Privatizing Education

[JohnnyD 0]

With all the talk about expanding healthcare, I wonder why privatizing education never comes up? I think healthcare and education are probably somewhat equal on the ladder of societal needs for us at this point. So why do we never hear calls to privatize education from the crowd that is against expanding healthcare?

[Lefty 0]

Quote

With all the talk about expanding healthcare, I wonder why privatizing education never comes up? I think healthcare and education are probably somewhat equal on the ladder of societal needs for us at this point. So why do we never hear calls to privatize education from the crowd that is against expanding healthcare?

Oh, it's brought up. The difference is people are used to public education. This mess of a health care plan is a new thing and people can see stark drawbacks by changing from what they have now to what could potentially come about.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[billvon 2,476]

>With all the talk about expanding healthcare, I wonder why privatizing
>education never comes up?

?? It's already "come up." We have both public and private educational options; your choice. This bill attempts to do something similar for health care.

[nanook 1]

privatizing education: argument regarding free education and return of educational investment on society.

expanding healthcare: only takes away from most people in form of taxes. does not provide a direct return on society like free education does. gives 40 million of 300 million health care. about 13% more coverage, but at a risk of decreasing overall healthcare quality.

apples and oranges in my opinion

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

>With all the talk about expanding healthcare, I wonder why privatizing
>education never comes up?

?? It's already "come up." We have both public and private educational options; your choice. This bill attempts to do something similar for health care.

I'm talking about a complete privatization of education. I can't remember it ever being an issue of actually serious discussion ie: a candidate that has it as part of his/her platform and actually wants to institute it.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

privatizing education: argument regarding free education and return of educational investment on society.

expanding healthcare: only takes away from most people in form of taxes. does not provide a direct return on society like free education does. gives 40 million of 300 million health care. about 13% more coverage, but at a risk of decreasing overall healthcare quality.

apples and oranges in my opinion

Well, now we're into value judgments. And my personal value judgment is that guaranteeing health care coverage to people who have lost their jobs, or are self-employed or 1099 independent contractors, or work for small businesses that don't offer health insurance, or are only employed part-time, AND doing away with draconian "pre-existing condition" bullshit, will lead to a healthier society, and other benefits, thereby providing a direct return to society.

Apples and oranges? Of course; but all analogies, by definition, are imperfect.

[bodypilot90 0]

I guess you never heard of charter schools? Plus the NEA is not done dumbing down America.

Here is a small example

http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2005/08/why_teachers_unions_are_hurting_education/

Quote

Over the last few years, a bizarre situation has been going on here in Michigan. In 2003, a philanthropist named Robert Thompson offered to spend $200 million to build 15 charter schools in the city of Detroit, each serving 500 students, with a guarantee that each one would graduate at least 90% of its students. That plan required approval of the state legislature and in late 2003 they had reached a deal to pass a bill that allowed this to happen, but the Detroit teacher’s union called a one-day strike and marched on the state capitol to protest this plan. As a result, the Detroit mayor and Governor Granholm both pulled their support of the bill and it collapsed.
Detroit public schools are among the worst imaginable. Jack McHugh of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy gives some of the shocking facts, quoting the Standard and Poor’s School Evaluation Service report on Detroit schools:

“Detroit Public Schools generates well below-average student results with well above-average spending per student. Statewide, only 2.3 percent of Michigan’s school districts report a smaller proportion of MEAP test scores that meet or exceed state standards. Statewide, only 3.4 percent of Michigan’s school districts graduate a smaller proportion of students. Statewide, only 2.5 percent of Michigan’s school districts report a greater dropout rate. Statewide, only 9 percent of Michigan’s school districts spend more per student. Statewide, only 2.5 percent of Michigan’s school districts spend more per student on administration. When costs are adjusted for student circumstances … only 5.3 percent of Michigan’s school districts have less favorable … average amounts of money spent per unit of measured achievement.”

The NEA has a strangle hold on education. Seeing what they have done for little Johnny really makes me want to trust them with obamacare

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

>With all the talk about expanding healthcare, I wonder why privatizing
>education never comes up?

?? It's already "come up." We have both public and private educational options; your choice. This bill attempts to do something similar for health care.

I'm talking about a complete privatization of education. I can't remember it ever being an issue of actually serious discussion ie: a candidate that has it as part of his/her platform and actually wants to institute it.

Please clarify: would this (a) still be funded by tax dollars (just have services provided exclusively by the private sector, rather than a state-controlled sector), so that nobody would have to pay tuition other than their own taxes, or (b) would everyone now have to pay tuition as if it were a private or parochial school?

If it's (a), then there are already some examples of privatizing public-sector functions. One is some private companies contracted to manage a few state or county prisons. Another example is a few urban (or mostly urban) "troubled" schools or school districts that have been taken over by the state, which hires private contractors to run them.

If it's (b), then you've got the problem of some people not being able to afford it. As it stands now, at least there is universal education in the US - heck, even right-wing bloggers have at least minimal literacy skills.

[jdfreefly 1]

Quote

We have both public and private educational options; your choice. This bill attempts to do something similar for health care.

I really think the healthcare system needs to be reformed. However, if they are going to make healthcare the smashing success that public education is, I am very scared.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

We have both public and private educational options; your choice. This bill attempts to do something similar for health care.

I really think the healthcare system needs to be reformed. However, if they are going to make healthcare the smashing success that public education is, I am very scared.

It sure would help if those opposed to the current health care proposals would come up with ideas of their own (and they've had decades to do it) instead of lying about the provisions in the Bill.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nanook 1]

Quote

Well, now we're into value judgments. And my personal value judgment is that guaranteeing health care coverage to people who have lost their jobs, or are self-employed or 1099 independent contractors, or work for small businesses that don't offer health insurance, or are only employed part-time, AND doing away with draconian "pre-existing condition" bullshit, will lead to a healthier society, and other benefits, thereby providing a direct return to society.

It will lead to a return on society, but not as direct or dynamic as free education.
My opinion on the value judgement side is:

1) there's a difference between can't afford and won't afford. The self employed and the contractors catch me as not wanting to afford insurance. What's more important here, the house or affording health? The extra car? Choice of making a living? I do not believe I should pay extra so other people can feel "deserved".

2) Insurance is insurance. It's a money making business meant to cover those they want to take a risk on protecting. There isn't or was there ever was any altruism meant in these proceedings. If you take on too many preexisting patients, the business will fail. It's the same as requesting all banks to grant the same interest rate given to high credit rated people to those with lower scores.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

We have both public and private educational options; your choice. This bill attempts to do something similar for health care.

I really think the healthcare system needs to be reformed. However, if they are going to make healthcare the smashing success that public education is, I am very scared.

I think you grossly underestimate the degree to which public education in the modern, highly-industrialized countries is, in fact, very much a success, especially post World War II, compared to the lack of accessible education available to non-affluent children prior to the 20th Century. Yes, there have been and still are some horrendous failures, particularly in very poor areas (like inner cities, for example) - and yes, that needs to be fixed - but that doesn't merit the blanket condemnation of public education that you seem to imply. Education is the silver bullet; and mandatory education laws, coupled with universally-available, publicly-funded schools, viewed overall, have far more successes than failures.

[tr027 0]

Privatization never comes up because that's exactly what the best solution is and coincidentally, that's what the best solution is in ANY industry the Government is involved in. Socialization at first works well but inevitably costs more and decreases quality.

"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it. " -John Galt from Atlas Shrugged, 1957

[billvon 2,476]

>that's what the best solution is in ANY industry the Government is involved in.

Worked well for Enron when the energy market was deregulated.

[tr027 0]

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/miarticle.htm?id=4518

"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it. " -John Galt from Atlas Shrugged, 1957

[justinb138 0]

Quote

It sure would help if those opposed to the current health care proposals would come up with ideas of their own (and they've had decades to do it) instead of lying about the provisions in the Bill.

It sure would help if those pushing the current health care proposals were less interested in hearing themselves talk and actually listened to the proposals that others have come up with instead of ignoring them and pretending they didn't exist.

[pirana 0]

With some of the points being made.

Especially the one about public education providing a scary insight into what could become of our health care system. Basically, a very small proportion (those that can afford it) pay $10 to 20K out of pocket (after already paying taxes to a school district) to send their kids to real schools. The rest of us pay about $10K per student per year to send them off to union run social service centers disguised as schools.

I'm torn on whether or not full privitization would be a good thing. On the one hand, too many people would spend the money on 6 packs and cool doo-dads instead of on their kids. But then, with parenting like that they probably weren't going to get anything much out of school anyway.

On the other hand, every kid deserves a shot at a decent education regardless of how hard their parents resist. But just how much of a shot does a kid have if the parents are doing their best to propogate ignorance and the kid is not a natually high acheiver to begin with.

Huge dilemma.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

It sure would help if those opposed to the current health care proposals would come up with ideas of their own (and they've had decades to do it) instead of lying about the provisions in the Bill.

There have been, for decades, offered up by clear-thinking non-politicized experts. Best one I ever met was a guy named Uwe (forgot last name) from Germany. Hillary had him on board for her last go round at reform. There are lots of them around. Directors of hospitals, CEO's of health plans, even Joe Schmoe analysts like me. But you got to find at least a handful that can play the game without selling their soul; and who can stomach all the assholes involved without calling them that. Truly rare individuals.

<> Eliminate employer involvement.
<> Single set of national regulations.
<> Absolute minimal exceptions or special rules. (Tempted to say none, but there might be a few worthy exceptions to consider).
<> Medical malpractice reform. On this one I know next to nothing; but from what I've heard of premiums - something is broken.
<> Clearinghouse where all carriers offer plans; must offer standardized plans; optional to offer additional plans.
<> Clinically proven treatment regimens only. Want a backrub, fine - you pay for it. Wanna get poisoned in real tiny amounts by a homeo-voodoo guru, fine - you pay for it.
<> Everyone covered with a basic plan, with options for other coverage.
<> Sliding scale premiums.
<> Standardized reimbursement calculations.
<> Eliminate Medicare and Medicaid and any other Medi stuff. One program.
<> Require all health care financing (insurance) and all health care delivery (providers) be not for profit.
<> Mandatory electronic processing of damn near everything.
<> Harsh penalties for fraud by any involved parties (providers, insurers, patients).

Agents, state regulatory bodies, and employers no longer have a role. Reality is sometimes that harsh.

Let's hope what we end up with after the politicians finish deciding who they can afford to piss off the most isn't unbelievably complex and incredibly expensive.

One sure sign that they are up to the same old shit will be if they start granting exemptions; especially to themselves.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

>that's what the best solution is in ANY industry the Government is involved in.

Worked well for Enron when the energy market was deregulated.

Regulation and an open market are both a must. Got to have regulatory oversight because market forces (while working very well over the long term) leave consumers open to predatory vulture like companies that don't really think about the long term. Got to have competition or the whole shabang just turns into another entitlement program run by a single entity with no incentive whatsoever to operate efficiently.

Kinda like my favorite refrigerator magnet:

Trust everyone, but brand your cattle.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[billvon 2,476]

Thank you for a good list without all the rhetoric! Some good ideas in there:

<> Eliminate employer involvement.

I can see some good and bad in this one. The bad part is that it removes one of the primary incentives for people to get heath care now (i.e. that it costs them very little and their employer contributes.) Although the model can work both ways, more people will decide to go without if they have to pay on their own.

<> Single set of national regulations.

A good idea; helps with portability. It should only be applied to federally funded programs though.

<> Medical malpractice reform. On this one I know next to nothing; but from what I've heard of premiums - something is broken.

Definitely agree. That's the biggest single thing missing from the proposals I've seen.

<> Clearinghouse where all carriers offer plans; must offer standardized plans; optional to offer additional plans.

Another excellent idea, and one that currently IS in all the plans I see. This, conversely, is the single best part of both the House and Obama proposals.

<> Clinically proven treatment regimens only. Want a backrub, fine - you pay for it. Wanna get poisoned in real tiny amounts by a homeo-voodoo guru, fine - you pay for it.

Agreed.

<> Everyone covered with a basic plan, with options for other coverage.

Good goal, but how do you ensure the "everyone" part? That's the big problem with most proposals I've seen.

<> Sliding scale premiums.

A good idea but hard to implement well. It would have to be administered by someone outside the insurance company.

<> Eliminate Medicare and Medicaid and any other Medi stuff. One program.

That can work, but would require an even bigger overhaul; almost everything would change.

<> Require all health care financing (insurance) and all health care delivery (providers) be not for profit.

Definitely disagree there. Profit is why we have most of the drugs/diagnostic tests/procedures we have today.

<> Mandatory electronic processing of damn near everything.

Also disagree there. Let them do whatever they like provided they can provide the data in a standard format. (i.e. they have to show what got paid for, where the money went etc.) Too much micromanagement.

<> Harsh penalties for fraud by any involved parties (providers, insurers, patients).

Agreed.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

every kid deserves a shot at a decent education regardless of how hard their parents resist. But just how much of a shot does a kid have if the parents are doing their best to propogate ignorance and the kid is not a natually high acheiver to begin with.

I think that depends upon the quality of the schools the kid attends, especially if he attends public schools, which are, in theory at least, supposed to be more or less ideology-neutral. If his school system is, at the very least, fair-to-good, there will be a curriculum that must be followed. Even with an underachieving kid who has ignoramus (or dogmatic) parents - over time, some education will leak into the kid's brain, by osmosis if nothing else. If that's unacceptable to the parents, they can always react xenophobically and send their kid to a private/parochial school or home-school him. (Which is not intended to be a bash at those types of education generally.)