Which Is More Essential: Public Health Care Or Public Schools?

[Kane]

In an earlier thread I advocated privatizing schools and maybe use the money to pay for a public health care system (paid by local taxes, state, taxes, or federal taxes, whichever). Although I currently still favor a private health care system, I am still open to the idea of some public health care. Being a staunch libertarian capitalist this would seem very very strange. However government is known all over to provide police and fire fighters, so why not doctors? But why teachers?

We have to have a police force to keep the peace from life and death scenarios. We have fire fighters that save people (and in many cases pets) from natural disasters. So why not have a health care system that at least pays for emergency costs? I'm not suggesting a Public Health Care system like the UK, which mainly pays for doctors appointments and not for emergency surgeries (correct me if I'm wrong). If we have a health care system, for example, that helps heal a rescued person by the fire department from a fire that would be okay (maybe). We can still have a private health care system; we should just have perhaps public health care for emergency situations. That way when you call 911 you don't have to worry about paying for one of the services (emergency health care assistance).

Education is important for any society, but it is not linked to life or death. You can survive without an education if you are poor enough not to afford it (which is rare, as most people could probably afford private school if there was no public school tax in the first place, as well as cutting other unneeded social programs).

So if you had to choose between public education and public health care, which would be more essential to a safe society?

 

[Kacey]

So if you had to choose between public education and public health care, which would be more essential to a safe society?

Public education is more important, in my opinion. An uneducated society is easy to manipulate, hard to train, susceptible to rumor and innuendo, and unable to compete economically. Thus, the uneducated become locked into a generational cycle of poverty - there are some exceptions, certainly, as there are to any generality, but bootstrapping is rare even today.

Education is important for any society, but it is not linked to life or death. You can survive without an education if you are poor enough not to afford it

Really? When was the last day you didn't read? Didn't write? Didn't use some form of math? And how much of those skills do you think you could have learned without formal education? What job could you get without basic skills in reading, writing, and math? How would you complete a job application? Count money? What income could you earn if you cannot read? How easy would it be for your employer to lie to you, because you agreed to what he said, and he wrote something different? In a non-technological, illiterate society, your statement is correct - but our current societal organization requires literacy and math at a certain functional level to allow for independent living.

Also, I disagree with your statement that

as most people could probably afford private school if there was no public school tax in the first place, as well as cutting other unneeded social programs

- much of the funding for schools comes from property tax, which people with lower incomes pay indirectly, if at all, as they do not, as a group, own property. In addition, working, as I do, in a low-income school, I see too many students whose parents can't feed them, who come to the local elementary school every day all summer for the free lunch that is their only solid meal all day, whose parents keep them home to babysit younger siblings so they can maintain a subsistence level of income, who move every several months when they lose the battle and are evicted due to unpaid rent - who earn wages well below the poverty level because they do not have the education necessary to earn more. Too many people at the lowest, neediest end of the financial spectrum can only afford to send their children to school because there is no up-front cost; they can only afford health care for their children because their low income qualifies them for free or greatly-reduced services.

Because of the way the tax code is written, poorer people pay a higher percentage of their real income than richer people. Rather than cutting any services, this disparity needs to be addressed and rectified.

 

[thesensei]

Well, IMHO, neither! Of course, I may be slightly biased, as I am a private school administrator, but I do not believe that the government is responsible for education - I firmly believe that education is the parents' responsibility. Therefore, they should find some way to educate their children in accordance with their value system, as education is inherently based in morality.

As far as health care goes, Kane, I think you have a valid point, but I don't think it would work. Like anything else, it might start as you describe, but it would quickly degenerate. I take a very limited view of what the role of the government is. The government exists to provide protection for its citizens from enemies foreign and domestic, as well as punishing criminals (basically domestic enemies). The "welfare" of others is not the government's responsibility, but our responsibility as individuals.

Have a great day...

 

[TonyMac]

At the AFI lifetime acievement awards last night Sean Connery said the most profound thing ever tohappen to him in his life was learning to read at five. I'm going to have to agree.

 

[Martial Tucker]

I firmly believe that education is the parents' responsibility.

Unfortunately, in today's society that phrase is becoming an oxymoron.

 

[michaeledward]

At the AFI lifetime acievement awards last night Sean Connery said the most profound thing ever tohappen to him in his life was learning to read at five. I'm going to have to agree.

The most profound thing to happen in your life is that Sean Connery learned to read?

 

[TonyMac]

I live vicariously through James Bond.

 

[Kane]

Fellas and Ladies,

I think we assume too much though that if we didn't have public schools that an overwhelming number of people won't be able to read or write. However, I myself learned to read and basic mathematics from my parents before I even entered school. Furthermore I think with a literacy rate above 99% in this nation, I'm sure most parents can read and write and teach them to their children, as well as teach basic mathematics (most I'm sure know a least up to Algebra).

There are also many other ways to live in a free market system than participating in the market system. For one a couple can work hard, buy their own house, and live off the land (if we were to abolish property tax). There are many ways to make living in this world if the government's size was limited.

Fitness is also important for healthy society. So in that case why don't we have public fitness clubs as well? If we were to turn everything into a public system, we all know what would happen then!

The truth is that our country has become so much of a one way lifestyle. There are many ways to live without an education, though they are limited.

In any case most people will still go to school. For anyone who cannot afford school there are always private charity organizations that are willing to help those who cannot afford to go to private school. Private charity organizations always work more efficiently than government-funded anything.

Where as with emergency health care it is a question of life and death. If a person is having a heart attack and needs emergency medical care would it make sense for a doctor to turn them down because they cannot pay? That is like a fire fighter refusing to rescue a person from a fire because they couldn't pay the costs. Or a police man refusing to save you from a murderer because you cannot pay. All these involve life and death where as education does not.

Isn't life and death more important than learning? Learning is important as long as you are alive. Of course then you might ask why can't government pay for emergency health care and public schools. Well that isn't the government's role. Just as it isn't government's role to provide public fitness clubs. While supposedly a society that can have easy access to fitness clubs for exercise would be healthier, we all know what would happen to the quality and tax price if we had public fitness clubs.

 

[OUMoose]

This thread underscores a principle at the core of this discussion. We have the money to do both realistically, but we (as a people) choose not to in favor of more clandestine ends.

IMO, public schools need more funding than public health care. School is more than learning ABC's, it's the beginning of a child's outlook on life. Children who go to schools with quality facilities, quality teaching materials, and teachers who still care about teaching will generally go on to be better off in life. These children learn that there is more to life than their own little neighborhood, and that they are part of a larger world. Yes, the parents' role in this plays a factor too, but with the sad state of affairs involving parents sluffing off their responsibility in favor of pointing fingers at the world, a solid base education could wether the intrinsic decision-making ability of these youths.

Health care would not have to be socialized if pathetic amounts of greed didn't play into the equation. *shrug* Will that ever change though? I don't think I'll see it in my lifetime, but I can hope.

 

[Kacey]

Fellas and Ladies,

I think we assume too much though that if we didn't have public schools that an overwhelming number of people won't be able to read or write. However, I myself learned to read and basic mathematics from my parents before I even entered school. Furthermore I think with a literacy rate above 99% in this nation, I'm sure most parents can read and write and teach them to their children, as well as teach basic mathematics (most I'm sure know a least up to Algebra).

There are quite a few assumptions you are making - that parents know what kids need to know, that parents have the time and ability ability to teach, that parents want to teach, that parents remember skills they were taught in school but don't use day to day (for example, my father is a college professor, with a Master's and Ph.D. in English - but I doubt he remembers much Algrebra, because he doesn't use it in his day-to-day life).

Here are some questions for you: what about children of illiterate parents? Functionally illiterate parents? Parents who don't speak English? Parents who can't do math beyond basic money skills? Parents who both work, or single parents who work? Parents with cognitive problems? Parents who have the academic skills but not the instructional skills? Children with learning problems? Children with behavioral problems? Children with physical problems? What about socialization? Learning how to work in groups? Learning about differences and similarities between people? Even home-schooled children often meet in groups; parents who home-school meet to exchange ideas and materials, and many home-schooled children attend specific classes at public schools to meet needs that their parents can't: for special education services, gifted/talented classes, music, gym, field trips...

Schools exist to meet a variety of needs, only some of them academic; some are social, organizational, to provide variety, and as little as anyone wants to acknowledge it, to provide safe, affordable child care for working parents. Schools provide a wider variety of subjects and instructional methods than individual parents could, as well as providing curricular options and extracurricular options that individual parents could not provide. Parents could conceivably teach math, reading, writing, and basic content curriculum - but what about science labs? Musical instruments? Calculus? Astronomy? World history? The list is endless. What happens when the child reaches the point that s/he wants to learn something the parent can't teach, or doesn't have the facilities for? How does a child specialize in something the parent doesn't know? Would we have to recreate the apprentice system? What happens then to standardization? What if the child is apprenticed to someone who is a bad match? These are only some of the reasons why schools were started, rather than leaving children to be taught solely by their parents.

 

[Rich Parsons]

In an earlier thread I advocated privatizing schools and maybe use the money to pay for a public health care system (paid by local taxes, state, taxes, or federal taxes, whichever). Although I currently still favor a private health care system, I am still open to the idea of some public health care. Being a staunch libertarian capitalist this would seem very very strange. However government is known all over to provide police and fire fighters, so why not doctors? But why teachers?

We have to have a police force to keep the peace from life and death scenarios. We have fire fighters that save people (and in many cases pets) from natural disasters. So why not have a health care system that at least pays for emergency costs? I'm not suggesting a Public Health Care system like the UK, which mainly pays for doctors appointments and not for emergency surgeries (correct me if I'm wrong). If we have a health care system, for example, that helps heal a rescued person by the fire department from a fire that would be okay (maybe). We can still have a private health care system; we should just have perhaps public health care for emergency situations. That way when you call 911 you don't have to worry about paying for one of the services (emergency health care assistance).

Education is important for any society, but it is not linked to life or death. You can survive without an education if you are poor enough not to afford it (which is rare, as most people could probably afford private school if there was no public school tax in the first place, as well as cutting other unneeded social programs).

So if you had to choose between public education and public health care, which would be more essential to a safe society?

Because before the requirements for having teachers for public schools only the wealthy went to school, and the illiterate rate was high.

There is an example of how the local governements handle it now with local taxes. Yes every student has some state dollars, but most of the money comes from local taxes. So the areas with more local taxes have better paid teachers and more equipment for the kids.

I local town that will not be named **Cough - Davison - Cough** built all these nice houses and had a low property tax for local schools. Then come school time and too many kids and there are not enough books and kids have to sit on the floor. So the parents complain about it. Well the school district points out that the last tax questions was voted down in August. So they get a new one to come up in November, but even though they want their kids to have books and desks no one wants to pay for it with taxes. So they were voted down again. I think it was almost three years with poor test scores and people moving out with these nice big homes empty and the property values going down, that people finaly bought the clue.

They could not buy the clue about education for kids but they could understand that the tax increase was better than a 25% or more loss on the house.

So, here is a community that would not pay a small price for education, and you expect everyone to pay the price by themselves?

Some people as idividuals are ok to smart. Get people together and the crowd and mob are dumb.

 

[Kane]

There are quite a few assumptions you are making - that parents know what kids need to know, that parents have the time and ability ability to teach, that parents want to teach, that parents remember skills they were taught in school but don't use day to day (for example, my father is a college professor, with a Master's and Ph.D. in English - but I doubt he remembers much Algrebra, because he doesn't use it in his day-to-day life).

Here are some questions for you: what about children of illiterate parents? Functionally illiterate parents? Parents who don't speak English? Parents who can't do math beyond basic money skills? Parents who both work, or single parents who work? Parents with cognitive problems? Parents who have the academic skills but not the instructional skills? Children with learning problems? Children with behavioral problems? Children with physical problems? What about socialization? Learning how to work in groups? Learning about differences and similarities between people? Even home-schooled children often meet in groups; parents who home-school meet to exchange ideas and materials, and many home-schooled children attend specific classes at public schools to meet needs that their parents can't: for special education services, gifted/talented classes, music, gym, field trips...

Schools exist to meet a variety of needs, only some of them academic; some are social, organizational, to provide variety, and as little as anyone wants to acknowledge it, to provide safe, affordable child care for working parents. Schools provide a wider variety of subjects and instructional methods than individual parents could, as well as providing curricular options and extracurricular options that individual parents could not provide. Parents could conceivably teach math, reading, writing, and basic content curriculum - but what about science labs? Musical instruments? Calculus? Astronomy? World history? The list is endless. What happens when the child reaches the point that s/he wants to learn something the parent can't teach, or doesn't have the facilities for? How does a child specialize in something the parent doesn't know? Would we have to recreate the apprentice system? What happens then to standardization? What if the child is apprenticed to someone who is a bad match? These are only some of the reasons why schools were started, rather than leaving children to be taught solely by their parents.

I totally understand what you are saying but it seems like you are forgetting the fact that most children will still go to school. Better quality schools at that. Your post gives me the impression that most children won't go to school just because there are no public schools but this clearly is not the case. Keep in mind that no matter what we pay taxes to pay for public schools. Public schools are not free, they cost money and quality. Why not use our money to give our children the best possible education? You talk about all these experiences but what about the experiences kids are missing going to second rate public schools than going to a private school (who doesn't have to worry about cutting programs, which is something a public school faces all the time). Imagine the better education that our children will be receiving. Private organizations always do better than public organizations, and usually cost less too (unless the inflation gets really bad).

Of course public schools have a way of making the poor pay what they can pay instead of fixed price for private tuition. What if the poor can't pay for this tuition? Well there are always private charity organizations that are more than happy to help (I would even send some of my money to help poor people who cannot afford education or anything important for that matter, as would many kind people). There are also loan options. Regardless on how you look at it there are many more options with private schools only instead of a dominate public school system. We have so many options because when the people are left to do things, almost always they can produce more than the government. We don't have freedom only because we want privileges. Freedom, whether it is in the market or whatever, works better than a government who thinks they can do better with forced taxes. That is why America has one of the best universities systems in the world (such as the University I attend).

The government has its uses. No one can argue that without some force there can never be peace. The government can help by preserving law and order with the police, and fire fighters to save people from natural disasters, and perhaps doctors who can save people in an emergency where life matters more than the extra buck. But government cannot take over all services because it is up to the people with their freedom to provide the best service. Unless it is life and death, I don't see why the government should take over it and make the service of even worse quality. It is also up to people to help pay for those without the privileges to afford some of these services (education, fitness, and all other issues of life). No government that forces money out of people to provide a lower quality service is as good as the people with their freedom to innovate.

 

[Kane]

Because before the requirements for having teachers for public schools only the wealthy went to school, and the illiterate rate was high.

There is an example of how the local governements handle it now with local taxes. Yes every student has some state dollars, but most of the money comes from local taxes. So the areas with more local taxes have better paid teachers and more equipment for the kids.

I local town that will not be named **Cough - Davison - Cough** built all these nice houses and had a low property tax for local schools. Then come school time and too many kids and there are not enough books and kids have to sit on the floor. So the parents complain about it. Well the school district points out that the last tax questions was voted down in August. So they get a new one to come up in November, but even though they want their kids to have books and desks no one wants to pay for it with taxes. So they were voted down again. I think it was almost three years with poor test scores and people moving out with these nice big homes empty and the property values going down, that people finaly bought the clue.

They could not buy the clue about education for kids but they could understand that the tax increase was better than a 25% or more loss on the house.

So, here is a community that would not pay a small price for education, and you expect everyone to pay the price by themselves?

Some people as idividuals are ok to smart. Get people together and the crowd and mob are dumb.

Yes, well you have to keep in mind that when ever you try to force anything out of people, they tend to want to participate less in it. That is why the people in the nice house resented paying until much later. Taxes are based on coercion and force. It is a lot easier to get a person to voluntarily pay for schools than to use a coercive system like with the tax system.

Don't you hate the fact that schools are a tool in politics? People don't like to pay taxes and as a result the quality suffers. As you said no books or desks. Just imagine if these schools were private school with no political pressures. Not only will you not have to worry about tax cuts for the schools, you will give your children the best possible education. They could then take more classes, such as the important philosophy classes which are so ignored in many public school systems. I can go on and on.

If those people with nicest houses realized the need better education for their children, why do they have to do it through a tax system? Instead why don't they directly pay for it voluntarily and make it better? Why do we have to have a system of force to produce better service that has nothing to do with life or death? If they wanted better schools they don't have to use a government method which inevitably leads to lower quality schools.

Furthermore if schools weren't directly ran by the government it would be the school's job to pay for itself. All the people need to spend is tuition money to support the schools!

 

[Kacey]

I totally understand what you are saying but it seems like you are forgetting the fact that most children will still go to school. Better quality schools at that.

I disagree with both your premise and your statement. Many students go to school because the law says they must - I know of quite a few at the middle school where I teach who come because if they don't, their parents will go to jail. The problem with the school system is societal; for too many people, education is something that should occur in the school building and no where else. "It takes a village" is trite and overused - but in this case, it is true. As long as education is not valued - and in many places it is not - then the school system will do the best it can without outside support. The average student spends 13% of his or her waking time in school... but no one is taking responsibility for their continued learning during the other 87% of the time. Blaming the schools is easy; taking responsibility is not.

Your post gives me the impression that most children won't go to school just because there are no public schools but this clearly is not the case.

In middle and upper class America, this may be the case; in lower class America, education does not have the same level of priority. Certainly, there are significant portions of low-income Americans who have determined that education is their childrens' road to a better life - but there are also significant groups who don't care. As I said before, this issue is societal. The schools bear some of the responsibilty, yes - but not all, and, in many cases, not even most of the responsibility. If a child comes to school unready to learn, because s/he is unfed, improperly clothed, not possessed of the appropriate supplies, uninterested because the value of education has not been taught at home, then the child will not learn, or will not learn to his/her potential. And those are the easy ones - the ones who don't come are even more difficult to teach. In one class of 24 students, I had 6 who were failing due to absence rates of 15% or higher - and those absences were all excused by a parent. My school offered free tutoring on Saturday mornings for 3 months to any student who wanted to come - I had a total of 14 students show up, but never more than 4 in one class, and only 1 came for more than 3 weeks (he came 12 of 13 weeks; the one week he missed he was home sick). The program was finally discontinued due to lack of interest, although we have plans to revamp it for the fall.

Keep in mind that no matter what we pay taxes to pay for public schools. Public schools are not free, they cost money and quality. Why not use our money to give our children the best possible education?

You need to visit a public school, in the worst neighborhood you can find, and talk to the students and teachers. You, as with many other people, have little understanding of what affects quality. Private schools succeed for many reasons that public schools cannot copy: the parents of private school students have shown their children, by their actions in putting the child(ren) in that school, that school is important; private schools can refuse to serve anyone they choose (I have several students who started in private schools, but were not allowed to return due to behavioral and/or learning difficulties); parents who send their children to private schools are often of a higher socio-economic class due to better education, which has been linked to higher performance in their children... I could go on. Public schools must take any students regardless of their needs or abilities - and that includes students with significant emotional needs whose behavior is disruptive to other students, students with significant academic needs (e.g. learning disabilities, speech/language processing disabilities, cognitive delays, etc.), students with physical disabilities (e.g. can't walk, can't talk, blind, deaf, in a wheelchair, not toilet trained, physically unable to access the building without assistance, etc.), students whose parents are abusive (physical and emotional neglect and abuse are much more common in public school students), students who live on the streets (public law requires that homeless students be allowed to attend the school they were attending when they had an address)... but to those who haven't worked with such children, there is the assumption that "if the schools and teachers are good enough, such things won't matter". It would be nice if that were true - but it's not. In a perfect world, all children could learn, and all children would learn at the same rate, the same way, and meet the same standards - but all of the laws written on that basis ignore the fact that children are individuals, and need to be treated as such.

You talk about all these experiences but what about the experiences kids are missing going to second rate public schools than going to a private school (who doesn't have to worry about cutting programs, which is something a public school faces all the time). Imagine the better education that our children will be receiving. Private organizations always do better than public organizations, and usually cost less too (unless the inflation gets really bad).

See my previous comments on public versus private education. Also, if you think that private schools don't have to worry about cutting programs, you are sadly misinformed. Private schools cut programs all the time - but it doesn't make the news, because a much smaller number of students are affected, and because the parents often make up the difference. Also, private schools don't spend several weeks of the year assessing their students, because laws about student performance don't affect private schools - per federal and state law, we spend roughly 3 weeks each school year giving assessments that, at best, provide a snapshot of the child at the moment in time the test is taken. I have no problem with accountability, and no problem with assessment - but there are better ways to assess students' performance than stopping instruction for several days to give them a test that, in Colorado, takes third grade students (8 year olds) longer than the bar exam, and only gets longer as students get older. That time could better be spent in instruction, with on-going assessment built in, rather than losing that time to assessment. Additionally, the school year needs to be longer - but every time that's proposed, the idea that it costs more comes up, and it gets shot down. It's gotten so bad in some places that cities have passed laws about when school can start, because starting school before Labor Day interferes with family vacation plans - which shows where the parents' priorities are. One such location is San Antonio - see this article for details.

Of course public schools have a way of making the poor pay what they can pay instead of fixed price for private tuition. What if the poor can't pay for this tuition? Well there are always private charity organizations that are more than happy to help (I would even send some of my money to help poor people who cannot afford education or anything important for that matter, as would many kind people).

Parents who cannot afford to feed their children are not going to be able to afford tuition... which means that their children will go to school somewhere that is willing to take them, which brings us back full circle to public, not private, schools. You say that you would be happy to send money to "help poor people who cannot afford education or anything important for that matter, as would many kind people" - but you have continually stated that you don't support public education. The only difference between what you propose and the current system is that support would be voluntary, not prescribed - which means the funding for education would be even more subject to cuts than it is today, because while you and "many kind people" may well donate, many others would not.

There are also loan options.

Oh... right... people who get evicted every 3 months for non-payment of rent, whose kids only eat at school (free breakfast and lunch programs) are going to take out loans to pay for their kids' education. Sure. No problem. NOT.

Regardless on how you look at it there are many more options with private schools only instead of a dominate public school system. We have so many options because when the people are left to do things, almost always they can produce more than the government. We don't have freedom only because we want privileges. Freedom, whether it is in the market or whatever, works better than a government who thinks they can do better with forced taxes.

The problem with a market economy in education is that many people will not, or cannot, participate. Many school districts have open enrollment, meaning that parents can send their children to any school in the district that has room, regardless of which school's attendance area they live in, but very few parents take advantage of this option, because they have to provide the child's transportation. This is a problem for several reasons, including money (no car, no money for a bus pass, etc.), time (work schedule), and committment to the concept, among others. This problem would be intensified if all schools were privatized, as the neighborhood school would, quite likely, become a thing of the past.

That is why America has one of the best universities systems in the world (such as the University I attend).

I attend a very good university myself, working on my second advanced degree... and it is a public university, partially funded with public funds, without which I would be unable to attend. Oh, wait, maybe one of those "kind people" would be willing to pay my tuition in the absence of tax support for the public university system - or no, wait, I could take out another student loan.

The government has its uses. No one can argue that without some force there can never be peace. The government can help by preserving law and order with the police, and fire fighters to save people from natural disasters, and perhaps doctors who can save people in an emergency where life matters more than the extra buck.

An the US government is doing such a great job with that... just look at how well New Orleans is doing.

But government cannot take over all services because it is up to the people with their freedom to provide the best service. Unless it is life and death, I don't see why the government should take over it and make the service of even worse quality. It is also up to people to help pay for those without the privileges to afford some of these services (education, fitness, and all other issues of life). No government that forces money out of people to provide a lower quality service is as good as the people with their freedom to innovate.

As I said before, the government "forces money out of people" because many people would not pay otherwise. As the country increased in size, it became possible (and in many cases, preferable) to combine services for practical reasons; local fire stations would combine to share equipment, local police departments would affiliate to share information, and so on.

You are welcome to respond to this post or not; however, I would suggest that, before you do, you talk to people who actually teach in public schools, and to public school students and their parents, as I believe that you have little understanding of what really occurs in schools. I would also suggest that you read my signature quote.

 

[heretic888]

I believe that education is both the responsibility and the right of the State. Without a reasonably educated society, the State cannot survive and perpetuate itself into future generations.

Education is part of that whole "social contract" deal. . .

Also, just so everyone knows, the federal government pays for a tiny fraction of most public education, overall less than 8% of the funding. Most of the funding comes from the locals, plain and simple.

Anyways, I'm gonna agree with Kacey on this one (surprise!) and add some of my own thoughts. When you "privatize" anything, it is inevitably going to burden the poorest in the country and benefit the richest. The same thing will happen if we ever totally "privatize" social security or healthcare. The richest will benefit, being able to afford these "private" accounts and medical practices, while the poorest basically end up with nothing.

That is just the nature of the beast. This is also why only right-wing ideologues in Congress actually suggest such policies. They still think "trickle-down" in any way takes place in reality. It don't.

Laterz.