Would You Trade Public Education For Universal Health Care?

Kane

Black Belt
Joined
Jun 19, 2004
Messages
589
Reaction score
17
If our government was to privatize the schools to use the money to create universal health care, would you be for or against it?

In my opinion health care that it be included to all the citizens of our country than public education to all people. The government's job has always been to protect its people more than anything else and this includes their safety. If your heart stops and you are rushed to the ER for surgery should you have to pay for it? Well should you have to be stuck with a huge bill from the fire department if you accidentally started a fire? Well actually in reality we do have to pay for it through taxes but why should we reduce the quality of education and social security when we can be use the money on protection and safety issues only? Then again you might ask what about the quality of health care? Well why do we have public fire safety in that case? Or a strong police?

This doesn't mean we have to eliminate private health care. In fact I encourage that companies provide top quality health care along side with public health care for those wanting non-emergency care.

Millions of Americans cannot afford health care, but education is far easier to afford. Any parent that puts enough into their work will be able to provide education for their children. And if for some reason the parents still can't afford education the government or private entities can provide subsidies like they do for college students and private charity can also help as well. Either way you look at it there are far more solutions for education than there are for health care, something all nations should have.

You may also ask why we cant have both. Well it isn't that easy and I really hate it when government has to make cuts for education to deal with protection issues. Health care is more linked to safety and protection and because of this it would be harder for people to cut health care costs for all people. If we have public education, it maybe okay but health care is far more important.
 

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,753
Reaction score
187
This falls under the 'give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish, and he'll have fish for life' argument. Two choices, ignorant populace that those of us who are educated and working have to pay for, or educated populace that can pay for itself. That's my take.

What's more, for the price of a private school, you can AFFORD premium healthcare insurance.
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
Kane said:
If our government was to privatize the schools to use the money to create universal health care, would you be for or against it?

Schools are funded primarily through local taxes.

Universal Health care would be funded through federal taxes.

The question is flawed. The logic is flawed.

And gee ... it's nice that you 'encourage' companies to provide health care .... where has that got us? 45 million uninsured. You're encouragement seems worthless.

Also, you're understanding of the function of government is pretty screwed up too ... The governments job is not "Protect its people more than anything else" ...

and by the way ... The government does not own the people ... (Government protects its people?) The people are the government.

Are there any civics classes in your town?
 

Marginal

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 7, 2002
Messages
3,276
Reaction score
66
Location
Colorado
Not to cause too much digression, general question to the folks in the study on either side of the issue...

Since you pretty much need insurance or risk ruination, and you have to fork out your money that you earned for health insurance anyway, how exactly are you keeping your money by tossing it into the private health insurance pool? By the fact you can rest easy knowing that you can not pay for it?

While you do?
 

terryl965

<center><font size="2"><B>Martial Talk Ultimate<BR
MTS Alumni
Joined
Apr 9, 2004
Messages
41,259
Reaction score
337
Location
Grand Prairie Texas
Let see here in Dallas and Ft Worth area of Texas there are 7 school district that do not have fund to pay teacher salery. three districtfiled bankruptcy. Now if they do not have money for the school district with taxes how in the world will they have for insurance. texas has no budget to pay teachers salerys and they are still trying to come up with the funds to pay for them.
Please private school only reflect 7% of the world what are the othe r93% going to do be stupid for the lack of affording education.
Terry
 
OP
K

Kane

Black Belt
Joined
Jun 19, 2004
Messages
589
Reaction score
17
michaeledward said:
Schools are funded primarily through local taxes.

Universal Health care would be funded through federal taxes.

The question is flawed. The logic is flawed.

And gee ... it's nice that you 'encourage' companies to provide health care .... where has that got us? 45 million uninsured. You're encouragement seems worthless.

Also, you're understanding of the function of government is pretty screwed up too ... The governments job is not "Protect its people more than anything else" ...

and by the way ... The government does not own the people ... (Government protects its people?) The people are the government.

Are there any civics classes in your town?

If you did not know this by know I stated that I encourage private health care along side public health care. That is how it is in Canada. So I don't what harm it will do if you encourage good private health care along side public health care.

The government's main job is to protect the people. Protecting people from crime as well as protecting their rights. Your opinion may differ. It sounds to me that you want the government to pay for everything, which is no suprise there.

So has it been always hard for you to understand other point of views?
 
A

ave_turuta

Guest
Neither education nor healthcare should be dependent on individual or privately sponsored charity. Again, most civilized nations consider both education and healthcare to be basic rights that cannot be denied to its individual citizens. What I do not understand is why some people in the US think you need to choose one over the other. I agree with the previous poster: good, publicly funded healthcare and education are not incompatible with private healthcare and education. Spain is a good example: anyone can send their kids to public school or college (at a cost of between 600 and 1,000 euro per year in the case of college, free in the case of elementary and high school) or if you want to you can send your kids to private schools, which in many cases are partially funded by the state through "conciertos." Same goes for healthcare: we have one of the best healthcare systems in the world, but people are still free to opt for private insurance (which in general offer a poorer and more expensive service). In general, Spaniards do not pay more taxes than the average American; in return, we get excellent health coverage at a fringe cost of what healthcare costs in the US, where corporate interests and an absurd inflationist policy are bringing healthcare costs to ridiculous limits.

The educational system in the US is probably the most unequal in the industrialized world. I taught at an elite university for three years: 98% of my students were white students from affluent backgrouds. My partner taught for 7 years at a local community college: about 80% or so of her students were immigrant kids who could not afford elite college education and were even struggling with their English level. The low cost of education in Spain (I used to pay back in the mid-90s around 400 to 500 dollars a year in tuition plus food and housing, which came about 300 dollars a month more or less) afforded me to get the education I wanted and, from there, apply to graduate programs in the US. What I do not understand is why education is seen as a privilege in America, and not as a fundamental right.
 

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,753
Reaction score
187
ave_turuta said:
Neither education nor healthcare should be dependent on individual or privately sponsored charity. Again, most civilized nations consider both education and healthcare to be basic rights that cannot be denied to its individual citizens. What I do not understand is why some people in the US think you need to choose one over the other. I agree with the previous poster: good, publicly funded healthcare and education are not incompatible with private healthcare and education. Spain is a good example: anyone can send their kids to public school or college (at a cost of between 600 and 1,000 euro per year in the case of college, free in the case of elementary and high school) or if you want to you can send your kids to private schools, which in many cases are partially funded by the state through "conciertos." Same goes for healthcare: we have one of the best healthcare systems in the world, but people are still free to opt for private insurance (which in general offer a poorer and more expensive service). In general, Spaniards do not pay more taxes than the average American; in return, we get excellent health coverage at a fringe cost of what healthcare costs in the US, where corporate interests and an absurd inflationist policy are bringing healthcare costs to ridiculous limits.

The educational system in the US is probably the most unequal in the industrialized world. I taught at an elite university for three years: 98% of my students were white students from affluent backgrouds. My partner taught for 7 years at a local community college: about 80% or so of her students were immigrant kids who could not afford elite college education and were even struggling with their English level. The low cost of education in Spain (I used to pay back in the mid-90s around 400 to 500 dollars a year in tuition plus food and housing, which came about 300 dollars a month more or less) afforded me to get the education I wanted and, from there, apply to graduate programs in the US. What I do not understand is why education is seen as a privilege in America, and not as a fundamental right.
Tell me, again, why you decided to go to school in the US, if it was so much cheaper in Spain? I suspect the answer may be very telling.

I always marvel at the large number of people who complain about our health and education system.....then flock from all over the world to take advantage of it.
 
A

ave_turuta

Guest
sgtmac_46 said:
Tell me, again, why you decided to go to school in the US, if it was so much cheaper in Spain? I suspect the answer may be very telling.

I always marvel at the large number of people who complain about our health and education system.....then flock from all over the world to take advantage of it.

At age 21, after I had obtained my B.A., I saw an ad offering scholarships to study abroad for one year in the United States thanks to a cooperation agreement between my home university and US schools. I applied for the scholarship and got it. I thought it would be a good opportunity to see what the educational system was like in the US. In general, I was pleasantly surprised with the graduate level, and very unpleasantly surprised with the undergraduate level. I did not "flock" to the US: I was given an opportunity to know a different system and, being the open-minded person I think I am, I took it. Meanwhile, I have continued working on different educational and academic projects in Spain, where I am now working while I finish my US degree.

Basically, I do not understand your hostility to my previous posting. I obtained a very decent (and cheap) education in Spain, and I later on expanded my horizons by coming to the US and immersing myself for several years on the US system. If I had to choose one, I would choose the Spanish system because (a) it is fairer and more equal; and (b) the quality of education until graduate level (that is, high school and bachelors levels) is infinately superior to that offered in US schools. At the Ph.D. level I chose the American system because (a) my particular field of study was more developed in the US than in Spain (true); (b) the funding opportunities were better in my particular field (I am a historian); and (c) the quality of Ph.D. programs in my particular field was better than in Spain (which is not necessarily the case in all fields). I also considered going to a British university but decided not to attend because I preferred to try out the American experience, since I was already familiar with Britain&#180;s schools. Had I been not a historian of the Middle East but say a historian of Latin American history or Habsburg Spain, I would have probably stayed in Spain for my graduate studies. Alas, I chose what I thought was best. Had I been a student of, say, linguistics, I would have probably chosen France as I am more attuned to their research line; had I wanted to study architecture or philosophy, I would have not hesitated in trying to obtain access into a German university.

Oh, one other thing: I did not "take advantage" of it as in "I came and stole your money." rather, my government was paying my scholarship through an agreement between my home university and the american school which in turn sent 21 undergrads per year to our school (the exchange rate was: 3 Spanish grad student equal 21 undergrad american students in Spain). Later on, I was offered a merit-based TAship, which means I have to work as a teaching assistant in exchange for a monthly salary from the months of september to april. I truly fail to see where I "took advantage" of your system anymore than the undergrads who flock to Spanish universities every year to spend a year or semester abroad do....

Besides, I do not see how coming to the US immediately bars us from commenting on the reality around us. Since we are, fter all, contributing to the development of your educational system, are you suggesting that we should just shut our trap and put up with whatever injustices there exist simply because we are foreigners? Interesting. The truth is, I have taught over... I dunno, 400 students maybe??? I can assure you that, English not being my native tongue, my papers were written much better and more clearly than those of say 95% of my student body. I spent most of my time correcting egregious grammar and basic composition mistakes in papers written by English speakers who had supposedly received an elite education in high school. Talk to any university or college professor, and you will hear the same story: it is a sad state of affairs to see how high school kids reach university level in the US not being able to differentiate between "there" and "their," for instance. The U.S. still has one of the largest illiteracy rates in the industrialized world, and the reading abilities of the average American equal those of an 8th grader. The American educational system (and the Spanish one too, mind it) have serious problems that I think need to be addressed, but not at the cost of sacrificing healthcare!!!
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
Kane said:
The government's main job is to protect the people. Protecting people from crime as well as protecting their rights. Your opinion may differ. It sounds to me that you want the government to pay for everything, which is no suprise there.

So has it been always hard for you to understand other point of views?

I understand your point of view ... I just find the above point of view, not only ignorant, but grossly wrong.

The government's main job is not to protect people. It is one job among several, and I hold it to be a lesser function of the role of government ....

Your Honor, I call as my first witness, the United States Constitution.

Mr. Constitution, what is the function of government?
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

When you say, Establish Justice, do you mean to say protect the citizens?
establish Justice

How about 'insure domestic Tranquility', does that mean protect the people?
insure domestic Tranquility

Now, provide for the common defense, that means protect the people ... so, will give you that as part of the role of government. Would you say this part of your job requires 48% of the resources?
provide for the common defence

Let's move on ... Promote the general Welfare ... Are you Democrat, supporting all those lazy illegal immigrants, who come to this country to live off the tit of Mother Government?
promote the general Welfare

What do you mean when you say 'Secure the Blessing of Liberty' ... Surely, you don't mean that all people should have the same rights. Homosexuals can't be granted the same access as normal people, can they? What do you say to that ... ... Is that protecting the people?
secure the Blessings of Liberty

Thank you. Your honor ... no further questions.
Kane ... A civics class would cover what those phrases mean, and how they are implemented among citizens.
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,563
Reaction score
439
Location
Terre Haute, IN
I'd need to know more about the economics of this (would enough meny be saved to matter? I assume there'd still be some subsidizing of education)...I would be open-minded.
 
OP
K

Kane

Black Belt
Joined
Jun 19, 2004
Messages
589
Reaction score
17
michaeledward said:
I understand your point of view ... I just find the above point of view, not only ignorant, but grossly wrong.

The government's main job is not to protect people. It is one job among several, and I hold it to be a lesser function of the role of government ....
Your Honor, I call as my first witness, the United States Constitution.

Mr. Constitution, what is the function of government?


When you say, Establish Justice, do you mean to say protect the citizens?


How about 'insure domestic Tranquility', does that mean protect the people?


Now, provide for the common defense, that means protect the people ... so, will give you that as part of the role of government. Would you say this part of your job requires 48% of the resources?


Let's move on ... Promote the general Welfare ... Are you Democrat, supporting all those lazy illegal immigrants, who come to this country to live off the tit of Mother Government?


What do you mean when you say 'Secure the Blessing of Liberty' ... Surely, you don't mean that all people should have the same rights. Homosexuals can't be granted the same access as normal people, can they? What do you say to that ... ... Is that protecting the people?


Thank you. Your honor ... no further questions.
Kane ... A civics class would cover what those phrases mean, and how they are implemented among citizens.

I think your trying to push your agenda with this post. I really don't see what your trying to prove. You even bring up homosexuals as if I am against homosexual rights.

Yup a radical liberal with his head deep up his butt. It is no wonder he support mass murdering dictators over democracy just to even further push his agenda.


ave_turuta,

do keep in mind whenever we make something universal it does reduce the quality quite a bit. It all goes back to the old quantity vs quality. How I see it is that education isn't necessarily a human right, although it would be great if all people got it. Why I consider a health care more important is because its linked to public safety and life-death situations. although the quality might be reduced we all know police and fire-fighting is payed mostly by the government. That is not to say that we have to abolish private health care and insurance but it doesn't mean we cannot have some degree of health care. All developed nations have it (including non-western developed countries like Japan and South Korea).

It would be tough to have both education and health care entirelly ran by the government. That would cost a lot of tax money and I don't really trust the government with my money if going too far. Giving our government too much of our money is no different from giving too much of our freedom to government. Its a gamble. Too much money in government hands=corruption.
 

Marginal

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 7, 2002
Messages
3,276
Reaction score
66
Location
Colorado
Kane said:
It would be tough to have both education and health care entirelly ran by the government. That would cost a lot of tax money and I don't really trust the government with my money if going too far. Giving our government too much of our money is no different from giving too much of our freedom to government. Its a gamble. Too much money in government hands=corruption.

Not like corperations. Those things are immune to corruption.
 

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
Kane said:
do keep in mind whenever we make something universal it does reduce the quality quite a bit.

We can't have any universal rights, or else the rights will be diluted.

Limit Speech,
Limit Belief,
Limit Press,

Can't have universal freedom, can we. Or else the quality of freedom will suffer. You know, like having your government spy on your communications, and the books you read.
 
OP
K

Kane

Black Belt
Joined
Jun 19, 2004
Messages
589
Reaction score
17
Marginal said:
Not like corperations. Those things are immune to corruption.

At least with corporations there are many different corporations competing under the same "supply and demand" rule of economics. A government does not have to live under such rules. We expect the government to distribute the wealth equally but would you ever trust a single group of people with such a job? We don't expect the same thing out of corporations. We don't give corporations the job of distributing the wealth equally. Corporations also don't have power over us, we have power over them. If they piss the people off (whether it is through a horrible product or through harassment of the people) the corporation will come to an end faster than a cheetah catching a gazelle;). We are not forced to pay taxes to corporations. Corporation and government are totally different things.
 

Marginal

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 7, 2002
Messages
3,276
Reaction score
66
Location
Colorado
Kane said:
At least with corporations there are many different corporations competing under the same "supply and demand" rule of economics. A government does not have to live under such rules. We expect the government to distribute the wealth equally but would you ever trust a single group of people with such a job? We don't expect the same thing out of corporations. We don't give corporations the job of distributing the wealth equally. Corporations also don't have power over us, we have power over them. If they piss the people off (whether it is through a horrible product or through harassment of the people) the corporation will come to an end faster than a cheetah catching a gazelle;). We are not forced to pay taxes to corporations. Corporation and government are totally different things.

Corperations don't get tax breaks, subsidies etc? They have no power? Really?
 
OP
K

Kane

Black Belt
Joined
Jun 19, 2004
Messages
589
Reaction score
17
michaeledward said:
We can't have any universal rights, or else the rights will be diluted.

Limit Speech,
Limit Belief,
Limit Press,

Can't have universal freedom, can we. Or else the quality of freedom will suffer. You know, like having your government spy on your communications, and the books you read.

The points you are trying to make are very weak. But I'll play a long.

If the government controlled what we said the quality of intelligence would deplete. Whenever the government has too much control over anything, whether social or economic issues, the quality of that particular subject will not be as good. But there are certain things that should be controlled by the government regardless of quality and freedom lost. We have to have health and safety laws at slaughter houses as we have to have laws to protect the people's rights. We also give our tax money for a strong police. Of course there are fundamental rights we have to give up but if we give too much rights as well as too much money to the government then individuality and freedom will be lost. What we are trying to figure out here is what government should have control over.

With that said giving money to the government for health care isn't as bad as it relates closely to the original job of the government;).
 

FearlessFreep

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
3,088
Reaction score
96
Location
Phoenix, Arizona
Therein lies the difference between 'human rights' and I guess what would be better termed as 'guaranteed services'

The rights outlined in the Bill Of Rights, for example, are of the nature of simply saying "this is something that people should be allowed to do, and therefore we, the government, will not attempt to stop you from doing it", Speech, Exercise of Religion, Assembly, etc...

None of them really obligate anyone to actively do anything, just stay out of the way and let people get on with it.

In a very real sense, as a human rights issue, we already have universal health care as a right in the sense that everyone *may* get health care and the government does not actively attempt to interfere with people accessing it.

However, if you are now talking about guaranteeing health care services to be actually provided to everyone, that's quite a bit different. It goes from "we're not going to stop you from exercising your right" to "we have to do something to ensure your right". While you can say that some rights must be enforced, so to speak, if your definition of 'right' is such, it's easy to see that they are not the same.

Free Speech is easy; and the less government involvement you have, the easier it is to do. And if the government is involved only to the point of keeping others from infringing on that right, that's the best you can hope for. Free Medicine is different. It's not something that the state just 'let people do' but it has to be something the state goes out and does.

Which is where the comparison breaks down; which is why you can say "the more free speech, the more powerful that freedom is" and maybe not say "the more free medicine, the better quality that medicine will be"
 
OP
K

Kane

Black Belt
Joined
Jun 19, 2004
Messages
589
Reaction score
17
Marginal said:
Corperations don't get tax breaks, subsidies etc? They have no power? Really?

Not unless your talking about economic power and wealth. They don't get tax breaks; we don't have a flat tax system per se. They actually have to pay more in % than someone of lower economic status. Their tax money pays for most the programs within our government.

They are ultimately under the control of the people because if they do not produce a good product then they will go down fast. Unless it is a monopoly they don't really have all the power at all over the people. Either way you look at it a government controlled monopoly is no better than a much rarer private monopoly.




Anyone can get subsidies if they are qualified.
 

Latest Discussions

Top