Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Pay for service gives an incentive for service providers to provide more treatments because payment is dependent on the quantity of services, rather than quality. It simply increases cost.Because they are believing an emotional argument instead of a logical one. If people thought about it, they would realize that in order to get health care someone has to provide it to them. Logically, we don't have a right to other people's labor. That would be called slavery. But people don't think about it logically. They think about it emotionally.
Then logically, i.e., by what you call logic, education should be available only to those who can afford it.
Yes absolutely. Now I support Charities that give out help to those in need, and are willing to work for those supports.
But, yes, the pay-for-service model always works better.
Just look at the difference between public schools and private schools. Look at the difference between K-12, verses higher education.
Our public socialized 'free to all' K-12 is one of the most expensive, least effective systems in all the world. Our students are failing to match school systems by 3rd world former Soviet Bloc countries. Many of which, spend a fraction of the money we do, and teach fewer years than we do.
On the opposite extreme, is our higher education system, which is still largely a capitalist based 'pay-for-service' system, and today the best higher education schools throughout the world, are mostly here in the US. Students travel from all over the world, to get education and training, at our schools.
Do you think that's random? Or accidental? Take a look at Chile. They reformed their schools into a pay for service model. Likely the most capitalist based education system in all South America. And while it's true they are still lagging behind the OECD, the're education rates are leading all of South America, while being surrounded by countries with 'free to all' socialized education.
The fact the capitalist 'pay for service' system is better, is universally true.
It's not what I think it means, it's what our Founding Fathers meant it.Just as I thought, you have no clue what they meant.
But you are all for abortion? hypocrite
Who the hell are you? You haven't even said what you believe it means. And I am not 'all for abortion'. But I am not the one that will make that decision. And NEITHER should you be the one to make that decision.
Life.....a person's right to his own life, to be able to live his life, to be able to enjoy his life and the support of it.
Liberty....the right to live your life without interference from government coercion
Pursuit of happiness..... a person's right to choose what constitutes what makes him happy. To be able to work to achieve his happiness. As long as it doesn't infringe on others right to do the same.
Don't tell me what I should or shouldn't believe regarding abortion. Abortion is snuffing out a human life. hypocrite
It's not what I think it means, it's what our Founding Fathers meant it.Who the hell are you? You haven't even said what you believe it means. And I am not 'all for abortion'. But I am not the one that will make that decision. And NEITHER should you be the one to make that decision.
Life.....a person's right to his own life, to be able to live his life, to be able to enjoy his life and the support of it.
Liberty....the right to live your life without interference from government coercion
Pursuit of happiness..... a person's right to choose what constitutes what makes him happy. To be able to work to achieve his happiness. As long as it doesn't infringe on others right to do the same.
Don't tell me what I should or shouldn't believe regarding abortion. Abortion is snuffing out a human life. hypocrite
And your source is? It's your tiny little self absorbed brain, isn't it?
You can 'believe' whatever you wish about abortion, but if you ACT to deny a woman her right to decide, you are now PERSONALLY responsible to pay for any and all financial burdens and personally liable for any harm your totalitarian dictum creates.
It's not what I think it means, it's what our Founding Fathers meant it.
Life.....a person's right to his own life, to be able to live his life, to be able to enjoy his life and the support of it.
Liberty....the right to live your life without interference from government coercion
Pursuit of happiness..... a person's right to choose what constitutes what makes him happy. To be able to work to achieve his happiness. As long as it doesn't infringe on others right to do the same.
Don't tell me what I should or shouldn't believe regarding abortion. Abortion is snuffing out a human life. hypocrite
And your source is? It's your tiny little self absorbed brain, isn't it?
You can 'believe' whatever you wish about abortion, but if you ACT to deny a woman her right to decide, you are now PERSONALLY responsible to pay for any and all financial burdens and personally liable for any harm your totalitarian dictum creates.
Why don't you use that pea brain of yours ( if it's capable ) and do your own research, dumb ass. I am very confident you won't find your morphed interpretation from the Founding Fathers.
why don't you grow a soul
why don't you grow a soul
What are you even talking about? Killing human life, or what the Founding Fathers meant by Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness?
Damn, you're simple minded.
Pay for service gives an incentive for service providers to provide more treatments because payment is dependent on the quantity of services, rather than quality. It simply increases cost.
BTW Contrary to popular opinion, there is no evidence that private schools increases student achievement over public schools. Private schools simply have higher percentages of students who would perform well in any environment.
why don't you grow a soul
What are you even talking about? Killing human life, or what the Founding Fathers meant by Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness?
Damn, you're simple minded.
why don't you grow a soul
What are you even talking about? Killing human life, or what the Founding Fathers meant by Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness?
Damn, you're simple minded.
It has NOTHING to do with human "life" and certainly nothing to do with liberty or the pursuit of happiness as far as abortion goes with you right wing scum. YOU want to decide what a woman's happiness is; barefoot and pregnant. It is all about controlling a woman's life and making a woman subservient to men. A vessel.
You could care less about a fertilized egg. You have ZERO regard for the crawling and the walking.
What are you even talking about? Killing human life, or what the Founding Fathers meant by Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness?
Damn, you're simple minded.
It has NOTHING to do with human "life" and certainly nothing to do with liberty or the pursuit of happiness as far as abortion goes with you right wing scum. YOU want to decide what a woman's happiness is; barefoot and pregnant. It is all about controlling a woman's life and making a woman subservient to men. A vessel.
You could care less about a fertilized egg. You have ZERO regard for the crawling and the walking.
Pea brain, go back to our first discussion....you have spun what it was like you've spun the Founding Fathers words.
I have no idea why you would post this, it pretty much goes against your previous posts.It has NOTHING to do with human "life" and certainly nothing to do with liberty or the pursuit of happiness as far as abortion goes with you right wing scum. YOU want to decide what a woman's happiness is; barefoot and pregnant. It is all about controlling a woman's life and making a woman subservient to men. A vessel.
You could care less about a fertilized egg. You have ZERO regard for the crawling and the walking.
Pea brain, go back to our first discussion....you have spun what it was like you've spun the Founding Fathers words.
"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Thomas Jefferson to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).
The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809).
"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482
"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29
"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393
"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258
"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465
I have no idea why you would post this, it pretty much goes against your previous posts.Pea brain, go back to our first discussion....you have spun what it was like you've spun the Founding Fathers words.
"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Thomas Jefferson to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).
The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809).
"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482
"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29
"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393
"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258
"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465
Sounds like health care is settled. Jefferson believed and some of the founders believed and it's now part of the American package. What would liberals do without their Jefferson?
Then why is Chiles private school system out performing all the nations around them, with identical people and culture? All the other Latin American countries have 100% free public schools, and Chile has almost 100% private pay for service schools.
Sounds like health care is settled. Jefferson believed and some of the founders believed and it's now part of the American package. What would liberals do without their Jefferson?
He may have said some of those things after he went bankrupt.
Then why is Chiles private school system out performing all the nations around them, with identical people and culture? All the other Latin American countries have 100% free public schools, and Chile has almost 100% private pay for service schools.
Your information is not correct. Chili has private and public schools as do other Latin American countries. In Chili, 60% of the school system is private and 40% is public. They are 50th in the world according the 2012 PISA rankings. The US is 9% private schools and ranks 35th. In the top 5 countries, less than 10% of the students attend private schools.
The rankings aren't related to how schools are financed. The most important factor that accounts for the difference in rankings are the educational goals. In the US we provide 12 years of education for every student in a broad range of subjects. In many of the countries that rank higher than the US, only 8 years of education is required, 6 years in some countries. After that point students must qualify for admission to high school which is where PISA does the test comparisons. Those that don't qualify are funneled into vocational programs or allowed to drop out of school. Countries like the US that provide a broad range education for all students are at a distinct disadvantage. If the US allowed students to drop out of school after the 8th grade and required students to qualify for high school, our PISA scores would be near the top of list. Even if every school in the US was a private school, we would score low compared to many other countries because we have different educational goals.
Key findings - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Education in Chile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I believe most people feel that every child has right to healthcare and a right to an education whether their parents can afford it or not.
The voucher system in Chili which subsidizes 85% of the private schools does not pay the full cost of private school. As a result, most of the vouchers have been issued to wealthy and upper middle class students. Although the government's cost of education has gone down, the cost of private schools has gone up. A large part of savings has not come from the voucher system but rather the elimination of government grants to college students and reduce government support for state supported universities. Most important the promised improvement in student performance has not occurred. Chili's vouchers system has reduced government cost of education while increasing the family cost without any significantly increase in student performance.Then why is Chiles private school system out performing all the nations around them, with identical people and culture? All the other Latin American countries have 100% free public schools, and Chile has almost 100% private pay for service schools.
Your information is not correct. Chili has private and public schools as do other Latin American countries. In Chili, 60% of the school system is private and 40% is public. They are 50th in the world according the 2012 PISA rankings. The US is 9% private schools and ranks 35th. In the top 5 countries, less than 10% of the students attend private schools.
The rankings aren't related to how schools are financed. The most important factor that accounts for the difference in rankings are the educational goals. In the US we provide 12 years of education for every student in a broad range of subjects. In many of the countries that rank higher than the US, only 8 years of education is required, 6 years in some countries. After that point students must qualify for admission to high school which is where PISA does the test comparisons. Those that don't qualify are funneled into vocational programs or allowed to drop out of school. Countries like the US that provide a broad range education for all students are at a distinct disadvantage. If the US allowed students to drop out of school after the 8th grade and required students to qualify for high school, our PISA scores would be near the top of list. Even if every school in the US was a private school, we would score low compared to many other countries because we have different educational goals.
Key findings - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Education in Chile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I believe most people feel that every child has right to healthcare and a right to an education whether their parents can afford it or not.
Sorry for the long post, but you'll find I tend to go 'all out' when I respond. My bad on this book report.
First off... this isn't about "people feel". I don't care what people feel. People felt that borrowing money until they go broke, and get foreclosed on, was a great plan before 2008. What they 'feel' and what is good, is often very different.
Second... You are correct. I thought they had eliminated public schools. I was wrong. They still exist, but they are horrible. Everyone is trying to get into private schools, because... private schools are better.
Third... Chile is 50th in the world.... so what? You are comparing Chile to the US? Apples and Oranges.
I didn't say Chile was leading the world, I said Chile was leading other similar Latin American Countries. Compare Apples to other Apples.
According to your own citation, the PISA rankings, Chile is ranked higher than:
Uruguray
Mexico
Brazil
Colombia
Argentina
Bolivia
Peru
Venezuela
Panama
Costa Rica
So back to my point.... As far as I am aware, all of those countries I just listed, all have free gov-education schools. And yet Chile, the one country with a fee-for-service capitalist based education system, is providing the best, highest quality education out of all those countries.
And back the US Pisa rankings. Yes, I know. That is the problem. We're NUMBER ONE in cost, but 36th in quality.
When you compare how much is spent on education, compared to the Mean PISA scores (2009 numbers), Finland which scored #1, was spending about 60% as much as we do, to achieve those scores. Estonia, which scored around 8th, was spending less than 40% as much as we blow on education, to get that ranking. We're spending more than nearly anyone else, and achieving less than even the OECD average.
Something is wrong, and you said it....
"Countries like the US that provide a broad range education for all students are at a distinct disadvantage. If the US allowed students to drop out of school after the 8th grade and required students to qualify for high school, our PISA scores would be near the top of list. Even if every school in the US was a private school, we would score low compared to many other countries because we have different educational goals."
Yes, I agree completely. The problem is our education goals SUCK.
Little background.... While there is nothing even remotely remarkable about myself, I did have these amazing things called "parents", who also both happen to have been public school teachers. My father was a high school teacher, and my mother taught 4th grade.
I know... (only from talking to them) precisely what the problem is, because they have told me. You have students who don't want to learn, have no interest in doing work, and you can't get rid of them. You send them to the office, and the office sends them right back. You tell them to get to work, and they blow you off. They disrupt the class, they disrupt your lessons.
At the exact same time, you are instructed by the school system to teach X... then teach Y.... then teach Z.... then teach something else, and in the mean time you are not teaching Math, and Reading, and Writing, and Sciences. Then you wonder why the kids come out knowing about the Ozone Layer, and have no idea how to work a calculator, while they are busy feeling up the girls in the next seat instead of doing their work.......?
(FYI, true story... I met a guy in 11th grade, who could not work a calculator. Literally... did not know how to divide 6 by 2 on the calculator)
And then you have the lack of good teachers. My father specifically retired early, because of exactly this stuff. He was told to teach a dozen different things, and found he didn't have time to teach the fundamentals, and then student test scores were falling, and he was tired of putting up with students who refused to work. He called it quits. My mother said she would have retired early, if she didn't already have 38 years, and just needed to hang in for another 2 to get full retirement.
Contrary to the garbage spewed by the Teachers Unions (which my father was the Union Rep for the school he was at, and admits this too) it's not a problem of pay. The problem is that between demanding teachers teach everything except the fundamentals, while complaining students are not learning the fundamentals, and at the exact same time, preventing teachers and schools from kicking out kids who absolutely will not learn, but will distract other students from learning.... these two things, which you yourself just admitted too, make teaching a miserable job for many people. The result is, you end up with awful teachers, because the good quality teachers, either retire, or quit and find a private school to teach at. (because private schools tend to focus on the fundamentals, and kids who disrupt class and refuse to learn, are quickly removed).
By the way, another true story. I was given the opportunity to tour some private schools while I was in 12th grade. I went to a private school, to a class of 8th graders. The 8th graders were learning the exact same thing in their class, that I was being taught in 12th grade. I'm a product of public edujamaction.
Because they are believing an emotional argument instead of a logical one. If people thought about it, they would realize that in order to get health care someone has to provide it to them. Logically, we don't have a right to other people's labor. That would be called slavery. But people don't think about it logically. They think about it emotionally.
According to the laws of nature, the only inalienable right that anyone has is the right to die.
The inalienable rights listed in the declaration of independence are derived from religious beliefs - they are "endowed by our creator". They are based on western civilization's concept of morality in a civilized society.
As society evolves, life's expectations evolve and our sense of morality evolves. For example: none of the major religions condemned slavery explicitly. Slavery was considered a normal oart of any civilization. Yet in modern times slavery is condemned as being undeniably immoral.
So the same holds true for health care. As society evolves our concept of inalienable rights evolves.
"governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Once a majority of the people determine that health care is a right then it will be a right.
The question should not be whether health care is a right, but given limited medical resources, what level of health care should be considered a right.
