I'm disregarding most of your reply post because it's nothing more than refutations based upon your own rose colored glasses, but I did want to respond to the below because they are at least points we can agree upon.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Teachers in the NON SOCIALIZED field (private schools) get paid a lot worse than teachers in the public schools. Why?
|
Private school classes are not as populated as public school classes. Less students means less workload AND it also means that you actually get better education instead of a factory line education system.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Um, are you not a product of the public education system? Are you saying you're an uneducated ignoramus? Because that's what you seem to think the public education system is turning out.
|
Yes, I unfortunately am, but I also had the fortune of finding out just how shoddy it is and enabled myself to rise above it by researching and learning a great multitude of subjects on my own. It also helps that I'm of a personality where when I want to know something, I want to know all of it. Thats beside the point though. Lots of others in urban communities are left deficient in education because of the way the system is run.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
No, we need to fund it smarter. Quit spending craploads of money on football and start spending it on academics.
|
I wholeheartedly agree with this.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
FWIW the numbers for public schools are generally generated by the community the school is in. Public schools are for the most part state-run, not federally run.
|
and yet they still can't get it right. whether federal or state, there should be as little input as possible in to the education system. If you are going to have a public education system, make it as local as possible with only a FEW guidelines and standards by a central government. You'll end up with better educated students.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Whether the field is socialized or not, if there's no incentive to be financially successful YOU claim you retard the entire field. I pointed out that there are plenty of people who work in professions where they don't get paid very much money (whether socialized or not) who might take umbrage at your remark.
|
they might, but i'm not to blame for that. they need to lay the blame where it lies....big business and government regulations.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Well, lemme just put it this way. Healthcare in this country is broken. Badly. It's far too expensive, and that's under your treasured system of enriching the rich. Your way doesn't work.
|
First, I agree that the system is broken....beyond broken. What you're failing to understand is that it's not broken because doctors got together and said 'lets monopolize health care'. It's broken because insurance industries believed that they could make money off of healthy people by making them subsidize for sick people and then screwing the sick people by limiting the amount they would pay for adequate healthcare. That made it expensive...what broke it was getting the states governments to buy in to it and regulate it to the point where a doctor HAS to utilize the health insurance medical doctrine instead of applying his/her own. It's not MY way of health care, it's the republican big business way as well as the democrat/liberal socialized way of health care. the only difference between the two is republicans want to keep it at the state level and democrats want to move it to federal. either way, it's still going to remain broken.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Canada does it my way, and they're doing just fine.
|
not according to desals relatives, who are residing IN canada.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Oh and as far as canadians having to wait months for basic medical care, I'm going to the eye doctor tomorrow for a prescription change. I made the appointment in October. This was the earliest available. We have to wait here too. That's a basic reality no matter what system you use.
|
and yet you want to make it MORE beaurucratic by moving it to a federal level? keep it small, keep it simple, keep it working.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
dk:
1. the question "who pays?" in isolation is meaningless. if you abstract the mechanism of redistribution from its functions, you can't think coherently about redistribution.
|
why? because admitting that everyone would have to pay ruins the illusion that nobody would have to pay any extra? or that only the wealthy would have to pay extra?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
2. i see no possible argument that would lead to a conclusion that universal health care and access to education would have negative effects on anything. these seem entirely worthwhile tasks for the public to decide are worth paying for as a public. period.
|
because you refuse to see anything BUT that public good result.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
3. the idea that the present system is somehow not capitalism is one that seems to me out to lunch. i am not going to persue this one any further, in the interest of staying within the style of a nice persona.
|
what we have today is not capitalism. what we have today is a system based on fascism. What we might have tomorrow could be based on socialism which will mean that everyones rights and property are subject to majority whim. Neither of those are capitalism.