"Smaller government" advocates

[frigidweirdo]

Your neighbor should pay for it because they benefit from it.

You should pay for clothes, food and so on. Education to a lesser degree. The govt FORCES parents to educate their children. While you could say it also forces them to feed their children, and to clothe their children, you'd have to say that a parent who doesn't feed their kids is getting close to murder, a parent who doesn't clothe their kids will probably get arrest on child abuse, but a parent who doesn't educate their kids is what? Education isn't essential. A person can live life without being educated. Some people do, like some mentally disabled people who simply can't learn what is needed (but which is really neither here nor there), in the past kids didn't go to school, but they needed food and clothing.

We want our kids to reach certain levels of education. Therefore it's mandatory to send them to school. If you vote for politicians, and these politicians make it mandatory to vote, why shouldn't you pay for this?

If the government made it mandatory to drive a Ferrari, would you not be a little miffed if they didn't buy you a Ferrari?

In many places education is funded by property taxes. And what this does is it means kids who are from wealthy families are advantaged, kids from middle class families are okay, and kids in poorer areas are screwed. Look at the US, look at the problems with inner city areas and compare this to other first world countries. There's such a big difference. The US is producing criminals to stick in prisons when they hit 18 years old or, as if often the case, earlier.

Do you really want this in your society? I don't.

And the solution to this is to have education funding that is equal for all kids. All kids receive the same money for going to school (in the sense that the school receives the money for that pupil).

If you choose private school, it's your choice. If you have no kids, it's your choice. At the end of the day people should be paying for an educated work force because it benefits MOST PEOPLE in society.

Without kids, a person still probably went through the education system, they still benefit from higher wages because of the educated society, they still benefit from the infrastructure, the armed forces and all of those things that are at the level they're at because of the educated society.

Compare societies where education isn't great. Most of them are poor countries. Okay, it's a cycle, they're parents are poor and the govt is poor, neither can afford to send them to school.

Schools and Education in Zambia

Take Zambia, it has a GDP of $4,000, it provides free education up till 7th grade, and many rural students don't actually have teachers. There is a link between the two things. It works from both sides. Because GDP is low and taxes are low, education is difficult to fund, and students are poorly educated and can't do good jobs which pay more taxes and allow for better education.
However in the west it was the same way back when, the more money came, the more educated people got, the better the economy did. The US with an 18th century educated workforce would simply not be very rich in the world.

Ah, funding other stuff. I don't think these things should be funded. This is a problem in the US that politicians aren't working to improve things for the people, they're representing themselves and big money. The US needs a massive change in what the govt is about.

You have people like Trump (and now Kayne West and Will Smith want to get in on it) who are just using politics for themselves, which politicians are really interested in just making things better for the people?

In Europe, politicians are more likely, especially in Germanic countries and Scandinavian countries. These countries make sure things are in place that people want and need, they make a society. (They're not perfect by any means, but better than the US)

The US is like Africa. Politicians get in and then try and make themselves rich and possibly their friends.

Okay, so you've determined that the public should pay for education because it benefits society.

So wouldn't people going to work benefit society too? Should the government not buy us each a new car so we could get to work?

Well since we work so much, wouldn't it benefit society if we had enough rest as well? Say government pay for our vacations in Europe or Hawaii?

And wouldn't it benefit society to have nice looking homes? Don't you think government should provide us free landscaping for our lawns and flowers?

If we are going to use the cheap excuse of how society benefits, I can provide a laundry list of everything that benefits society, but that doesn't mean society should pay for everything either. What government pays for, government controls. And having more government control is the exact opposite of what this country is supposed to be about. Government control is why we pay the most per capita for our students, and yet have mediocre results to show for it.

Some countries do subsidies public transport. Not necessarily so that people can get to work, but more to reduce the reliance on cars and help the environment and so on.

However I walk to work. So, providing cars isn't really an issue, people don't necessarily need cars, cars are a luxury. Education isn't.

Again, resting is fine, the govt actually makes laws that prevent you working 24 hours a day 7 days a week (more or less), and anyway, no employee would be any good. However going to Hawaii isn't necessary in order to rest, that, again, is a luxury.

How would you benefit from having a nice looking garden? Again, a luxury.

We're talking essentials here. The govt has deemed that up to a certain age, children have to be in education. Why?

However I think you see why mass education is beneficial for society. I also thing you're just trying to be pedantic, so.... what's the point you're trying to make? I mean, really, behind all the bravado and all of that stuff, what do you really want to say?

Education is essential. It benefits society a lot more than other things. Without it society would simply fall away and apart. In inner city areas where education is being neglected, this has already happened.

Sure education is important, but you have failed to show me how education should be a liability to the public. It should be a liability to the parent if anything. At the very least, the parents should pay significantly more for our education system than those who don't use our education system.

A growing number of Americans are using home schooling to educate their children. With the help of the internet, almost any parent can educate their own children. You don't need a Masters degree to teach five year olds ABC's and get paid 60 grand a year with four months of vacation that we taxpayers have to pay for.

Sure people need cars. Do you think busses run along dirt roads and in the country areas where many people do live? They need to get to work too! They need to shop for food and clothing just to name a few. I say government should buy us all cars because it benefits society.

Home schooled kids are, generally, kids who are already quite smart. Their parents are smart, smart enough to think they can home school their kids, they have the time and the resources to carry out this task.

Not always, I've seen home schooling done badly too.

You don't need a masters degree to teach kids. A good teacher is a teacher who is able to teach well, and this is separate to academic achievement. However teaching isn't easy. Too many people who don't teach don't understand what it is like to teach. They think it's easy. It's not.
Why shouldn't a good teacher with lots of experience not be earning a decent wage?

Using the term "need". A person doesn't NEED a car, they could move to the city away from the country, and they could still live. They've made the choice to live in a place where a car is necessary in the modern world, but they don't have to live there. Again, education isn't a luxury, it isn't a choice, it's a necessity. Many other things are choices, they play a part in the choice of life.
I don't have a car, I hate driving. I walk to work. A person could live without a car if they choose to do so.

But again, I'm not sure why you're bothering with this argument. You know the difference between a car and education.

Correct, people can move to where there is public transportation, just like people can avoid having children they can't afford to educate. You don't need a car, well I don't need children either. That's why I chose the option of not having any. Yet I have to pay for somebody else's. So why shouldn't you pay for another persons automobile?

Yeah, people can choose to not have kids they can't educate. KIDS can't choose anything. They're there.

You shouldn't have to pay for another person's LUXURY ITEM.

And you're not necessarily paying for another person's education. You're paying for MASS education.

Now, most people in the US got a free education to start off with. Why should you pay for others? Maybe because you got one yourself.

But again, like I've said many times, and educated workforce means that the country is better off. So, the money you make will probably be higher than if you worked in a country with a less educated workforce.

The correlation between education levels and GDP is probably quite high.

It's impossible to "prove" because there is no way of showing which education system is better, it doesn't lend itself well to quantitative points scoring. However people do do it.

GDP for Shanghai? No idea.

According to the IMF and the World Bank, Singapore is 3rd on the list of GDP,
Hong Kong is 9th or 8th
Taiwan is 19th and doesn't exist
South Korea, 30th and 29th

The only problem here is that these countries are far east countries, with a tendency of non-creative, non-thinking for yourself education, which doesn't necessarily correlate to the real world. For some jobs it does, for others it doesn't. So, again, league tables with a massive pinch of salt.

 

[dcraelin]

Without regard to what I want, or what you want...

Nature defines Marriage as: The Joining of One Man and One Woman. This being demonstrated through the Biological imperative, wherein Nature designed the human species (and all mammals) with two distinct, but complementing genders, each specifically designed to join with the other. ]

Nope. There is no marriage in 'nature'. There is only marriage within human societies as we invented it and we define it. It is whatever we say it is. As its our creation.

That you recognize that this is irrefutable... inarguable and otherwise irrepressible, SHOULD BE sufficient to turn you from your former position and toward that inalterable reality.

Your personal opinion isn't 'irrefutable', nor 'inarguable' nor 'reality'. Its just your opinion. You've deluded yourself into believing that anything you think, anything at all, is objective fact.

Its simply not so. Your subjective opinions are not objective reality, no matter how many times you type 'irrefutable'. Its just you, citing you, making an argument that can't withstand an even passing application of logic or reason.

the pot calling the kettle black

I'm rubber. You're glue. It bounces off me and sticks on you.

Now that we've done school yard silliness, would you care to actually address the points I raised. Or is holding your breath until you turn blue the extent of your rhetorical prowess?

u argue against Keys's using his opinion on this opinion site....only you said it very verbosely, .......please leave this opinion board if your going to waste our time with such idiotic opinions. Your stating them is only your opinion and not a point

She does the very best she can... .

It is amazing how she can so wordily say absolutely nothing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well let me tell ya, our northern borders here are loaded with Canadian patients. Why? Because their healthcare system is too poorly run and doesn't provide the quality. As a lifelong patient at the world famous Cleveland Clinic, I can testify that when you walk into that place, you're the one that feels like the foreigner. Looking around at the medical staff, you'd think you were in the UN or something.

Medical professionals from around the world come here to work in our system because it pays the best money. If you're not good enough to come here, you stay in your country where they have socialized healthcare.

Cost: the cost of our healthcare starts with our failed government systems. Medicare and Medicaid typically pay 30% less than the charges for their patients. Providers are not going to take the loss. They increase fees on everybody which of course gets transferred to our private pay and private insurance companies. Then our medical insurance skyrockets and we end up with a problem. So what was our genius solution? Start yet another government program.

There is no perfect healthcare system. Every one around the globe has some kind of problems. If it's not cost, it's that everybody can't get it. If everybody can get it, it's quality of care.

If people want a socialized system, fine with me, but everybody should pay, not just political enemies of the creators of the system. We should have a national consumption tax. The poor pay, the middle-class pay, the wealthy pay. The more you buy, the more you contribute to the system.

Yeah, it's so bad that a MASSIVE percentage of Canadians go use the US healthcare system.

Antisense Propaganda: Percentage of Canadians using the US health care system

"the study concluded that Canada spends slightly more than half of what America does per capita for health care, yet reaches similar if not better overall results in terms of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and overall citizen health."

That's not to say that the US doesn't have some very good hospitals, and some Canadians might choose to go to the US, especially if they have a lot of money and can afford some of the best care.

However, we're not talking about the 1%ers, we're talking about the average Joe having to go to hospital.


Canada vs. US Health Care Systems - Debunking Health Care Myths - AARP

"
5 Myths About Canada’s Health Care System"

"To separate fact from fiction, Aaron E. Carroll, M.D., the director of the Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research in Indianapolis, identified the top myths about the two health care systems."

"Myth #1: Canadians are flocking to the United States to get medical care."

"I don’t deny that some well-off people might come to the United States for medical care. If I needed a heart or lung transplant, there’s no place I’d rather have it done. But for the vast, vast majority of people, that’s not happening."

"They found that more than 80 percent of these hospital visits were for emergency or urgent care (that is, tourists who had to go to the emergency room). Only about 20 percent of the visits were for elective procedures or care."

"Next, the authors of the study surveyed America’s 20 “best” hospitals — as identified by U.S. News & World Report — on the assumption that if Canadians were going to travel for health care, they would be more likely to go to the best-known and highest-quality facilities. Only one of the 11 hospitals that responded saw more than 60 Canadians in a year. And, again, that included both emergencies and elective care."

"Finally, the study’s authors examined data from the 18,000 Canadians who participated in the National Population Health Survey. In the previous year, 90 of those 18,000 Canadians had received care in the United States; only 20 of them, however, reported going to the United States expressively for the purpose of obtaining care."

Wow, 20 out of 18,000. That's like, MASSIVE.

So, I've called you bluff on that one. I think you just listen to the wrong people, people with an agenda.

Corruption in Healthcare

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/msparrow/documents--in use/Corruption in Health Care--The US Experience--TI Global Report on Corruption--2006--pp16-22.pdf

"Despite the essentially invisible nature of the problem, health care fraud in the United States was deemed sufficiently serious by the Clinton administration (based on cases revealed) that in 1993, Attorney General Janet Reno declared it America’s ‘number two crime problem’, second only to violent crime."

"‘abuse of entrusted authority’, does cover dishonest actions of physicians, hospitals and other health care professionals, who are generally afforded high social and professional status and are expected to exercise professional medical judgement unbiased by private financial interests. The majority of fraud within the system, perpetrated by medical providers, can therefore be understood as corruption under this definition."

This article gives a number of ways that corruption is prevalent in the US system.

Corruption, fraud and bureaucracy cost US healthcare system up to $272 billion annually

"
Corruption, fraud and bureaucracy cost US healthcare system up to $272 billion annually"

"According to data compiled as part of a larger research project into medical corruption, the U.S. loses as much as $272 billion annually due to things like medical embezzlement and insurance billing fraud, both of which are rampant."

Medicare accounts for a lot of this fraud

"a bulk of the nation's medical fraud occurs within public sector health services like Medicare and Medicaid, which account for more than one-third of all known fraud."

"As explained in a recent piece for The Economist, nearly $100 billion in fraud takes place within the confines of Medicare and Medicaid spending, while the remaining $172 billion occurs elsewhere. "

The problem in the US is that people are on the take, because they can.

All government money ends up, at some point, in the hands of private companies, who are able to get more of this money by providing services that are not required.

In a healthcare system that is public, where money isn't being thrown around, this isn't so much of an issue. If a nurse doesn't have to make money, but just does their job, then they can't hope to defraud anyway. Doctors still could, but then their chances of providing the most costly drugs are limited because they simply give them out, they don't take part in the financial part of the job.

The US has rampant corruption for many reasons, however the biggest reason is that it's all about money, unlike most healthcare systems in the world.

Wait times

As reported by the Health Council of Canada, a 2010 Commonwealth survey found that 42% of Canadians waited 2 hours or more in the emergency room, vs. 29% in the U.S.; 43% waited 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, vs. 10% in the U.S. The same survey states that 37% of Canadians say it is difficult to access care after hours (evenings, weekends or holidays) without going to the emergency department over 34% of Americans. Furthermore, 47% of Canadians, and 50% of Americans who visited emergency departments over the past two years feel that they could have been treated at their normal place of care if they were able to get an appointment.[49]

A report published by Health Canada in 2008 included statistics on self-reported wait times for diagnostic services.[50] The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans is two weeks with 89.5% waiting less than 3 months.[50][51] The median wait time to see a special physician is a little over four weeks with 86.4% waiting less than 3 months.[50][52] The median wait time for surgery is a little over four weeks with 82.2% waiting less than 3 months.[50][53] In the U.S., patients on Medicaid, the low-income government programs, can wait three months or more to see specialists. Because Medicaid payments are low, some have claimed that some doctors do not want to see Medicaid patients. For example, in Benton Harbor, Michigan, specialists agreed to spend one afternoon every week or two at a Medicaid clinic, which meant that Medicaid patients had to make appointments not at the doctor's office, but at the clinic, where appointments had to be booked months in advance.[54] A 2009 study found that on average the wait in the United States to see a medical specialist is 20.5 days.[55]

Medical professionals

Some of the extra money spent in the United States goes to physicians, nurses, and other medical professionals. According to health data collected by the OECD, average income for physicians in the United States in 1996 was nearly twice that for physicians in Canada.[86] In 2012, the gross average salary for doctors in Canada was CDN$328,000. Out of the gross amount, doctors pay for taxes, rent, staff salaries and equipment.[87] When comparing average incomes of doctors in Canada and U.S., it should be kept in mind that malpractice insurance premiums may differ significantly between Canada and the U.S., and the proportion of doctors who are specialists differs. In Canada, less than half of doctors are specialists whereas more than 70% of doctors are specialists in the U.S.[88]

Canada has fewer doctors per capita than the United States. In the U.S, there were 2.4 doctors per 1,000 people in 2005; in Canada, there were 2.2.[89] Some doctors leave Canada to pursue career goals or higher pay in the U.S., though significant numbers of physicians from countries such as India, Pakistan and South Africa immigrate to practice in Canada. Many Canadian physicians and new medical graduates also go to the U.S. for post-graduate training in medical residencies. As it is a much larger market, new and cutting-edge sub-specialties are more widely available in the U.S. as opposed to Canada. However, statistics published in 2005 by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), show that, for the first time since 1969 (the period for which data are available), more physicians returned to Canada than moved abroad.[90]

Health care outcomes

In the World Health Organization's rankings of health care system performance among 191 member nations published in 2000, Canada ranked 30th and the U.S. 37th, while the overall health of Canadians was ranked 35th and Americans 72nd.[8][116] However, the WHO's methodologies, which attempted to measure how efficiently health systems translate expenditure into health, generated broad debate and criticism.[117]

Researchers caution against inferring health care quality from some health statistics. June O'Neill and Dave O'Neill point out that "...life expectancy and infant mortality are both poor measures of the efficacy of a health care system because they are influenced by many factors that are unrelated to the quality and accessibility of medical care".[118]

Comparison of the health care systems in Canada and the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The difference is some Canadians have to wait. In the US some people don't have to wait, they know they're not getting anything. I'm not saying Canada's healthcare is amazing. I'm saying the US has some very good, and very expensive, hospitals paid for out of a massive healthcare budget (which includes what people spend on insurance, maybe i'm not using the right term) and also it leaves many people behind.

The problem in the US is the money that is spent, doesn't equal the success it has on the overall population. A sparkling hospital might be great for those with great health insurance, but it isn't great for those who don't.

I agree 100%. But the point I tried to make is that all healthcare systems around the world have some sort of problem. If there was a perfect or near perfect system, we would all adopt it.

While there are plenty of negatives in our system, there are negatives in other systems--just different types of negatives. I talk to Canadian truck drivers all the time while waiting to get loaded or unloaded. One of the first things I ask them about is their healthcare system.

The younger and middle-aged drivers tell me their system is fantastic. They need a doctor, they see one and don't have to worry too much about insurance or advanced care. The elderly drivers? They all told me the same thing: Keep what you have in America. You don't want what we have to put up with.

The Wiki article I posted also points out something that you probably haven't thought of, and that is WE DO have socialized healthcare. We have Medicare, we have Medicaid, we have the VA, all of which have had (and still have) some major problems--particularly when it comes to funding. Commie Care? Even though the program just started, they are already having major problems such as huge premium increases and insurance companies talking about dropping out of the system already.

Actually your first statement that the US would adopt something if it were near perfect, I'm not so sure. The system is perfect for some, they're able to make a lot of money out of it, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and so on. If you tried to change the US system (Obamacare didn't threaten either of those) then you'd have a big fight on your hands. You saw the fight over Obamacare, this other fight would be something quite different.

The problem with healthcare has always been that it is, like education, something essential for life. Poor people need it, and poor people often need more healthcare than they would be able to afford. If you go to a developing country like China, busting a gut to make it into the developed world, they spend about 2% of GDP on healthcare. If you need it, you pay for it. A Chinese friend of mine's dad nearly died on Halloween and they took him to hospital and he wasn't allowed to move, he had a clot on the brain, nurses would be around from 8am to 11am. If the patient needed anything else between that time, it was her and her mother who did it. Her mother took time off work, my friend slept in the hospital over night then worked in the day.

So not providing enough causes such problems that are a major inconvenience on the whole family. So you spend more money so this isn't the case. But then maybe you spend so much that people end up using too much of the system. It's a balance.

Insurance companies are a major problem in the US in general. They're in it for profit, and this means people pay for healthcare AND for profit. That part of the industry needs a massive reform, but won't happen, too many fingers in the pie, too much money they'd spend on making sure politicians (who are supposedly there to represent the people) taking part of that money to keep themselves in the game.

Sure insurance companies are in it for profit. So are the doctors, the nurses, the staff, the hospitals and clinics. Nobody works for free.

A true story here to explain what I've seen:

I used to be in the home medical care business where I delivered and repaired home medical equipment for ten years. Our company decided to open up a pharmacy which required a pharmacist sanctioned by the government to oversee the construction.

After our weekly Monday morning meeting, we all met at the coffee pot as usual and began discussing other issues. At the time (early 80's) UPS was on strike. As our discussion unfolded about the strike, our newest employee--the pharmacist, turned red in the face with anger and abruptly turned and walked away. We didn't know WTF was up. We barely knew her.

Well the coffee club broke up and as usual, I was the last one there. That's when the pharmacist returned. In her hand was her pharmacist magazine, and she highlighted the discussion we were having about the UPS strike.

Her article pointed out how senior UPS drivers made around 55K per year plus benefits. A pharmacist at the time was averaging about 63K per year. After I read the article and handed the magazine back to her, she angrily said "Do you know what I went through to become a pharmacist???? Do you know what my parents went through???? And these &^%& at UPS have the nerve to go on strike???? If I were a kid again today, do you think I would have spent all that time and money in college only to make a few grand less than the clown that drops off boxes at our door????"

The only way to attract people to a profession is to pay them much more than a UPS guy or any other overpaying union employee at the time. And that's exactly what happened. We experienced a void in medical staff and had to drastically increase their wages to get them to work.

That's just one of problems that resulted in our ever increasing costs of healthcare today and the in the last few decades.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay, so you've determined that the public should pay for education because it benefits society.

So wouldn't people going to work benefit society too? Should the government not buy us each a new car so we could get to work?

Well since we work so much, wouldn't it benefit society if we had enough rest as well? Say government pay for our vacations in Europe or Hawaii?

And wouldn't it benefit society to have nice looking homes? Don't you think government should provide us free landscaping for our lawns and flowers?

If we are going to use the cheap excuse of how society benefits, I can provide a laundry list of everything that benefits society, but that doesn't mean society should pay for everything either. What government pays for, government controls. And having more government control is the exact opposite of what this country is supposed to be about. Government control is why we pay the most per capita for our students, and yet have mediocre results to show for it.

Some countries do subsidies public transport. Not necessarily so that people can get to work, but more to reduce the reliance on cars and help the environment and so on.

However I walk to work. So, providing cars isn't really an issue, people don't necessarily need cars, cars are a luxury. Education isn't.

Again, resting is fine, the govt actually makes laws that prevent you working 24 hours a day 7 days a week (more or less), and anyway, no employee would be any good. However going to Hawaii isn't necessary in order to rest, that, again, is a luxury.

How would you benefit from having a nice looking garden? Again, a luxury.

We're talking essentials here. The govt has deemed that up to a certain age, children have to be in education. Why?

However I think you see why mass education is beneficial for society. I also thing you're just trying to be pedantic, so.... what's the point you're trying to make? I mean, really, behind all the bravado and all of that stuff, what do you really want to say?

Education is essential. It benefits society a lot more than other things. Without it society would simply fall away and apart. In inner city areas where education is being neglected, this has already happened.

Sure education is important, but you have failed to show me how education should be a liability to the public. It should be a liability to the parent if anything. At the very least, the parents should pay significantly more for our education system than those who don't use our education system.

A growing number of Americans are using home schooling to educate their children. With the help of the internet, almost any parent can educate their own children. You don't need a Masters degree to teach five year olds ABC's and get paid 60 grand a year with four months of vacation that we taxpayers have to pay for.

Sure people need cars. Do you think busses run along dirt roads and in the country areas where many people do live? They need to get to work too! They need to shop for food and clothing just to name a few. I say government should buy us all cars because it benefits society.

Home schooled kids are, generally, kids who are already quite smart. Their parents are smart, smart enough to think they can home school their kids, they have the time and the resources to carry out this task.

Not always, I've seen home schooling done badly too.

You don't need a masters degree to teach kids. A good teacher is a teacher who is able to teach well, and this is separate to academic achievement. However teaching isn't easy. Too many people who don't teach don't understand what it is like to teach. They think it's easy. It's not.
Why shouldn't a good teacher with lots of experience not be earning a decent wage?

Using the term "need". A person doesn't NEED a car, they could move to the city away from the country, and they could still live. They've made the choice to live in a place where a car is necessary in the modern world, but they don't have to live there. Again, education isn't a luxury, it isn't a choice, it's a necessity. Many other things are choices, they play a part in the choice of life.
I don't have a car, I hate driving. I walk to work. A person could live without a car if they choose to do so.

But again, I'm not sure why you're bothering with this argument. You know the difference between a car and education.

Correct, people can move to where there is public transportation, just like people can avoid having children they can't afford to educate. You don't need a car, well I don't need children either. That's why I chose the option of not having any. Yet I have to pay for somebody else's. So why shouldn't you pay for another persons automobile?

Yeah, people can choose to not have kids they can't educate. KIDS can't choose anything. They're there.

You shouldn't have to pay for another person's LUXURY ITEM.

And you're not necessarily paying for another person's education. You're paying for MASS education.

Now, most people in the US got a free education to start off with. Why should you pay for others? Maybe because you got one yourself.

But again, like I've said many times, and educated workforce means that the country is better off. So, the money you make will probably be higher than if you worked in a country with a less educated workforce.

The correlation between education levels and GDP is probably quite high.

It's impossible to "prove" because there is no way of showing which education system is better, it doesn't lend itself well to quantitative points scoring. However people do do it.

GDP for Shanghai? No idea.

According to the IMF and the World Bank, Singapore is 3rd on the list of GDP,
Hong Kong is 9th or 8th
Taiwan is 19th and doesn't exist
South Korea, 30th and 29th

The only problem here is that these countries are far east countries, with a tendency of non-creative, non-thinking for yourself education, which doesn't necessarily correlate to the real world. For some jobs it does, for others it doesn't. So, again, league tables with a massive pinch of salt.

I understand your point, however you don't need to convince me that an educated work force is the most productive or the best for our country as a whole. You already convinced me of that. My issue is who pays for it.

As I stated earlier, we pay the most per capita for our education system and get mediocre results as your chart shows. If you ask any Democrat for a solution to our poor education system, their answer is we need more money for it. More money????? Really????

So where would that money come from? The same place it comes from now--my pocket. So what's the new excuse these past few years for our failed school system? Class sizes too large. Can you believe that???

What Democrats want to do is reduce class size. When you do that, you need more teachers. More teachers means more union members. Unions contribute almost exclusively to the Democrat party and politicians come election time. More union due payers means more money to contribute to elections. So it seems we will never solve this problem.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yeah, it's so bad that a MASSIVE percentage of Canadians go use the US healthcare system.

Antisense Propaganda: Percentage of Canadians using the US health care system

"the study concluded that Canada spends slightly more than half of what America does per capita for health care, yet reaches similar if not better overall results in terms of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and overall citizen health."

That's not to say that the US doesn't have some very good hospitals, and some Canadians might choose to go to the US, especially if they have a lot of money and can afford some of the best care.

However, we're not talking about the 1%ers, we're talking about the average Joe having to go to hospital.


Canada vs. US Health Care Systems - Debunking Health Care Myths - AARP

"
5 Myths About Canada’s Health Care System"

"To separate fact from fiction, Aaron E. Carroll, M.D., the director of the Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research in Indianapolis, identified the top myths about the two health care systems."

"Myth #1: Canadians are flocking to the United States to get medical care."

"I don’t deny that some well-off people might come to the United States for medical care. If I needed a heart or lung transplant, there’s no place I’d rather have it done. But for the vast, vast majority of people, that’s not happening."

"They found that more than 80 percent of these hospital visits were for emergency or urgent care (that is, tourists who had to go to the emergency room). Only about 20 percent of the visits were for elective procedures or care."

"Next, the authors of the study surveyed America’s 20 “best” hospitals — as identified by U.S. News & World Report — on the assumption that if Canadians were going to travel for health care, they would be more likely to go to the best-known and highest-quality facilities. Only one of the 11 hospitals that responded saw more than 60 Canadians in a year. And, again, that included both emergencies and elective care."

"Finally, the study’s authors examined data from the 18,000 Canadians who participated in the National Population Health Survey. In the previous year, 90 of those 18,000 Canadians had received care in the United States; only 20 of them, however, reported going to the United States expressively for the purpose of obtaining care."

Wow, 20 out of 18,000. That's like, MASSIVE.

So, I've called you bluff on that one. I think you just listen to the wrong people, people with an agenda.

Corruption in Healthcare

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/msparrow/documents--in use/Corruption in Health Care--The US Experience--TI Global Report on Corruption--2006--pp16-22.pdf

"Despite the essentially invisible nature of the problem, health care fraud in the United States was deemed sufficiently serious by the Clinton administration (based on cases revealed) that in 1993, Attorney General Janet Reno declared it America’s ‘number two crime problem’, second only to violent crime."

"‘abuse of entrusted authority’, does cover dishonest actions of physicians, hospitals and other health care professionals, who are generally afforded high social and professional status and are expected to exercise professional medical judgement unbiased by private financial interests. The majority of fraud within the system, perpetrated by medical providers, can therefore be understood as corruption under this definition."

This article gives a number of ways that corruption is prevalent in the US system.

Corruption, fraud and bureaucracy cost US healthcare system up to $272 billion annually

"
Corruption, fraud and bureaucracy cost US healthcare system up to $272 billion annually"

"According to data compiled as part of a larger research project into medical corruption, the U.S. loses as much as $272 billion annually due to things like medical embezzlement and insurance billing fraud, both of which are rampant."

Medicare accounts for a lot of this fraud

"a bulk of the nation's medical fraud occurs within public sector health services like Medicare and Medicaid, which account for more than one-third of all known fraud."

"As explained in a recent piece for The Economist, nearly $100 billion in fraud takes place within the confines of Medicare and Medicaid spending, while the remaining $172 billion occurs elsewhere. "

The problem in the US is that people are on the take, because they can.

All government money ends up, at some point, in the hands of private companies, who are able to get more of this money by providing services that are not required.

In a healthcare system that is public, where money isn't being thrown around, this isn't so much of an issue. If a nurse doesn't have to make money, but just does their job, then they can't hope to defraud anyway. Doctors still could, but then their chances of providing the most costly drugs are limited because they simply give them out, they don't take part in the financial part of the job.

The US has rampant corruption for many reasons, however the biggest reason is that it's all about money, unlike most healthcare systems in the world.

Wait times

As reported by the Health Council of Canada, a 2010 Commonwealth survey found that 42% of Canadians waited 2 hours or more in the emergency room, vs. 29% in the U.S.; 43% waited 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, vs. 10% in the U.S. The same survey states that 37% of Canadians say it is difficult to access care after hours (evenings, weekends or holidays) without going to the emergency department over 34% of Americans. Furthermore, 47% of Canadians, and 50% of Americans who visited emergency departments over the past two years feel that they could have been treated at their normal place of care if they were able to get an appointment.[49]

A report published by Health Canada in 2008 included statistics on self-reported wait times for diagnostic services.[50] The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans is two weeks with 89.5% waiting less than 3 months.[50][51] The median wait time to see a special physician is a little over four weeks with 86.4% waiting less than 3 months.[50][52] The median wait time for surgery is a little over four weeks with 82.2% waiting less than 3 months.[50][53] In the U.S., patients on Medicaid, the low-income government programs, can wait three months or more to see specialists. Because Medicaid payments are low, some have claimed that some doctors do not want to see Medicaid patients. For example, in Benton Harbor, Michigan, specialists agreed to spend one afternoon every week or two at a Medicaid clinic, which meant that Medicaid patients had to make appointments not at the doctor's office, but at the clinic, where appointments had to be booked months in advance.[54] A 2009 study found that on average the wait in the United States to see a medical specialist is 20.5 days.[55]

Medical professionals

Some of the extra money spent in the United States goes to physicians, nurses, and other medical professionals. According to health data collected by the OECD, average income for physicians in the United States in 1996 was nearly twice that for physicians in Canada.[86] In 2012, the gross average salary for doctors in Canada was CDN$328,000. Out of the gross amount, doctors pay for taxes, rent, staff salaries and equipment.[87] When comparing average incomes of doctors in Canada and U.S., it should be kept in mind that malpractice insurance premiums may differ significantly between Canada and the U.S., and the proportion of doctors who are specialists differs. In Canada, less than half of doctors are specialists whereas more than 70% of doctors are specialists in the U.S.[88]

Canada has fewer doctors per capita than the United States. In the U.S, there were 2.4 doctors per 1,000 people in 2005; in Canada, there were 2.2.[89] Some doctors leave Canada to pursue career goals or higher pay in the U.S., though significant numbers of physicians from countries such as India, Pakistan and South Africa immigrate to practice in Canada. Many Canadian physicians and new medical graduates also go to the U.S. for post-graduate training in medical residencies. As it is a much larger market, new and cutting-edge sub-specialties are more widely available in the U.S. as opposed to Canada. However, statistics published in 2005 by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), show that, for the first time since 1969 (the period for which data are available), more physicians returned to Canada than moved abroad.[90]

Health care outcomes

In the World Health Organization's rankings of health care system performance among 191 member nations published in 2000, Canada ranked 30th and the U.S. 37th, while the overall health of Canadians was ranked 35th and Americans 72nd.[8][116] However, the WHO's methodologies, which attempted to measure how efficiently health systems translate expenditure into health, generated broad debate and criticism.[117]

Researchers caution against inferring health care quality from some health statistics. June O'Neill and Dave O'Neill point out that "...life expectancy and infant mortality are both poor measures of the efficacy of a health care system because they are influenced by many factors that are unrelated to the quality and accessibility of medical care".[118]

Comparison of the health care systems in Canada and the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The difference is some Canadians have to wait. In the US some people don't have to wait, they know they're not getting anything. I'm not saying Canada's healthcare is amazing. I'm saying the US has some very good, and very expensive, hospitals paid for out of a massive healthcare budget (which includes what people spend on insurance, maybe i'm not using the right term) and also it leaves many people behind.

The problem in the US is the money that is spent, doesn't equal the success it has on the overall population. A sparkling hospital might be great for those with great health insurance, but it isn't great for those who don't.

I agree 100%. But the point I tried to make is that all healthcare systems around the world have some sort of problem. If there was a perfect or near perfect system, we would all adopt it.

While there are plenty of negatives in our system, there are negatives in other systems--just different types of negatives. I talk to Canadian truck drivers all the time while waiting to get loaded or unloaded. One of the first things I ask them about is their healthcare system.

The younger and middle-aged drivers tell me their system is fantastic. They need a doctor, they see one and don't have to worry too much about insurance or advanced care. The elderly drivers? They all told me the same thing: Keep what you have in America. You don't want what we have to put up with.

The Wiki article I posted also points out something that you probably haven't thought of, and that is WE DO have socialized healthcare. We have Medicare, we have Medicaid, we have the VA, all of which have had (and still have) some major problems--particularly when it comes to funding. Commie Care? Even though the program just started, they are already having major problems such as huge premium increases and insurance companies talking about dropping out of the system already.

Actually your first statement that the US would adopt something if it were near perfect, I'm not so sure. The system is perfect for some, they're able to make a lot of money out of it, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and so on. If you tried to change the US system (Obamacare didn't threaten either of those) then you'd have a big fight on your hands. You saw the fight over Obamacare, this other fight would be something quite different.

The problem with healthcare has always been that it is, like education, something essential for life. Poor people need it, and poor people often need more healthcare than they would be able to afford. If you go to a developing country like China, busting a gut to make it into the developed world, they spend about 2% of GDP on healthcare. If you need it, you pay for it. A Chinese friend of mine's dad nearly died on Halloween and they took him to hospital and he wasn't allowed to move, he had a clot on the brain, nurses would be around from 8am to 11am. If the patient needed anything else between that time, it was her and her mother who did it. Her mother took time off work, my friend slept in the hospital over night then worked in the day.

So not providing enough causes such problems that are a major inconvenience on the whole family. So you spend more money so this isn't the case. But then maybe you spend so much that people end up using too much of the system. It's a balance.

Insurance companies are a major problem in the US in general. They're in it for profit, and this means people pay for healthcare AND for profit. That part of the industry needs a massive reform, but won't happen, too many fingers in the pie, too much money they'd spend on making sure politicians (who are supposedly there to represent the people) taking part of that money to keep themselves in the game.

Sure insurance companies are in it for profit. So are the doctors, the nurses, the staff, the hospitals and clinics. Nobody works for free.

A true story here to explain what I've seen:

I used to be in the home medical care business where I delivered and repaired home medical equipment for ten years. Our company decided to open up a pharmacy which required a pharmacist sanctioned by the government to oversee the construction.

After our weekly Monday morning meeting, we all met at the coffee pot as usual and began discussing other issues. At the time (early 80's) UPS was on strike. As our discussion unfolded about the strike, our newest employee--the pharmacist, turned red in the face with anger and abruptly turned and walked away. We didn't know WTF was up. We barely knew her.

Well the coffee club broke up and as usual, I was the last one there. That's when the pharmacist returned. In her hand was her pharmacist magazine, and she highlighted the discussion we were having about the UPS strike.

Her article pointed out how senior UPS drivers made around 55K per year plus benefits. A pharmacist at the time was averaging about 63K per year. After I read the article and handed the magazine back to her, she angrily said "Do you know what I went through to become a pharmacist???? Do you know what my parents went through???? And these &^%& at UPS have the nerve to go on strike???? If I were a kid again today, do you think I would have spent all that time and money in college only to make a few grand less than the clown that drops off boxes at our door????"

The only way to attract people to a profession is to pay them much more than a UPS guy or any other overpaying union employee at the time. And that's exactly what happened. We experienced a void in medical staff and had to drastically increase their wages to get them to work.

That's just one of problems that resulted in our ever increasing costs of healthcare today and the in the last few decades.

There's a difference between being in it for a decent wage, and being in it for profit. I'm making a distinction here because profit can often be something good in capitalism, pushing things forward, making things better in order to achieve that profit.

However it doesn't seem to work in the health industry. At the higher end of things it does. At the end which says some rich fat cat wants to go into hospital, no doubt their experience is going to be more positive than other people's similar experiences.

However profit within insurance companies, is it necessary? How is it that other countries manage to do away with this, and still have a similar experience? The UK simply doesn't have this, for the NHS, you don't need that layer of bureaucracy collecting money and then handing out less money. You don't need people to prove to a doctor that they're ill, THEN prove to an insurance company that they're ill too.

You don't need it where the customer pays someone, who then hands out money to the provider. This sort of thing leads to the ability to corrupt.

Your story, I see the point, however I don't see how this relates to the discussion. Yes, people need to be paid what they're worth.

Now, a nurse gets paid X amount. In the UK the money comes from the government.
In the US the money goes from the customer, to the insurance company, who take a slice, then to the hospital who take a slice, and others are taking slices off this too, like pharma companies (okay, it happens in the UK, but at a much lower rate), and then the money goes to the nurse.

Why should the nurse be earning for doing a health job, but some bureaucrat in an insurance company doing something completely unnecessary getting a wage that might even be higher than the nurse's wage?

Health Insurance Industry Salary, Average Salaries | PayScale

Nurse case manager gets $69,000 a year, on average.
Senior Business Manager gets $75,000 a year, on average.
Case manager gets $65,000 a year on average.

Registered Nurse (RN) Salary

Nurses

Entry level $52,000
Mid Career $60,000
Experienced $64,000
Late career $68,000

So, a nurse will get LESS than a Senior business manager, or Nurse case manager on average, and about the same as a case manager. And for what? One provides the essentials, the other leeches off of the system and does nothing useful.

Isn't this a massive problem with the US system? Why does the system cost so much? Because you have to pay for unnecessary layers, which provide massive opportunities for corruption too.

So if 30% goes in corruption, how much goes on unnecessary bureaucracy?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wait times

As reported by the Health Council of Canada, a 2010 Commonwealth survey found that 42% of Canadians waited 2 hours or more in the emergency room, vs. 29% in the U.S.; 43% waited 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, vs. 10% in the U.S. The same survey states that 37% of Canadians say it is difficult to access care after hours (evenings, weekends or holidays) without going to the emergency department over 34% of Americans. Furthermore, 47% of Canadians, and 50% of Americans who visited emergency departments over the past two years feel that they could have been treated at their normal place of care if they were able to get an appointment.[49]

A report published by Health Canada in 2008 included statistics on self-reported wait times for diagnostic services.[50] The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans is two weeks with 89.5% waiting less than 3 months.[50][51] The median wait time to see a special physician is a little over four weeks with 86.4% waiting less than 3 months.[50][52] The median wait time for surgery is a little over four weeks with 82.2% waiting less than 3 months.[50][53] In the U.S., patients on Medicaid, the low-income government programs, can wait three months or more to see specialists. Because Medicaid payments are low, some have claimed that some doctors do not want to see Medicaid patients. For example, in Benton Harbor, Michigan, specialists agreed to spend one afternoon every week or two at a Medicaid clinic, which meant that Medicaid patients had to make appointments not at the doctor's office, but at the clinic, where appointments had to be booked months in advance.[54] A 2009 study found that on average the wait in the United States to see a medical specialist is 20.5 days.[55]

Medical professionals

Some of the extra money spent in the United States goes to physicians, nurses, and other medical professionals. According to health data collected by the OECD, average income for physicians in the United States in 1996 was nearly twice that for physicians in Canada.[86] In 2012, the gross average salary for doctors in Canada was CDN$328,000. Out of the gross amount, doctors pay for taxes, rent, staff salaries and equipment.[87] When comparing average incomes of doctors in Canada and U.S., it should be kept in mind that malpractice insurance premiums may differ significantly between Canada and the U.S., and the proportion of doctors who are specialists differs. In Canada, less than half of doctors are specialists whereas more than 70% of doctors are specialists in the U.S.[88]

Canada has fewer doctors per capita than the United States. In the U.S, there were 2.4 doctors per 1,000 people in 2005; in Canada, there were 2.2.[89] Some doctors leave Canada to pursue career goals or higher pay in the U.S., though significant numbers of physicians from countries such as India, Pakistan and South Africa immigrate to practice in Canada. Many Canadian physicians and new medical graduates also go to the U.S. for post-graduate training in medical residencies. As it is a much larger market, new and cutting-edge sub-specialties are more widely available in the U.S. as opposed to Canada. However, statistics published in 2005 by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), show that, for the first time since 1969 (the period for which data are available), more physicians returned to Canada than moved abroad.[90]

Health care outcomes

In the World Health Organization's rankings of health care system performance among 191 member nations published in 2000, Canada ranked 30th and the U.S. 37th, while the overall health of Canadians was ranked 35th and Americans 72nd.[8][116] However, the WHO's methodologies, which attempted to measure how efficiently health systems translate expenditure into health, generated broad debate and criticism.[117]

Researchers caution against inferring health care quality from some health statistics. June O'Neill and Dave O'Neill point out that "...life expectancy and infant mortality are both poor measures of the efficacy of a health care system because they are influenced by many factors that are unrelated to the quality and accessibility of medical care".[118]

Comparison of the health care systems in Canada and the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The difference is some Canadians have to wait. In the US some people don't have to wait, they know they're not getting anything. I'm not saying Canada's healthcare is amazing. I'm saying the US has some very good, and very expensive, hospitals paid for out of a massive healthcare budget (which includes what people spend on insurance, maybe i'm not using the right term) and also it leaves many people behind.

The problem in the US is the money that is spent, doesn't equal the success it has on the overall population. A sparkling hospital might be great for those with great health insurance, but it isn't great for those who don't.

I agree 100%. But the point I tried to make is that all healthcare systems around the world have some sort of problem. If there was a perfect or near perfect system, we would all adopt it.

While there are plenty of negatives in our system, there are negatives in other systems--just different types of negatives. I talk to Canadian truck drivers all the time while waiting to get loaded or unloaded. One of the first things I ask them about is their healthcare system.

The younger and middle-aged drivers tell me their system is fantastic. They need a doctor, they see one and don't have to worry too much about insurance or advanced care. The elderly drivers? They all told me the same thing: Keep what you have in America. You don't want what we have to put up with.

The Wiki article I posted also points out something that you probably haven't thought of, and that is WE DO have socialized healthcare. We have Medicare, we have Medicaid, we have the VA, all of which have had (and still have) some major problems--particularly when it comes to funding. Commie Care? Even though the program just started, they are already having major problems such as huge premium increases and insurance companies talking about dropping out of the system already.

Actually your first statement that the US would adopt something if it were near perfect, I'm not so sure. The system is perfect for some, they're able to make a lot of money out of it, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and so on. If you tried to change the US system (Obamacare didn't threaten either of those) then you'd have a big fight on your hands. You saw the fight over Obamacare, this other fight would be something quite different.

The problem with healthcare has always been that it is, like education, something essential for life. Poor people need it, and poor people often need more healthcare than they would be able to afford. If you go to a developing country like China, busting a gut to make it into the developed world, they spend about 2% of GDP on healthcare. If you need it, you pay for it. A Chinese friend of mine's dad nearly died on Halloween and they took him to hospital and he wasn't allowed to move, he had a clot on the brain, nurses would be around from 8am to 11am. If the patient needed anything else between that time, it was her and her mother who did it. Her mother took time off work, my friend slept in the hospital over night then worked in the day.

So not providing enough causes such problems that are a major inconvenience on the whole family. So you spend more money so this isn't the case. But then maybe you spend so much that people end up using too much of the system. It's a balance.

Insurance companies are a major problem in the US in general. They're in it for profit, and this means people pay for healthcare AND for profit. That part of the industry needs a massive reform, but won't happen, too many fingers in the pie, too much money they'd spend on making sure politicians (who are supposedly there to represent the people) taking part of that money to keep themselves in the game.

Sure insurance companies are in it for profit. So are the doctors, the nurses, the staff, the hospitals and clinics. Nobody works for free.

A true story here to explain what I've seen:

I used to be in the home medical care business where I delivered and repaired home medical equipment for ten years. Our company decided to open up a pharmacy which required a pharmacist sanctioned by the government to oversee the construction.

After our weekly Monday morning meeting, we all met at the coffee pot as usual and began discussing other issues. At the time (early 80's) UPS was on strike. As our discussion unfolded about the strike, our newest employee--the pharmacist, turned red in the face with anger and abruptly turned and walked away. We didn't know WTF was up. We barely knew her.

Well the coffee club broke up and as usual, I was the last one there. That's when the pharmacist returned. In her hand was her pharmacist magazine, and she highlighted the discussion we were having about the UPS strike.

Her article pointed out how senior UPS drivers made around 55K per year plus benefits. A pharmacist at the time was averaging about 63K per year. After I read the article and handed the magazine back to her, she angrily said "Do you know what I went through to become a pharmacist???? Do you know what my parents went through???? And these &^%& at UPS have the nerve to go on strike???? If I were a kid again today, do you think I would have spent all that time and money in college only to make a few grand less than the clown that drops off boxes at our door????"

The only way to attract people to a profession is to pay them much more than a UPS guy or any other overpaying union employee at the time. And that's exactly what happened. We experienced a void in medical staff and had to drastically increase their wages to get them to work.

That's just one of problems that resulted in our ever increasing costs of healthcare today and the in the last few decades.

There's a difference between being in it for a decent wage, and being in it for profit. I'm making a distinction here because profit can often be something good in capitalism, pushing things forward, making things better in order to achieve that profit.

However it doesn't seem to work in the health industry. At the higher end of things it does. At the end which says some rich fat cat wants to go into hospital, no doubt their experience is going to be more positive than other people's similar experiences.

However profit within insurance companies, is it necessary? How is it that other countries manage to do away with this, and still have a similar experience? The UK simply doesn't have this, for the NHS, you don't need that layer of bureaucracy collecting money and then handing out less money. You don't need people to prove to a doctor that they're ill, THEN prove to an insurance company that they're ill too.

You don't need it where the customer pays someone, who then hands out money to the provider. This sort of thing leads to the ability to corrupt.

Your story, I see the point, however I don't see how this relates to the discussion. Yes, people need to be paid what they're worth.

Now, a nurse gets paid X amount. In the UK the money comes from the government.
In the US the money goes from the customer, to the insurance company, who take a slice, then to the hospital who take a slice, and others are taking slices off this too, like pharma companies (okay, it happens in the UK, but at a much lower rate), and then the money goes to the nurse.

Why should the nurse be earning for doing a health job, but some bureaucrat in an insurance company doing something completely unnecessary getting a wage that might even be higher than the nurse's wage?

Health Insurance Industry Salary, Average Salaries | PayScale

Nurse case manager gets $69,000 a year, on average.
Senior Business Manager gets $75,000 a year, on average.
Case manager gets $65,000 a year on average.

Registered Nurse (RN) Salary

Nurses

Entry level $52,000
Mid Career $60,000
Experienced $64,000
Late career $68,000

So, a nurse will get LESS than a Senior business manager, or Nurse case manager on average, and about the same as a case manager. And for what? One provides the essentials, the other leeches off of the system and does nothing useful.

Isn't this a massive problem with the US system? Why does the system cost so much? Because you have to pay for unnecessary layers, which provide massive opportunities for corruption too.

So if 30% goes in corruption, how much goes on unnecessary bureaucracy?

The first and most obvious place to start is with our advanced education. When you invest years of your life and hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans that you have to repay, of course you need to make a pretty good salary to make that investment worth it. I know, I have a niece and nephew that went through college. I know what they are going through as well as my sister who also borrowed a lot of money for their education.

Just to give you an example, an entry level nurse (that you posted) makes about as much as a person in my field of work--a truck driver. I may be wrong, but I believe that an RN has to go to college full time for four years to earn that degree. Would you rather do that or drive a truck for nearly the same money?

So I think college is the culprit behind some of these wages. Next of course is the socialized systems we already have. Look......if we are going to have these systems, we need to pay for them so the losses from these programs don't bleed into the private insurance payments.

So while not a total solution, we first need to rope in these college fees. Next we need to double our medicare contributions which include our employers matching contributions so that they can pay the entire bill for their patients. Either that or scrap the entire thing. Have a socialized medical care system that is funded through a national consumption tax.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I understand your point, however you don't need to convince me that an educated work force is the most productive or the best for our country as a whole. You already convinced me of that. My issue is who pays for it.

As I stated earlier, we pay the most per capita for our education system and get mediocre results as your chart shows. If you ask any Democrat for a solution to our poor education system, their answer is we need more money for it. More money????? Really????

So where would that money come from? The same place it comes from now--my pocket. So what's the new excuse these past few years for our failed school system? Class sizes too large. Can you believe that???

What Democrats want to do is reduce class size. When you do that, you need more teachers. More teachers means more union members. Unions contribute almost exclusively to the Democrat party and politicians come election time. More union due payers means more money to contribute to elections. So it seems we will never solve this problem.

Who should pay for it? Well, those who benefit from it.

Who benefits from an educated workforce?

Firstly businesses. They have the workforce from which to choose workers. They could move their business to another country, for example, but they don't. Why? Because they clearly benefit from what they have.

Secondly workers. A) they have the opportunity for a free education to be able to get jobs that require an education, and B), as I've said before, they get a higher salary from having an educated workforce around them. They also benefit from better healthcare because of the educated workforce, they benefit from more stability and security.

You see with areas with poor education that security is often not as high as areas with higher education levels. If education levels in inner cities were higher, the problems there would be reduced.

Everyone benefits from education, regardless of whether they have no children or ten children going through the system.

So why shouldn't people pay for this improved and better society?

The point about how much people pay for education and what you get out of it is something different.

Firstly, is the US education system mediocre? Like I said, far eastern education systems are just a hell hole of learn learn learn, and not learning things that are necessarily useful.
You ask a Chinese child to debate something, they're going to sit in silence and then not come up with anything, unless they've already got this aptitude already. Is their education good? Well, it teaches them to work hard. Well those who can. Some kids can't and they get buried by the system. They're so tired all the time they never have the ability to learn at all and fall so far behind. A good system? No, I don't think so.
The US system has some positives. It does focus more on improving the mind, but doesn't have any real direction. The direction of where the country wants its young people to go, what jobs does it want from them in the future, what SKILLS will they need in the future. This is a big problem and I think in the future it will be even more of a problem. Robot jobs will go to those in the far east, some countries in places like Europe are developing skills for other jobs. Where will Americans fit?

There is also the point of unions in the US, they're a pain in the ass, they're preventing education moving forward as much as the politicians, it's a big political game, and unless people start voting for issues that are important for the people, rather than politicians, it will always be the same. Ie, if the reps and dems are still in power in 50 years time, we're fucked.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I understand your point, however you don't need to convince me that an educated work force is the most productive or the best for our country as a whole. You already convinced me of that. My issue is who pays for it.

As I stated earlier, we pay the most per capita for our education system and get mediocre results as your chart shows. If you ask any Democrat for a solution to our poor education system, their answer is we need more money for it. More money????? Really????

So where would that money come from? The same place it comes from now--my pocket. So what's the new excuse these past few years for our failed school system? Class sizes too large. Can you believe that???

What Democrats want to do is reduce class size. When you do that, you need more teachers. More teachers means more union members. Unions contribute almost exclusively to the Democrat party and politicians come election time. More union due payers means more money to contribute to elections. So it seems we will never solve this problem.

Who should pay for it? Well, those who benefit from it.

Who benefits from an educated workforce?

Firstly businesses. They have the workforce from which to choose workers. They could move their business to another country, for example, but they don't. Why? Because they clearly benefit from what they have.

Secondly workers. A) they have the opportunity for a free education to be able to get jobs that require an education, and B), as I've said before, they get a higher salary from having an educated workforce around them. They also benefit from better healthcare because of the educated workforce, they benefit from more stability and security.

You see with areas with poor education that security is often not as high as areas with higher education levels. If education levels in inner cities were higher, the problems there would be reduced.

Everyone benefits from education, regardless of whether they have no children or ten children going through the system.

So why shouldn't people pay for this improved and better society?

The point about how much people pay for education and what you get out of it is something different.

Firstly, is the US education system mediocre? Like I said, far eastern education systems are just a hell hole of learn learn learn, and not learning things that are necessarily useful.
You ask a Chinese child to debate something, they're going to sit in silence and then not come up with anything, unless they've already got this aptitude already. Is their education good? Well, it teaches them to work hard. Well those who can. Some kids can't and they get buried by the system. They're so tired all the time they never have the ability to learn at all and fall so far behind. A good system? No, I don't think so.
The US system has some positives. It does focus more on improving the mind, but doesn't have any real direction. The direction of where the country wants its young people to go, what jobs does it want from them in the future, what SKILLS will they need in the future. This is a big problem and I think in the future it will be even more of a problem. Robot jobs will go to those in the far east, some countries in places like Europe are developing skills for other jobs. Where will Americans fit?

There is also the point of unions in the US, they're a pain in the ass, they're preventing education moving forward as much as the politicians, it's a big political game, and unless people start voting for issues that are important for the people, rather than politicians, it will always be the same. Ie, if the reps and dems are still in power in 50 years time, we're fucked.

I totally disagree. If you want to make the point of how society benefits, society benefits when we all go to work regardless if we have an education or not. The person that benefits from an education is the individual.....just like an individual that invests in his or her own company or investments. My tax dollars don't go to fund companies or investments, and that's why my tax dollars should not go to pay for the education of other children. It should be up to the parent(s) to make that investment for their own children.

Free college! There is another brilliant idea. Would society benefit by that too? Of course you can stretch and make that argument. But after I pay for a persons education for let's say a doctor, afterwards when I see that doctor, he's going to charge me $200.00 for an office visit on top of what I paid for his education. Or a lawyer, or an engineer, or an accountant.............

 

[frigidweirdo]

The first and most obvious place to start is with our advanced education. When you invest years of your life and hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans that you have to repay, of course you need to make a pretty good salary to make that investment worth it. I know, I have a niece and nephew that went through college. I know what they are going through as well as my sister who also borrowed a lot of money for their education.

Just to give you an example, an entry level nurse (that you posted) makes about as much as a person in my field of work--a truck driver. I may be wrong, but I believe that an RN has to go to college full time for four years to earn that degree. Would you rather do that or drive a truck for nearly the same money?

So I think college is the culprit behind some of these wages. Next of course is the socialized systems we already have. Look......if we are going to have these systems, we need to pay for them so the losses from these programs don't bleed into the private insurance payments.

So while not a total solution, we first need to rope in these college fees. Next we need to double our medicare contributions which include our employers matching contributions so that they can pay the entire bill for their patients. Either that or scrap the entire thing. Have a socialized medical care system that is funded through a national consumption tax.

Yes, I agree. College fees are ridiculous. I've been to universities all over the place, the US has universities that look really good, all sorts of facilities.

I knew a girl from Iowa who went to Swansea University for a 5 or 6 month jaunt there. The university had the second best soccer team in the country. Their sports "facilities" was a football pitch that was constantly waterlogged (it rains a lot in Swansea) with no seating capacity at all. it was grass, goalposts, some lines and there were some changing facility area close by too.

Sports isn't a big part of university life. They don't pay for massive scholarships for top sports people (scholarships are available for some things, but not sports where you'll make a career out of it). Soccer players go to soccer clubs and they pay for their training, not universities leeching off of students.

Football, basketball etc should be paying for all of that training, none should be put on students.

And all the golf carts, all the nice gardening that goes on, is it worth it? No it isn't.

By double medical spending? Instead root out all the corruption, all the unnecessary levels of bureaucracy that leech, and then you'll have a system worth talking about.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Well, I'm going to disagree. Kids who are needy need something, but giving the money to their parents isn't necessarily the best way of going about it.

Parents generally know better than big government what their kids need.

If kids need food, then give them food, at school or somewhere where they can get DECENT FOOD and regularly.

We do give them food at school.

School is closed on the weekends and during the summer.


Maybe you didn't know that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I understand your point, however you don't need to convince me that an educated work force is the most productive or the best for our country as a whole. You already convinced me of that. My issue is who pays for it.

As I stated earlier, we pay the most per capita for our education system and get mediocre results as your chart shows. If you ask any Democrat for a solution to our poor education system, their answer is we need more money for it. More money????? Really????

So where would that money come from? The same place it comes from now--my pocket. So what's the new excuse these past few years for our failed school system? Class sizes too large. Can you believe that???

What Democrats want to do is reduce class size. When you do that, you need more teachers. More teachers means more union members. Unions contribute almost exclusively to the Democrat party and politicians come election time. More union due payers means more money to contribute to elections. So it seems we will never solve this problem.

Who should pay for it? Well, those who benefit from it.

Who benefits from an educated workforce?

Firstly businesses. They have the workforce from which to choose workers. They could move their business to another country, for example, but they don't. Why? Because they clearly benefit from what they have.

Secondly workers. A) they have the opportunity for a free education to be able to get jobs that require an education, and B), as I've said before, they get a higher salary from having an educated workforce around them. They also benefit from better healthcare because of the educated workforce, they benefit from more stability and security.

You see with areas with poor education that security is often not as high as areas with higher education levels. If education levels in inner cities were higher, the problems there would be reduced.

Everyone benefits from education, regardless of whether they have no children or ten children going through the system.

So why shouldn't people pay for this improved and better society?

The point about how much people pay for education and what you get out of it is something different.

Firstly, is the US education system mediocre? Like I said, far eastern education systems are just a hell hole of learn learn learn, and not learning things that are necessarily useful.
You ask a Chinese child to debate something, they're going to sit in silence and then not come up with anything, unless they've already got this aptitude already. Is their education good? Well, it teaches them to work hard. Well those who can. Some kids can't and they get buried by the system. They're so tired all the time they never have the ability to learn at all and fall so far behind. A good system? No, I don't think so.
The US system has some positives. It does focus more on improving the mind, but doesn't have any real direction. The direction of where the country wants its young people to go, what jobs does it want from them in the future, what SKILLS will they need in the future. This is a big problem and I think in the future it will be even more of a problem. Robot jobs will go to those in the far east, some countries in places like Europe are developing skills for other jobs. Where will Americans fit?

There is also the point of unions in the US, they're a pain in the ass, they're preventing education moving forward as much as the politicians, it's a big political game, and unless people start voting for issues that are important for the people, rather than politicians, it will always be the same. Ie, if the reps and dems are still in power in 50 years time, we're fucked.

I totally disagree. If you want to make the point of how society benefits, society benefits when we all go to work regardless if we have an education or not. The person that benefits from an education is the individual.....just like an individual that invests in his or her own company or investments. My tax dollars don't go to fund companies or investments, and that's why my tax dollars should not go to pay for the education of other children. It should be up to the parent(s) to make that investment for their own children.

Free college! There is another brilliant idea. Would society benefit by that too? Of course you can stretch and make that argument. But after I pay for a persons education for let's say a doctor, afterwards when I see that doctor, he's going to charge me $200.00 for an office visit on top of what I paid for his education. Or a lawyer, or an engineer, or an accountant.............

If everyone goes to work without an education, you're looking at a place like Africa. They don't benefit from much of an education, and they don't have a high GDP, which means many people simply are poor.

An individual can benefit from an education. However if someone goes to school until they're 16 years old, bails out and then goes work in McDonalds. In the US they'll earn, what, $9 an hour. More?
In China you could do the same thing and earn $2 an hour for the same thing.

What's the difference? Why does a US worker earn more? Okay, costs are higher which means at the end of it they both might be stretched. However a US work save 10% of their wage, they're going to have more spare cash than a Chinese worker. The US worker is benefiting from an educated workforce.

Then compare them to someone in Africa and you see it even more clearly. The McDonalds worker in the US would be selling vegetables from a basket in many African countries, earning maybe, hopefully, enough to eat that day.

They could easily go to the US and work in McDonalds, they have the skills, they can speak, they can count to 10 like most other McDonald's workers.

University education, should it be free? No, I don't think so. I don't think it should be too expensive either. I think university education is not essential. In other countries too many people go to university and then a degree becomes nothing. It's just an added layer of education that isn't important for the job.

Engineering is important to go to university.
However many degrees, like English, History, whatever, they don't add much to the skills needed for a specific job.

So, scholarships for essential degrees, degrees that the country needs and only to those who can't afford to go to college.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, I'm going to disagree. Kids who are needy need something, but giving the money to their parents isn't necessarily the best way of going about it.

Parents generally know better than big government what their kids need.

If kids need food, then give them food, at school or somewhere where they can get DECENT FOOD and regularly.

We do give them food at school.

School is closed on the weekends and during the summer.


Maybe you didn't know that.

Parents might know better on one level what their kids need. But teachers often know what kids need when it comes to educating them about things they need to know later in their life.

Yeah, school is closed at certain times. And at those times some kids suffer quite a bit. So what will politicians do about it? Nothing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, I'm going to disagree. Kids who are needy need something, but giving the money to their parents isn't necessarily the best way of going about it.

Parents generally know better than big government what their kids need.

If kids need food, then give them food, at school or somewhere where they can get DECENT FOOD and regularly.

We do give them food at school.

School is closed on the weekends and during the summer.


Maybe you didn't know that.

Parents might know better on one level what their kids need. But teachers often know what kids need when it comes to educating them about things they need to know later in their life.

Yeah, school is closed at certain times. And at those times some kids suffer quite a bit. So what will politicians do about it? Nothing.

If that's the case, then the politicians should be taking those children away from those parents.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, I'm going to disagree. Kids who are needy need something, but giving the money to their parents isn't necessarily the best way of going about it.

Parents generally know better than big government what their kids need.

If kids need food, then give them food, at school or somewhere where they can get DECENT FOOD and regularly.

We do give them food at school.

School is closed on the weekends and during the summer.


Maybe you didn't know that.

Not all schools. In liberal land like California (I believe) not only do taxpayers feed these kids at school, they give them breakfast, lunch and dinner. In the summer, the school cafeteria stays open for those kids; same on weekends.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, I'm going to disagree. Kids who are needy need something, but giving the money to their parents isn't necessarily the best way of going about it.

Parents generally know better than big government what their kids need.

If kids need food, then give them food, at school or somewhere where they can get DECENT FOOD and regularly.

We do give them food at school.

School is closed on the weekends and during the summer.


Maybe you didn't know that.

Parents might know better on one level what their kids need. But teachers often know what kids need when it comes to educating them about things they need to know later in their life.

Yeah, school is closed at certain times. And at those times some kids suffer quite a bit. So what will politicians do about it? Nothing.

If that's the case, then the politicians should be taking those children away from those parents.

Should, but may not. Often a lot of things go on that don't get found out.

 

[dcraelin]

I understand your point, however you don't need to convince me that an educated work force is the most productive or the best for our country as a whole. You already convinced me of that. My issue is who pays for it.

As I stated earlier, we pay the most per capita for our education system and get mediocre results as your chart shows. If you ask any Democrat for a solution to our poor education system, their answer is we need more money for it. More money????? Really????

So where would that money come from? The same place it comes from now--my pocket. So what's the new excuse these past few years for our failed school system? Class sizes too large. Can you believe that???

What Democrats want to do is reduce class size. When you do that, you need more teachers. More teachers means more union members. Unions contribute almost exclusively to the Democrat party and politicians come election time. More union due payers means more money to contribute to elections. So it seems we will never solve this problem.

Who should pay for it? Well, those who benefit from it.

Who benefits from an educated workforce?

Firstly businesses. They have the workforce from which to choose workers. They could move their business to another country, for example, but they don't. Why? Because they clearly benefit from what they have.

Secondly workers. A) they have the opportunity for a free education to be able to get jobs that require an education, and B), as I've said before, they get a higher salary from having an educated workforce around them. They also benefit from better healthcare because of the educated workforce, they benefit from more stability and security.

You see with areas with poor education that security is often not as high as areas with higher education levels. If education levels in inner cities were higher, the problems there would be reduced.

Everyone benefits from education, regardless of whether they have no children or ten children going through the system.

So why shouldn't people pay for this improved and better society?

The point about how much people pay for education and what you get out of it is something different.

Firstly, is the US education system mediocre? Like I said, far eastern education systems are just a hell hole of learn learn learn, and not learning things that are necessarily useful.
You ask a Chinese child to debate something, they're going to sit in silence and then not come up with anything, unless they've already got this aptitude already. Is their education good? Well, it teaches them to work hard. Well those who can. Some kids can't and they get buried by the system. They're so tired all the time they never have the ability to learn at all and fall so far behind. A good system? No, I don't think so.
The US system has some positives. It does focus more on improving the mind, but doesn't have any real direction. The direction of where the country wants its young people to go, what jobs does it want from them in the future, what SKILLS will they need in the future. This is a big problem and I think in the future it will be even more of a problem. Robot jobs will go to those in the far east, some countries in places like Europe are developing skills for other jobs. Where will Americans fit?

There is also the point of unions in the US, they're a pain in the ass, they're preventing education moving forward as much as the politicians, it's a big political game, and unless people start voting for issues that are important for the people, rather than politicians, it will always be the same. Ie, if the reps and dems are still in power in 50 years time, we're fucked.

certainly agree with the last sentence

 

[kaz]

Then again the times are changing AWAY from repressive policies, not towards

Four words: O ba ma care

Are you insane?

Insane? No, I support a health system which is basically funded out of money from the government, that's available for all, that has a lot less corruption than the US system.

People talk about smaller govt, yet the US spent the same amount on healthcare as the UK, even though Americans had to have private health insurance and the British don't.

I'm not saying Obamacare is great, the actual thing is rubbish, but it's a step in the right direction.

You're not insane, you just want a health system funded by government with low corruption. So in other word's you're not insane, you're completely, drooling nuts

 

[kaz]

Then again the times are changing AWAY from repressive policies, not towards

Four words: O ba ma care

Are you insane?

Insane? No, I support a health system which is basically funded out of money from the government, that's available for all, that has a lot less corruption than the US system.

People talk about smaller govt, yet the US spent the same amount on healthcare as the UK, even though Americans had to have private health insurance and the British don't.

I'm not saying Obamacare is great, the actual thing is rubbish, but it's a step in the right direction.

Not in the right direction for those who want nothing to do with legalized extortion...

WOuld you say that universal healthcare, paid for by the govt, is "legalized extortion"?

Because someone else has to pay for it and government has to extort the money from us

 

[kaz]

Then again the times are changing AWAY from repressive policies, not towards

Four words: O ba ma care

Are you insane?

Insane? No, I support a health system which is basically funded out of money from the government, that's available for all, that has a lot less corruption than the US system.

People talk about smaller govt, yet the US spent the same amount on healthcare as the UK, even though Americans had to have private health insurance and the British don't.

I'm not saying Obamacare is great, the actual thing is rubbish, but it's a step in the right direction.

It is, huh?

Well according to the Obama Care people, they signed up over 12 million Americans although that's been disputed and it's actually more around 10 million. That's 10 million more government dependents. How much of a larger government can you get than that?

You mean, you're pissed because 10 million people have HEALTHCARE? Are you fucking serious?

Yes, when government robs us, obviously we are OK with that. It's just that we don't want them to have the insurance. Are you fucking stupid?

 

[kaz]

Four words: O ba ma care

Are you insane?

Insane? No, I support a health system which is basically funded out of money from the government, that's available for all, that has a lot less corruption than the US system.

People talk about smaller govt, yet the US spent the same amount on healthcare as the UK, even though Americans had to have private health insurance and the British don't.

I'm not saying Obamacare is great, the actual thing is rubbish, but it's a step in the right direction.

Not in the right direction for those who want nothing to do with legalized extortion...

WOuld you say that universal healthcare, paid for by the govt, is "legalized extortion"?

Someone has to pay for all the freebies, l just pay for my own way.
I have no right to healthcare, but I do have an right to earn my own healthcare...

And again, I believe in universal healthcare paid for by the government.

You pay your way, and you also pay massively for the corruption. They estimate about 30% of healthcare spending goes on corruption. The govt pays half, you pay half.

Assume you take the slack for the corruption, that means 60% of what you pay in health insurance goes on corruption and 40% of healthcare.

You're happy with that?

So you want government to manage healthcare to REDUCE corruption. OMG, that's so naive it's adorable. I wish I lived in your fantasy world, it sounds wonderful