England socialised Medicine.
 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/news/...122122,00.html


More proof that Government controled medicine just doesnt work.

This is not "proof" - what you COULD prove, if you tried harder, was that the NHS is the provides the worst standard of health care in Western Europe - and that, for example, the hospitals are often so dirty that a 68 year old guy I knew who had cancer which was possibly operable was told he may as well stay home and die because if he had an operation in hospital he would almost certainly catch an infection that would kill him.

You could prove maybe that the British National Health Service is mismanaged, funds are very badly allocated, staff are demoralised, and that it simply isnt working... what you cannot even claim to prove is simply to say one example of something not working proves that that system can never work.

Why dont you compare, for example, health care in Sweden and rural Louisana?

Your proof isn't proof of anything, except for the fact that england has over-stretched existing services for diagnosing gut disorders. How is that an indictment of government controlled medicine? Does that mean that the lack of affordable healthcare in the u.s. is also "proof" of the failure of free market controlled health care?

While government healthcare sucks even worse then government schools, this isn't the proof.

Well Utswo, we can't all afford to pay for a private school I guess.

Interestingly enough, those who are pro public schools would never dare to send their children there. They know that public schools are crap, and send their children to private academies, and then vote down voucher programs for those of us poor saps who can't afford $10k a semester for our 15 year olds.

Well, I went to a public school and I managed to go to university and do ok.

I just dont see how, economically, low to average wage earners can afford to pay for private schooling. If the state gives vouchers to people to go to private schools, then there really is no difference - the state is still funding the education, and just saying they are too incompetent to manage education properly.

I cant speak for America, I would say school's in the UK arent great, but from the few friends I knew who went to private school, there are a lot of problems in them too.

Odd, I see that every day when I work. For what the government pays for the average student (out of our tax money) the catholic schools do far better on for less.

Eh both public and private schools have their own shit, and having experienced both, all i can say is, they all suck.

I for one believe that this nation's poor children recieve far too much schooling and they should be sent back to the coal mines and textile mills. A child in the textile mills can make a six-pence a day for his family instead of wasting his time with learning only meant for wealth children. Since good Darwin proved that wealth people are more biologically fit to survive, I believe we should cut off all service which might benefit the biologically weaker lower classes.

/1900

sat·ire ( P ) Pronunciation Key (str)
n.

1: A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.

2: The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature.

3: Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.

Might I direct your eyes to numbers one and three Ustwo.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=No+Shit

No Shit

1 .Used to express contemptuous acknowledgment of the obvious.

2. To affirm as in "no really?" but in a sarcastic, slightly insulting way.

3. Expression said to people who state the obvious.

If a person is too dense to realize, or perhaps acknowledge, the differences between trolling and satire, then maybe just maybe that person should take the attitude down a couple of notches before trying to make a snappy comeback.

Earth to Minkus, I knew that already.

Um nanofeaver my friend, it was rather obvious you were being sarcastic and I still call it a troll. You can troll while being sarcastic.

Trolling and sarcasam work well together. Lets try this for an example.

Nanofever thanks so much for teaching me the definition of sarcasm. Without your helpfull definition I might spend the rest of my life thinking people always mean exactly what they say and write. This has been such a relief to me as it clears up many instances in my life where the outcome didn't make sense based on the conversation. I owe you Sir a debt of thanks I can never repay. I may have to reread Johnathan Swift though, I may have made a terrible mistake after reading " A Modest Proposal ".

Now the above post served no purpose but to provoke, gave no usefull info, didn't state a point of view, BUT it was also sarcastic. It by it self is a troll. Much like your post.

*sees Lebell comming with a stick*

If you have nothing useful to contribute, don't bother posting or trolling.

Privatizing public schools by way of a voucher system would not deny lower/middle class parents of an education for their children, it would provide them with more options and better schools.

[edit]
taking it to a new thread.

#1 No reason it can't be a state voucher system as well.
#2 Whats this middle class can't afford bullshit? I am currently sitting in my office in a VERY middle class area, with the tiny post WWII housing, with blue collar jobs and 1000's of them go to private schools. You tell these people that 1100 wouldn't matter, but I'd be sure to do it in some place public.

They make sacrifices to afford it in order to give their children the best education possible, and the best future possible. I’m sometimes wonder what view of America you have, and why it seems so far out of wack with reality. :hmm:

Is there a chance this thread could get pack to private vs. public health care? Having lived/worked in Mexico, the U.S. and Canada, I have some thoughts, but I'd like to read more of what everyone else has to say.

I don't know what a textile worker starts at, but an average coal miner STARTS at around 18$ an hour and are highly sought after by new grads. (And very hard to get, too.)

The mandatory "In Sweden"-reply:

In Sweden we have next to none public schools (only 1-2% enrolled in private/independent schools) and practically no private healthcare facilities.

Go go goverment! :)

http://www.fcpp.org/publication_detail.php?PubID=26
http://www.settlement.org/cp/english/sweden/health.html
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/pub...comment45.html

Governments never allocate resources as efficiently as private firms do in free markets. That's a fact. Most of the problems America has with its healthcare system are caused by government legislation and policy. If government would step back and let markets work the way they would naturally, based on competition and self-interest, health care would reach an efficient equilibrium between supply and demand.

I double majored in Finance and Economics during my undergrad studies and sometimes I get frustrated reading points of views from people who don't understand the mechanics of economics. That is what we're discussing here, right? Alot of times I think folks have their hearts in the right place because they want to help others, but sadly, economics deals with scarcity, and there is not always enough to go around.

Healthcare, like all other resources is scarce, and free markets, not governments are better suited to divide scarce resources. I could certainly write more about this subject but I'm not sure it would do any good. I really wonder whether people are truly open to logic on subjects like this or whether their minds are already made up and they just want to talk about how admirable socialism is and how uncool capitalism is.

Onto Vouchers:

Vouchers would create a private market for schools and create competition that would lead to more efficient, higher quality and more innovative education. The reason America will most likely never go to a voucher system is the teacher's union.

Believe it or not, that union is probably the most powerful in America. The union likes the public education system because it creates job security and artificially inflated wages for teachers.

In a private system, teachers would be held accountable for the performance of their pupils and expected to do their job well because the success of their company would depend it. We don't have that now.

If a teacher doesn't perform well in a public school, parents normally do not have the option of enrolling their student somewhere else so school administrators don't care. If there were alternative available and it was easier to transfer, then school administrators would be a little more worried about losing students (money) and they would fire bad teachers and find better ones. Teaching would no longer be a profession that tolerated lazy, paycheck collecting slackers.

You can understand why the teacher's union isn't interested in a situation like that, can't you?? That is just another example of how government is unable to distribute resources (education) efficiently. Our tax money would be used more efficiently in a free market that would provide cheaper, superior education.

I'm done now...

-Dostoevsky

I'm not going to debate the point that private firms are more efficient than government entities other than to state that there isn't anything inherent in either one that would preclude the other from being just as, if not more, efficient than the other.

Regardless, the problem I see with your analysis is that you are using efficiency as a trump card. That is, in some services, I prefer things like compassion and equity--things I don't see a private firm particularly interested in. In fact, according to your analysis wherein efficiency is paramount, we would expect those other components to be on the periphery--if considered at all.

"I'm not going to debate the point that private firms are more efficient than government entities other than to state that there isn't anything inherent in either one that would preclude the other from being just as, if not more, efficient than the other"
-Smooth

Actually that's not true. If you had read the example I gave about vouchers leading to increased efficiency in education you may have seen the point more clearly. I'll try again.

Private companies constantly look for better, more efficient ways to produce goods and services because they compete with other private companies for market share. So self interest is the inherent, motivating factor that drives efficiency in free markets. The efficiencies created in free market are passed along to us, consumers, in the form of lower prices and a higher standard of living.

When Government gets involved in the distribution of resources inefficiencies arise due to lack of competition. Without competition, resources need not be used as efficiently as possible because there is no consquence to doing a poor job. If a private firm sucks at doing something, it can't compete and becomes insolvent. When the government sucks at doing something, tax payers suffer the inefficiencies in the form of wasted taxes and frustration.

Many people do not grasp economic theory though. Those people tend to focus less on how free markets lead to a higher overall standard of living in our country and more on things like "compassion" and "equity." How it's unfair or discompassionate to use our scarce resources wisely is beyond me. Then again, I'm not a liberal. :crazy: