Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

-Shrike- wrote:
America... If only you'd stayed with the Empire, then we might have given you our NHS!

Oh God no.

As someone who's lived with both, on both sides of the Atlantic, as someone who's had elderly relatives go through both systems with chronic illness, as someone who's worked for private medical insurance and the NHS, I can tell you, all of you Americans, that you'd be better served with state healthcare than the current system.

The NHS was an amazing thing, it's still fairly remarkable, even if the right wing in the UK is trying to dismantle it.

NHS might be a good think back on the island...

Here? Who knows how it'd work.

As someone who has family going through some tough health issues, I can tell you, we're getting that level of care that we'd need.

 cincydooley wrote:
Who said anything about you not contributing? All I said was how much I envied you for not having this piece of odious legislation forced upon you.

But if you'd like to read into it further, by all means dear, go ahead. Your perogative, not mine.

Who said anything about me not contributing. All I said was what a strange place it would be if we only commented on threads relevant to our own countries. If you'd like to read anything more in to that, lovechunks, then by all means go ahead.


In other words, we can both play that stupid game.

Tell me more! I love learning from you!

Oh you two!

 whembly wrote:
You think you're right... I know I'm right and that's that.

So one guy's plan speak for all party members? For all eternity now? Do you realize how ridiculous that is?

But it isn't just one guy's plan, is it? It was hardly rejected by the rest of the party... but instead argued as an alternative by party leaders during the Hillarycare reform attempt, and put in place at a state level by a Republican governor.

I mean, wouldn't you agree that Soro's MoveOn organization is very beneficial to the current makeup of the Democratic party? So, by your logic, every democrat is calling for arrest of GOP leadership on sedition charges... right? RIGHT?

Are you going to claim that calling for political opposition to be arrested for treason is a core element of the Democrats, or are you going to claim that market based solutions aren't a core element of the Republicans?

I mean, do you honestly not see the difference there?

And you don't see a problem with that is very telling.

You didn't read the whole thing, did you? You're just reading each bit as you respond to it, and it's causing you to miss what I actually said.

The sentence fragment you quoted was part of a larger text that read; "...but I'm pretty sure nothing you say will convince me that for some reason the Democrats just picked up the idiot ball and decided that somehow major healthcare reform, especially healthcare reform with a wide range of long term cost controls, was somehow a vote winner and that they wanted to own it entirely while politicising the proecess as much as possible. And that they'd do this with a structure with a form that was originally conceived of by a Republican think tank, had been argued for by major Republicans, but was something they wanted to keep the Republicans out of entirely."

The point being that the belief that Democrats wanted to shut Republicans out made no sense, because healthcare reform is simply not the kind of thing you want your party to take the full impact from, because it's pretty much guaranteed to be a vote loser.

Well... how's it looking for him now? How's it looking for the rest of the Democratic field? I've never thought it would reach to this point, but it's fast becoming an albatross for the Democratic party. Tell me how that's not true. I'll wait...

I don't disagree. I've always argued that the ACA reforms are necessary and an improvement, I've never said it.

I've read a few political opinion pieces argue that when ACA hit the ground it'd spell electoral doom for Republicans, but I never believed it myself, because healthcare simply doesn't win votes. Even the highest standard, free healthcare, is a sucky experience no-one wants to go through, because going to a doctor, finding out what's wrong with you, taking medication and treatment etc... it all just plain sucks. And what's more, medical systems are incredibly complex, so much so that people barely understand what treatment they can access now, let alone what they might have been denied under the old system.

This is why, as I said above, no-one wants to own healthcare. It's why the Democrats wanted to make it bi-partisan, so they didn't wear the negative impact alone. It's why the Republicans refused that and made the Democrats go it alone (which they only finally did when it became clear that they'd gone so far down this path that it would hurt even more to back off).

And that, as I said above, is why it's so laughable to hear claims that Democrats shut Republicans out of healthcare reform.

Correct. Because that's the function and intent of the filibuster.

Except not really, because the filbuster was written with the assumption that senators are reasonable men, only rejecting to a law out of principle. The idea that a party with 41 votes would demand a uniform filibuster from its members was never the intent of the rule.

And even if we do go with your RAW interpretation, then the procedural rules that allow the filibuster to be bypassed are just as acceptable. If reconciliation can be used to bypass a filibuster, then surely that must be the intent and function of reconciliation?

Uh... when did the word "compromise" become such a bad word with you? o.O

It isn't a bad word. Compromise is great, and the lifeblood of democracy. But compromise isn't fostered by a system where each party knows as long as it has 41 senate seats it can block anything indefinitely, and thereby force itself in to a position of exactly equal bargaining power with the other side.

Compromise is give and take, where that give and take is driven by the understanding that your level of power relative to the other side will wax and wane, and so the amount you have to give in order to take will wax and wane along with it. That system is created when the filibuster is rare and party members are able to cross the floor without being seen as a traitor by their own party.

Done.

Seriously, are you in favour of a system where either party, as long as it has just 41 seats in the senate, then it has equal bargaining power with the other side because it can just block everything until a deal is reached?

 sebster wrote:
Seriously, are you in favour of a system where either party, as long as it has just 41 seats in the senate, then it has equal bargaining power with the other side because it can just block everything until a deal is reached?

As opposed to tyranny of the majority?

 cincydooley wrote:
Tell me more! I love learning from you!

Oh no, don't claim you're learning from me. I'm not taking responsibility for the stuff you post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
As opposed to tyranny of the majority?

Just above that sentence just finished explaining my preferred system, that is nothing like tyranny of the majority.

Whatever happened to reading posts?

djones520 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

As someone who's lived with both, on both sides of the Atlantic, as someone who's had elderly relatives go through both systems with chronic illness, as someone who's worked for private medical insurance and the NHS, I can tell you, all of you Americans, that you'd be better served with state healthcare than the current system.

The NHS was an amazing thing, it's still fairly remarkable, even if the right wing in the UK is trying to dismantle it.

After this boondoggle, there is going to be some hard selling to convince me the government can run a program like that. Especially on such a significantly larger scale then your NHS runs, given our population disparities.

cincydooley wrote:
I'm pretty well served by my current insurance, thanks.

At this point I don't trust our government to lead a line or manage my fantasy team.

I sure as gak don't want them managing my health care.

whembly wrote:
NHS might be a good think back on the island...

Here? Who knows how it'd work.

As someone who has family going through some tough health issues, I can tell you, we're getting that level of care that we'd need.

And yet you are all entirely fine, presumably, with the notion of a state run, socialized military. Or do you think we should only have all private enterprise? Hire mercenaries for national protection? Only allow private schools, to charge whatever rate they decide is right, to educate as they see fit?

I would far, far rather trust a state healthcare provider than a profit driven insurer. I was also financially better off, by a sizable amount, in the UK rather than the US, if you include my private health insurance vs the national insurance contributions I made in the UK, especially when you then factor in copay and prescriptions. I would also like to remind you all that private medical care also exists in the Britain, if you want something non-urgent done fast, you can simply pay for it or use a private insurance to sort it.

Moving to Mass and only finding temporary contract work, I was without healthcare from my employer and it was only due to Romneycare that I could afford healthcare at all, if we were in another state, the wife and I would have had no healthcare, no insurance.

 sebster wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Tell me more! I love learning from you!

Oh no, don't claim you're learning from me. I'm not taking responsibility for the stuff you post.

But I've learned that you should just says whatever you want and if someone disagrees you just tell them they're wrong.

That's how it works, right?

And the key part is the condescending rhetorical, "Do you honestly not see the difference?" That's actually my personal favorite.

But more on point: passing a health care reform without a single Republican vote is a curious way to make it bi-partisan. So is Reid's hard line "we won't negotiate or compromise" stance.

I think a lot of that would change if there was actually some onus for them to work together, like the requirement of a 2/3rds vote as opposed to a 50% + 1 vote, but the likelyhood of that changing any time soon is unlikely.

The military encompasses 1/165th of the nations population give or take some.

We also operate very differently from the rest of the government, mostly in that we strive for efficiency.

So you can't really compaire our military system to a system that would affect the lives of every single US citizen in such a profound way.

And we also have that little thing in the Constitution that requires the state to run that military. It's kinda hard coded in there,

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:



And yet you are all entirely fine, presumably, with the notion of a state run, socialized military. Or do you think we should only have all private enterprise? Hire mercenaries for national protection? Only allow private schools, to charge whatever rate they decide is right, to educate as they see fit?

I can't say I've ever heard of someone refer to the military as socialized, but yes, I think the military is one thing the federal government should be responsible for.

If we privatized education we'd have far fewer failing schools because they'd be forced to do well or lose enrollment. The more of them there are, the more competitive pricing would be. Higher performing schools could charge more as would be their right when delivering a higher quality product. It would also be a great jumping off point for merit based pay for teachers, which would drive up educator quality as well. There are lots and lots and lots of positives to privatized education.

I would far, far rather trust a state healthcare provider than a profit driven insurer. I was also financially better off, by a sizable amount, in the UK rather than the US, if you include my private health insurance vs the national insurance contributions I made in the UK, especially when you then factor in copay and prescriptions. I would also like to remind you all that private medical care also exists in the Britain, if you want something non-urgent done fast, you can simply pay for it or use a private insurance to sort it.
.

I'd rather trust the private company driven by profits determined by paying customers. Private companies that offer inferior products or non-competitive pricing don't stay solvent for long. They're forced, by competition in the market, to deliver a quality product at a competetive price.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

-Shrike- wrote:
America... If only you'd stayed with the Empire, then we might have given you our NHS!

Oh God no.

As someone who's lived with both, on both sides of the Atlantic, as someone who's had elderly relatives go through both systems with chronic illness, as someone who's worked for private medical insurance and the NHS, I can tell you, all of you Americans, that you'd be better served with state healthcare than the current system.

The NHS was an amazing thing, it's still fairly remarkable, even if the right wing in the UK is trying to dismantle it.

As someone who is watching the train wreck that is Obamacare unfolding, I think I'd rather have my insurance the way it is. There is no way this crap that is being foisted on us is going to end well.

 djones520 wrote:
And we also have that little thing in the Constitution that requires the state to run that military. It's kinda hard coded in there,

I would disagree, depending on what you consider the scope of the "military". I don't see a constitutional basis for a permanent standing army at all; and in fact the army was disbanded as soon as the war was over. There's a provision for a permanent Navy, but not for a permanent Army - quite the opposite, really, if you go with the exact text of Article 1, section 8, clause 12.

I'm not arguing we should go back to raising a conscript army right after we declare war, all old-school - I think that's not workable in the modern world. But I also think it's important that we recognize that as much as modern America fetishizes the military, the truth is that to the founders it was less important that, say, the Post Office.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:
I'd rather trust the private company driven by profits determined by paying customers. Private companies that offer inferior products or non-competitive pricing don't stay solvent for long. They're forced, by competition in the market, to deliver a quality product at a competetive price.

I see no reason why we can't apply this reasoning to other branches of the government, like the Pentagon. I mean, either you mean it or you don't, right? If this rationale applies to education, it should apply to soldiering as well. Remember - the war in Iraq would pay for itself? Otherwise, you're kinda endorsing socialism and giving the thumbs down to the free market.

 cincydooley wrote:
But I've learned that you should just says whatever you want and if someone disagrees you just tell them they're wrong.

That'd be a cutting attack if all I did was say 'you're wrong'. Have you noticed how stupidly big my posts have gotten - it's not because I've just copy and pasted 'you're wrong' over and over again.

And the key part is the condescending rhetorical, "Do you honestly not see the difference?" That's actually my personal favorite.

That's actually my least favourite part. I don't like sounding patronising, but when you get to the point where you've made the differences between two things about as clear as they can be, there's not much of a choice left.

But more on point: passing a health care reform without a single Republican vote is a curious way to make it bi-partisan.

That's because you can't make something bi-partisan. You can want something to be bi-partisan, and the other side can say 'no, we're not touching that' and then if you still want to do it, you go alone.

Which is, you know, fine. Nothing says the Republicans had to come along on healthcare reform. But it is hilarious after the fact, when Republicans complain they were kept out of the process.

I think a lot of that would change if there was actually some onus for them to work together, like the requirement of a 2/3rds vote as opposed to a 50% + 1 vote, but the likelyhood of that changing any time soon is unlikely.

Shifting the vote to 2/3 will only mean that a party can still shut things down when it commands and even smaller portion of the electorate. You can win 35% of seats and still be an equal partner - it's just total madness.

What you need, basically, is to return to a situation where crossing the floor wasn't unthinkable treason. Where individual Republicans and Democrats could vote on their own conscience (or more like their own state interest or special lobby groups). Then you get a system where the majority party has more power, but not so much power that it can do as it pleases (because individual members will serve their own interests in voting against unpopular laws).

 sebster wrote:

So one guy's plan speak for all party members? For all eternity now? Do you realize how ridiculous that is?

But it isn't just one guy's plan, is it? It was hardly rejected by the rest of the party... but instead argued as an alternative by party leaders during the Hillarycare reform attempt, and put in place at a state level by a Republican governor.

Right...Heritage released a white paper describing a potential counter-strategy in the face of Hillary-care.

It was a strategic call directed at the Clinton's bluff of nationalizing healthcare, NOT A fething PROPOSAL.

Claiming it as a "Republican" plan is by definition, disingenuous.

I mean, wouldn't you agree that Soro's MoveOn organization is very beneficial to the current makeup of the Democratic party? So, by your logic, every democrat is calling for arrest of GOP leadership on sedition charges... right? RIGHT?

Are you going to claim that calling for political opposition to be arrested for treason is a core element of the Democrats, or are you going to claim that market based solutions aren't a core element of the Republicans?

I mean, do you honestly not see the difference there?

I'm saying, it's ridiculous to peg all democrats wanting their opposition arrested for treason, because of one think-tank...

Just as asinine to peg all republicans to support the PPACA, because there's some elements of their plan from that old Heritage proposal.

And you don't see a problem with that is very telling.

You didn't read the whole thing, did you? You're just reading each bit as you respond to it, and it's causing you to miss what I actually said.

The sentence fragment you quoted was part of a larger text that read; "...but I'm pretty sure nothing you say will convince me that for some reason the Democrats just picked up the idiot ball and decided that somehow major healthcare reform, especially healthcare reform with a wide range of long term cost controls, was somehow a vote winner and that they wanted to own it entirely while politicising the proecess as much as possible. And that they'd do this with a structure with a form that was originally conceived of by a Republican think tank, had been argued for by major Republicans, but was something they wanted to keep the Republicans out of entirely."

The point being that the belief that Democrats wanted to shut Republicans out made no sense, because healthcare reform is simply not the kind of thing you want your party to take the full impact from, because it's pretty much guaranteed to be a vote loser.

And I'm telling you, the Republicans were shut out.

Well... how's it looking for him now? How's it looking for the rest of the Democratic field? I've never thought it would reach to this point, but it's fast becoming an albatross for the Democratic party. Tell me how that's not true. I'll wait...

I don't disagree. I've always argued that the ACA reforms are necessary and an improvement, I've never said it.

I've read a few political opinion pieces argue that when ACA hit the ground it'd spell electoral doom for Republicans, but I never believed it myself, because healthcare simply doesn't win votes. Even the highest standard, free healthcare, is a sucky experience no-one wants to go through, because going to a doctor, finding out what's wrong with you, taking medication and treatment etc... it all just plain sucks. And what's more, medical systems are incredibly complex, so much so that people barely understand what treatment they can access now, let alone what they might have been denied under the old system.

This is why, as I said above, no-one wants to own healthcare. It's why the Democrats wanted to make it bi-partisan, so they didn't wear the negative impact alone. It's why the Republicans refused that and made the Democrats go it alone (which they only finally did when it became clear that they'd gone so far down this path that it would hurt even more to back off).

And that, as I said above, is why it's so laughable to hear claims that Democrats shut Republicans out of healthcare reform.

O.o

I don't even...

Correct. Because that's the function and intent of the filibuster.

Except not really, because the filbuster was written with the assumption that senators are reasonable men, only rejecting to a law out of principle. The idea that a party with 41 votes would demand a uniform filibuster from its members was never the intent of the rule.

And even if we do go with your RAW interpretation, then the procedural rules that allow the filibuster to be bypassed are just as acceptable. If reconciliation can be used to bypass a filibuster, then surely that must be the intent and function of reconciliation?

Wow... okay, so when the Republicans do the same thing in the future, you'll be just as cool with that... eh?

Uh... when did the word "compromise" become such a bad word with you? o.O

It isn't a bad word. Compromise is great, and the lifeblood of democracy. But compromise isn't fostered by a system where each party knows as long as it has 41 senate seats it can block anything indefinitely, and thereby force itself in to a position of exactly equal bargaining power with the other side.

Compromise is give and take, where that give and take is driven by the understanding that your level of power relative to the other side will wax and wane, and so the amount you have to give in order to take will wax and wane along with it. That system is created when the filibuster is rare and party members are able to cross the floor without being seen as a traitor by their own party.

It's a common function of our government...

Done.

Seriously, are you in favour of a system where either party, as long as it has just 41 seats in the senate, then it has equal bargaining power with the other side because it can just block everything until a deal is reached?

Yep... because that's how it was designed.

Unless... you're advocating for the Nuclear Option?

 whembly wrote:
It was a strategic call directed at the Clinton's bluff of nationalizing healthcare, NOT A fething PROPOSAL.

 whembly wrote:
Just as asinine to peg all republicans to support the PPACA, because there's some elements of their plan from that old Heritage proposal.

You done goofed.

 cincydooley wrote:
I can't say I've ever heard of someone refer to the military as socialized

It's a point made quite often, because on a basic level the military is entirely controlled by government, with a series of codified ranks that a person can move up through by performing as government dictates, and so on.

If we privatized education we'd have far fewer failing schools because they'd be forced to do well or lose enrollment. The more of them there are, the more competitive pricing would be. Higher performing schools could charge more as would be their right when delivering a higher quality product. It would also be a great jumping off point for merit based pay for teachers, which would drive up educator quality as well. There are lots and lots and lots of positives to privatized education.

I'd rather trust the private company driven by profits determined by paying customers. Private companies that offer inferior products or non-competitive pricing don't stay solvent for long. They're forced, by competition in the market, to deliver a quality product at a competetive price.

Go read about the perfect market, please. That's the market microeconomists look to for the claim that a market based solution will deliver the optimum result. Everyone realises that the perfect market will never exist, but if you can get close enough then the market will deliver a result much better than any alternative.

But lots of products never reach anything like a perfect market. Industries like healthcare and education have all kinds of issues that make it function a long way from the perfect market.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Right...Heritage released a white paper describing a potential counter-strategy in the face of Hillary-care.

It was a strategic call directed at the Clinton's bluff of nationalizing healthcare, NOT A fething PROPOSAL.

You don't think Republicans wanted a market based solution? If they didn't want that even when they were calling for it... what solution have they ever actually been in favour for? Is there a Republican position on healthcare? Has there ever been a Republican position on healthcare since the early 80s?

Just as asinine to peg all republicans to support the PPACA, because there's some elements of their plan from that old Heritage proposal.

But we've just spent multiple posts listing other reasons that it can be seen as a Republican plan. The basic market fundamentals of the plan. Statements made by Republican leaders. Romneycare.

And I'm telling you, the Republicans were shut out.

That's January 2010. Healthcare reform discussions had been going on for a year at that point. Of course after that period of time, when Republicans had offered to come to the table only if Democrats scrap the bill they had, that the Democrats would say no.

O.o

I don't even...

Well you should try and reply somehow, because I don't think there's a real argument against the point I made.

Wow... okay, so when the Republicans do the same thing in the future, you'll be just as cool with that... eh?

That's the game as it stands right now, and whenever Democrats become a minority that's how I expect them to play. Realise what I'm saying here is not 'Republican bad'. I mean, I say that a lot, but not this time What I'm saying is that the game, as it is played right now, is a bad game that doesn't represent political power in a meaningful way. This has happened not because of any rule change, but an increase in party control over individual voters, so that people crossing the floor has become unusual, and attracted criticism from the attack dogs of each party.

It is bad that the party in power expects its members to vote in lockstep, and it is bad that the minority party expects its members to filibuster in lockstep.

It's a common function of our government...

Sometimes, and almost always for very different reasons that what is happening now. An individual standing on the floor of the house to filibuster one particular bill for personal reasons is a wholly different political reality to one political party making a decision of political calculus to filibuster wherever possible.

Yep... because that's how it was designed.

It's design was crafted in a wholly different political landscape.

Unless... you're advocating for the Nuclear Option?

No, I'm advocating the rejection of bloc voting by parties.

I mean, if 41 senators personally think a law is so against the interests of their state or the country as a whole that they all personally want to filibuster that law, then fine. Let the other 59 voters come to each of those 41 voters and see how the law can be amended to secure that last vote to break filibuster. If no such deal can be made, no law and that's the system working well, and as intended.

But when the party leadership can decide that they're going to just shut it down, and there exists tremendous political pressure for not one single senator to cross the floor, then you've got a problem, and a system that isn't working at all like it was intended.

 Ouze wrote:
I see no reason why we can't apply this reasoning to other branches of the government, like the Pentagon.

That's because you frequently have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, especially when it comes to the military.

 sebster wrote:
It's a point made quite often, because on a basic level the military is entirely controlled by government, with a series of codified ranks that a person can move up through by performing as government dictates, and so on.

A point made quite often by who? I've only ever seen it from Dakka's jealousy brigade.

 Seaward wrote:
A point made quite often by who? I've only ever seen it from Dakka's jealousy brigade.

Yeah, it's made by people on the left, commenting on the right's dislike of socialism coupled with their love of the military. Note I don't think people have to agree with it (I don't particularly agree with it myself), I was just pointing out that it's a point commonly made.

Jealousy brigade? Attempting a bit of branding, are we?

It's my new nickname for wealth redistribution enthusiasts.

But I'm glad to hear you don't subscribe to that "military arr socialism, hurr" claptrap.

 Seaward wrote:
It's my new nickname for wealth redistribution enthusiasts.

I think it needs work. Some alliteration or rhyming. What's a collective noun that rhymes with 'j'?

But I'm glad to hear you don't subscribe to that "military arr socialism, hurr" claptrap.

It's really just a rhetorical ploy for arguing with the 'boo socialism yay military' crowd, and in that sense there is kind of a point to showing the weirdness inherent in that position. But it is just a rhetorical ploy and not something people really believe - no-one is out there earnestly trying to design their socialist utopia through studies of military systems.

I think arguments made just for rhetorical purposes rarely get anyone anywhere, and often just cloud the position of the speaker.

Edit: Nevermind, don't need to have this discussion in an ACA thread.

Anyway, it sucks now, but the real apocalypse for Obamacare's coming next year when all the people going, "Man, that sure sucks for those poor saps in the individual market, but I sure am glad I won't be losing my current employer-provided coverage due to the ACA!" get a rude awakening.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 dogma wrote:
That quotation indicates that Joe Manchin wants to delay the mandate by 1 year, and that 10 Senate Democrats wrote a letter to the Obama Administration stating that "individuals should not be penalized for lack of coverage" if they were unable to purchase health insurance due to technical problems.

I did not lie by omission, or in any other sense.

It shows that the push to delay the mandate is by more than one person, contrary to what you claimed.

I claimed that Joe Manchin was the only Democratic Senator pushing legislation to delay the mandate, not that he was the only Democratic Senator pushing to delay it. Moreover, Manchin was the only Democratic Senator (At the time of my comment, there may be more now.) pushing for a 1 year delay of the mandate as he was basically backing the GOP plan. This is not a lie by omission, it is the recognition of a discrepancy between two positions; the other being that of the signatories to the Shaheen letter.

 djones520 wrote:

After this boondoggle, there is going to be some hard selling to convince me the government can run a program like that. Especially on such a significantly larger scale then your NHS runs, given our population disparities.

It really isn't an issue of population disparity, but of differing systems of government. The UK has something very close to a unitary system of government, while the US is obviously composed of 50 separate sovereigns.

Still, something comparable to the NHS would likely to be simpler to run than the present system. Though any transition period was going to problematic, as even the pre-Obamacare system was a ridiculous warren.

 cincydooley wrote:

If we privatized education we'd have far fewer failing schools because they'd be forced to do well or lose enrollment.

Or kick out (or deny entry to) problematic students in order to influence measures of statistical performance*. Something which, given the importance of a high school degree in the US, has complications which extend beyond the number of "failing schools".


*Post-secondary institutions already do this by setting target admission rates below that of the previous year, as no one wants to run a mediocre school and keeping those donations rolling in often hinges on making the school "better".

 Ouze wrote:
"are just looking for a soundbite for cable news to run for the next 3 years, rather than try and meaningfully contribute" is what she was looking for; "whatever" probably works just fine in it's place.

I truly wish she would have said the former. Often times it is best to hit back.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

-Shrike- wrote:
America... If only you'd stayed with the Empire, then we might have given you our NHS!

Oh God no.

As someone who's lived with both, on both sides of the Atlantic, as someone who's had elderly relatives go through both systems with chronic illness, as someone who's worked for private medical insurance and the NHS, I can tell you, all of you Americans, that you'd be better served with state healthcare than the current system.

The NHS was an amazing thing, it's still fairly remarkable, even if the right wing in the UK is trying to dismantle it.

The UK system is gak compared to the Canadian, Swiss, or even French system. If we're going to redo it, redo it properly.

 dogma wrote:

Or kick out (or deny entry to) problematic students in order to influence measures of statistical performance*. Something which, given the importance of a high school degree in the US, has complications which extend beyond the number of "failing schools".


*Post-secondary institutions already do this by setting target admission rates below that of the previous year, as no one wants to run a mediocre school and keeping those donations rolling in often hinges on making the school "better".
.

In that same regard, it holds parents to a higher level of accountibility because they have a vested interest in their kids not getting kicked out of said school that they're paying for.

The way the education system works now, there's no 'real' repercussion for kicking a kid out of school. They simply continue to be moved from public school to public school.

Don't get me wrong; I think the statistical performance measures that lead to funding for US public schools is a joke. Anecdotaly, when I was teaching I had a principal attempt to force me to pass a student that had been to my class 7 times in a semester because he was a senior and needed the credit to pass, and thus graduate. Graduation statistics in Ohio matter for funding so, with 3 weeks left in the school year, he was moved from my class and placed in the class of a tenured teacher that passed him.

It was dispicable.

There are a lot of institutional roadblocks to privatizing education, of course, and that's not even considering the unions. But I think the idea has a lot of merit and could not only help to improve education in the US, but could also serve, due to more competetive wages inherent in a competetion based industry, to draw more people into the teaching field that would be interested were it not for the lack of mobility in pay.

I find it Ironic that the same AWFUL software company, CGI, that boondoggled canada out of 2billion for our, thankfully now gotten rid of, long gun registry, is now given the opportunity to scam the states by doing the obama care website. (yes it cost 2 billion dollars to run what amounts to a complicated spreadsheet of gun owners + guns info)

was a lot of speculation as to why they were handed the cushy job contract up here, anyone in the states even realize that this company is basically a professional government teat sucker?

 easysauce wrote:
I find it Ironic that the same AWFUL software company, CGI, that boondoggled canada out of 2billion for our, thankfully now gotten rid of, long gun registry, is now given the opportunity to scam the states by doing the obama care website. (yes it cost 2 billion dollars to run what amounts to a complicated spreadsheet of gun owners + guns info)

I think the most recent episode of southpark was about that.

 motyak wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
I find it Ironic that the same AWFUL software company, CGI, that boondoggled canada out of 2billion for our, thankfully now gotten rid of, long gun registry, is now given the opportunity to scam the states by doing the obama care website. (yes it cost 2 billion dollars to run what amounts to a complicated spreadsheet of gun owners + guns info)

I think the most recent episode of southpark was about that.

oh god the southpark writers should be replace the government...

the episode where they have to elect a giant turd sandwich or a giant douche still sums up my feelings about the current political climate of the illusion of choice ....

 cincydooley wrote:

In that same regard, it holds parents to a higher level of accountibility because they have a vested interest in their kids not getting kicked out of said school that they're paying for.

And what happens to the kids that aren't admitted to a private school?

They have to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" obviously!