remember, goods means companies, companies means competition, competition means lower prices and higher quality. Schooling and Healthcare are among some of the highest demanded goods today, and if its all private, that makes our world better <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem with this is that students whose parents dont care will get the shaft even more than they already do. If a parent doesn't care (or doesn't have the time or resources to care) about their child's education, do you really think they will be shopping around for schools? It will be the dead end kids from the ghettos concentrating in the failing schools which will only get worse. These kids will have even less of a prayer than they do now.
just having companies doesn't mean competition in most markets these days. Particulary, the markets of education and health care lend themsleves to monopolies and oligopolies, which are in general much less efficient than their government controlled counterparts.
Health care here is also "free" in that everyone pays a Medicare levy on their taxes. It's a few dollars a year on your taxes that pays for the health system. If you get a presciption drug and take your recipt to a Medicare office, and they will pay you 90% of the money back. Same with doctors: a consultation costs you some money, you go the Medicare office and get most of it back. If you go to a hospital will injuries or a life threatening illness they will treat and care for you (this costs nothing). However, if it's non-vital surgery (btw this doesn't include cosmetic, the gov't doesn't fund that) you get put on a waiting list that's often very long. You can stay on it and get the surgery for free when your turn comes, or you can pay for it at a private hospital and get it straight away. This seems to work fairly well: the genuinlly ill get treated whilst those who's cases arn't urgent can either pay or wait.
A lot of people in Australia have private health care as it provides cover in non-vital operation situations, like scans for stomoch cancer or laser eye treatment. Most of the time though people use the public system because it provides fairly relaible and good service.
Now sure, both of these services in Australia could use some more funding; services in the bush are quite poor in places. But by and by it does work: everyone gets schooling and health care. We don't pay high taxes for this privilage, nor is our nation crippled by these facilities. Thus I do think that in a nation such as, for instance, the United States, a system like ours would be viable, due to America's high wealth. I know all Americans arn't rich or anything but the government does have quite a bit of dough. Like Dread said, directing some away from the defense budget, particularly with any competing super-powers gone, would be adequate.
I do think that governments should provide health care and schooling to their citizens, as it's only benificial for the country. You get healthier, better educated citizens that can help your nation grow in good directions. Keeping your population healthy and educated should be a government's priority: it means more wealth, commerical growth and better efficientcy by your workers. High growth industries like information technology, aerospace and computing are all economic forces you want to attract, yet you need educated citizens for it to work.
Providing these services is both viable and desirable for a government.
Well we do have a trillion dollar debt, but that's another issue. Pay to get it now or wait and get it for free sounds like a really good idea to me.
With this politic, no one would probably ever attack anyone(due to being afraid of nuclear weapons). Actually giving one Ballistic nuke to every country would be a good idea, therefore there would be a lot less wars(as long as every country would have sane leaders) <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
But if your government is in such huge debt why arn't they doing anything about it? Bush threw what, 300 billion odd extra dollars onto the defense budget (or was it more?) We're almost debt free over here thanks to some things I don't quite agree with but now we're about to plunge back into debt with the next budget going into deficit by $5 billion. The reason? Extra defense spending. Is this some common trend amongst governments today or something?!
I think that the US could pay their debt off: as Dread said, 25,000 nukes makes for one hell of a deterrance. You could probably even scrap most of the Army and have just the air force, navy and the marines, because it seems that most of the fights the US gets into these days just use those forces...