Would You Trade Public Education For Universal Health Care?

[Marginal]

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.

Deregulation didn't do the media any favors.

 

[Kane]

Therin lies the difference between 'human rights' ad 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, 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"

Yes but something like freedom of speech doesn't destroy the quality of anything, it in fact it improves the quality of knowledge and intelligence. Hearing the viewpoints of people that think different from you will cause you to really think on what is right after analyzing their viewpoint. And intelligence is an important factor in quality and progress. Free-thinking is as well. What applies to economic issues similarly applies to social issues.

Mr. michealedward doesn't seem to understand this dynamic;

Pure liberty (capitalism and social liberalism)= absolute competition and best quality of everything.

Pure security (socialism and social conservatism)= absolute security and best protection against violation of human rights.

It seems michealedard understands it as conservatism = better quality and no regard for human rights when in fact that vague assumption is way off.

I tend to put pure liberty above pure security but in reality both are important. We can't have anarchy just because we want best quality.

 

[Kane]

Deregulation didn't do the media any favors.

Regulation is good, as long as it doesn't go too far .

 

[sgtmac_46]

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.

BRAVO!!!! This is what i've been maintaining for a while, and why I maintain that many of the issues people claim are 'rights issues' have nothing to do with Constitutional Rights. The Constitution is a set of rules for the government, basically 'Thou Shall Nots' telling them where their bounds are. Basically, they keep the government out of our lives, which, the less governed the better.

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.

Bravo, again, for putting your finger on the core issue.

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.

Exactly, it's a distortion of what a 'right' is. Moreover, it's a mindset the founding fathers warned us about.

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.

It's merely bribing people with their own money. (Or, more to the point, taking 'those other people's' money, and buying votes with it.) That's why many people aren't concerned with campaign finance reform. They plan on buying votes with YOUR money AFTER they get elected.

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"

Heck, i'll provide free medical care for anyone...I don't guarantee the quality, however, but I can guarantee it'll be free. Just send me an email anytime you have a medical problem, and i'll see what I can do.

 

[ave_turuta]

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.

I challenge you to prove that making both public education and public healthcare affordable is synonimous with diminishing quality. Sweden, Norway and Finland (particularly this last one) have excellent educational systems, adn the same goes for the healthcare systems. Education in Finalnd is completely free, from kindergarden level to college; bilingual; and, best of all (something that does not remotely happen in the US, where teachers in many districts need not be qualified) teachers in Finnish schools are qualified at all levels (kindergarden teachers MUST hold a masters degree in education or similar to be able to teach). As of currently, Nordic countries lead the world in all development indexes, have the highest literacy rates, etc. etc.

Greetings.

 

[arnisador]

Bilingual? Finnish and...?

 

[ginshun]

I challenge you to prove that making both public education and public healthcare affordable is synonimous with diminishing quality. Sweden, Norway and Finland (particularly this last one) have excellent educational systems, adn the same goes for the healthcare systems. Education in Finalnd is completely free, from kindergarden level to college; bilingual; and, best of all (something that does not remotely happen in the US, where teachers in many districts need not be qualified) teachers in Finnish schools are qualified at all levels (kindergarden teachers MUST hold a masters degree in education or similar to be able to teach). As of currently, Nordic countries lead the world in all development indexes, have the highest literacy rates, etc. etc.

Greetings.

This is all well and good, but are the same results possible on the scale of things involved in doing them in the US? I mean that is great and all that Finland can be a shining example for the rest of the world, but you have to remember that it also has about the same population as Wisconsin.

How well are these same programs going to work when you increase the number of people that they have to be effective for 60 fold?

 

[michaeledward]

How well are these same programs going to work when you increase the number of people that they have to be effective for 60 fold?

Let's try and find out, eh?

 

[CanuckMA]

Don't you think it's in the State's best interest to have a population that is both educated and healthy.

Just look at this board as a microcosm. How often do we read posts describing serious physical ailments where the poster says they can't afford to go see a doctor?

While Canada's system is not perfect, it does work and provide universal coverage. Now you just have to increase by a factor of 10.

 

[ave_turuta]

Bilingual? Finnish and...?

Finnish and English. I still have to meet a Finn who does not speak excellent English.

 

[ave_turuta]

This is all well and good, but are the same results possible on the scale of things involved in doing them in the US? I mean that is great and all that Finland can be a shining example for the rest of the world, but you have to remember that it also has about the same population as Wisconsin.

How well are these same programs going to work when you increase the number of people that they have to be effective for 60 fold?

Considering that (a) the system would be funded via taxes and contributions; and (b) that Americans do not tire to repeat that this is the richest country on Earth... quite honestly, I do not see the problem. The population argument simply does not hold water: the GDP of the US is inifinately superior to that of Finland.

 

[Kane]

I challenge you to prove that making both public education and public healthcare affordable is synonimous with diminishing quality. Sweden, Norway and Finland (particularly this last one) have excellent educational systems, adn the same goes for the healthcare systems. Education in Finalnd is completely free, from kindergarden level to college; bilingual; and, best of all (something that does not remotely happen in the US, where teachers in many districts need not be qualified) teachers in Finnish schools are qualified at all levels (kindergarden teachers MUST hold a masters degree in education or similar to be able to teach). As of currently, Nordic countries lead the world in all development indexes, have the highest literacy rates, etc. etc.

Greetings.

Heh heh, It sounds like you would love to live there. Perhaps you should consider moving .

But seriously, the college education and health system is far better in quality here in the States than in Finland and Norway. Then again one can argue that it is useless when not all the people can recieve. Goes back to the whole quantity vs quality, although many people can still afford health care here.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Considering that (a) the system would be funded via taxes and contributions; and (b) that Americans do not tire to repeat that this is the richest country on Earth... quite honestly, I do not see the problem. The population argument simply does not hold water: the GDP of the US is inifinately superior to that of Finland.

Where did you attend graduate school again? Finland? It would have seemed closer to Spain than the US. Plus, it's less distasteful than the US. Why the choice to attend University in the US over Finland? I suspect, even though you won't admit it, that FAR more educational opportunities existed in advanced study in the US than in Finland. There's your answer.

 

[michaeledward]

Where did you attend graduate school again? Finland? It would have seemed closer to Spain than the US. Plus, it's less distasteful than the US. Why the choice to attend University in the US over Finland? I suspect, even though you won't admit it, that FAR more educational opportunities existed in advanced study in the US than in Finland. There's your answer.

This is an argument from size; "That Far more geographic and population opportunities existed in the US" is also a true statement.

You are implying, without facts, that the educational opportunities, as a proportion of a) Gross Domestic Product b) Percentage of Matriculation, is superior in the United States.

. . . ~ ~ ~ whistlin' dixie ~ ~ ~ . . . I'll wait here for the evidence.

p.s. You're implication may be correct, but, without the evidence, you may just be overly nationalistic.

 

[sgtmac_46]

This is an argument from size; "That Far more geographic and population opportunities existed in the US" is also a true statement.

Actually, michael, we are talking quality of education, versus sheer number. The reason people come to the US is the quality of higher education.

You are implying, without facts, that the educational opportunities, as a proportion of a) Gross Domestic Product b) Percentage of Matriculation, is superior in the United States.

. . . ~ ~ ~ whistlin' dixie ~ ~ ~ . . . I'll wait here for the evidence.

p.s. You're implication may be correct, but, without the evidence, you may just be overly nationalistic.

I don't need evidence, i'm not making any claim other than this....that SHE doesn't believe her own argument is true, as her actions prove. The very fact that she chose the US for higher educational opportunities, over a closer and cheaper location, is evidence that SHE believes the US higher educational opportunities were superior, and hence, worth paying MORE for. End of lesson.

 

[michaeledward]

Actually, michael, we are talking quality of education, versus sheer number. The reason people come to the US is the quality of higher education.

Yes ... you were implying 'quality', but that is not the argument you made.

I don't need evidence, i'm not making any claim other than this....that SHE doesn't believe her own argument is true, as her actions prove. The very fact that she chose the US for higher educational opportunities, over a closer and cheaper location, is evidence that SHE believes the US higher educational opportunities were superior, and hence, worth paying MORE for. End of lesson.

What her actions show, is that she had the opportunity to Study somewhere, and she chose to take advantage of that opportunity.

While we can conclude it is closer and cheaper to study in Finnland, we can not assume that equal opportunity was persented.

It is very difficult to make a generalized statement from a specific example. A sample of one does not prove anything.

But, you know that, you're just being a ... well, nevermind.

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

But, you know that, you're just being a ... well, nevermind.

This conversation/debate has been interesting to follow. I'd hate to see it dip below it's current level.

 

[michaeledward]

This conversation/debate has been interesting to follow. I'd hate to see it dip below it's current level.

While it may have been interesting to follow, I refer you back to my first post.

The discussion's premise is faulty. Universal Health would be executed on a National Level. Education is executed on a Local Level. To assume a zero sum argument, we must get rid of public education to have universal health care, just isn't true, as has been evidenced by ave_turuta's statements (e.g. other countries quite succesfully have Universal Health Care and Public Education).

Now, if you want to have a discussion about Federalizing public education, we can do that too, but that is not the discussion here.

sgtmac_46 has in the past called out the logical fallacy of arguing the specific from the general, so he knows what he is doing. While he may not be aware that his jingoistic argument is using that logical fallacy when he is making it, I suspect he is aware.

Whatta ya think, am I giving him too much credit?

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

I would simply prefer to see the conversation avoid name-calling.

 

[ave_turuta]

Where did you attend graduate school again? Finland? It would have seemed closer to Spain than the US. Plus, it's less distasteful than the US. Why the choice to attend University in the US over Finland? I suspect, even though you won't admit it, that FAR more educational opportunities existed in advanced study in the US than in Finland. There's your answer.

I already explained, per your request, why I chose the US. I also said that had my field of studies been a different one, I would have most likely NOT chosen the US. I happen to be a Middle East studies specialist. Once again, you only read what you want to read. It seems to me that you have a difficult time understanding why some people may want to criticize some aspects of US culture. By the way: I thnk there are many good and excellent things in the US. Education as a whole (from kindergarden to graduate level) is not one of them: the quality of some of its grad programs, yes. But not ***education,*** which is the topic at hand. I am very willing to discuss and criticize my own country if you wish to initiate another topic: see? here´s the thing, Americans get ***extremely*** offended when someone criticizes them, yet th eexercise of self-criticism is a constant in most European countries, and nobody gets offended. Want to discuss the Spanish educational system? I have about 23458 things that I can complain about.

Overall, the Finnish educational system is INFINITELY superior in its quality to any other system in the world: more Finns speak a scond language than Americans and Spaniards; more Finns have higher literacy levels than Americans or Spanirds; more Finns have graduate degrees than Americans.... would you like me to continue??? We are not discussing the quality of graduate programs in the US versus those of other countries, but a rather different topic, that is whether it is possible to have both a good publicly funded education system together with a good public healthcare system. The answer is yes, it is possible. The US ranks lowest in many literacy indexes amongst industrialized nations. Why?