I graduated from IU in 1997, and I have to tell you…I take a little offense to your comments. IU has many, many, many schools that are in the tops of the nation. Before I went to IU, I attended a little engineering school, and feel that I have a fine degree, from a fine institution. To address vouchers…they don\’t work. I\’ve never been employed in the field of education, but I know from friends and families they don\’t provide the educational advantages that you\’re talking about. If, for example, the annual tuition of a private school is 10,000 / year and the voucher is for 3,000 / year, many parents still can\’t afford to send their kids there. What tends to happen is that kids with wealthier parents get a benefit from what is essentially a coupon, and poorer kids from the inner city or from rural America are still out of reach. Since vouchers are publically funded, they take away essential money from public schools and throw money into the hands of people that have more than enough money to send their kids to private school anyway.
The point that RNR makes about admittance is important too. It\’s easy to say you have a superior school if you only let in the smartest. If you have to take all or most, than SAT scores are irrelevant when discussing the ability to score. Either way, the example is app to show that in certain situations the whole free market, capitalism doesn\’t answer all questions. And, further, there are certain situation where a result is too important to be left up to a concept that puts profit above all else.
Holy crap again. All these threads and no one is upset that the Terminator wants to provide health care to all illegal aliens, too??? I don\’t mind doing something for our own citizens, but how the hell do we take care of all those who come here illegally? Name me one other country that would allow an American to enter illegally and then bestow all the riches of its citizens?
You cannot compare the two because the intended ends are different. When the private sector gets involved in any industry, they are obviously looking to make money. In order to do that they have to make tough choices and are given an incentive (profits) to find cheaper and better ways to do things. And on that piece, they would be much better at providing the services to some or most of the public. The government ends are to protect its citizens, all of them regardless of the price. Take for example national security. We spend 400 billion / year on that. Don\’t tell me that some company couldn\’t swoop in and provide the same protection for half the price. Now, that might involve not giving soldiers what they need to protect them, and it might involve out-sourcing our intelligence to India, but they would make it work. The deal is that there needs to be this particular product for all. You don\’t have to take the private sector out of the business, you just subsidize them in order for them to maintain a profit and continue to employee what I\’m sure is thousands upon thousands of people in the state of CA. So to answer your question, you have to decide what you want out of the process.
You can\’t name just one industry? In your reference to national defense, who builds all the machinery from bullets to B-1 bombers? Wouldn\’t it be cheaper if we cut out the middleman?
You\’re asking an impossible question. I\’m not a socialist, and I\’m not trying to say the US should be a socialist country. Of course the private sector is more efficient than government. That was never my argument. But, if you goal is to provide everyone in the country with health care, the standard supply and demand curves don\’t work. They work in the sense to maximize profits and charge the legitimate market price for a good, but AGAIN, this is not a product that we should be letting people go without. This isn\’t a high end car, this isn\’t a big home, this isn\’t a 2 month European vacation…this is basic quality of life stuff. We\’ll have to just agree to disagree. You think the free market should be the rule and if people can\’t afford health care at the price that gives a profit to the industry, screw \’em. I think that we all need to pitch end to make sure everyone has it.
I am a free market capitalist. There is no question by my comments, however you are in denial about your socialist leanings. From Meriam Webster – socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. Is that not what you are advocating? And here we have capitalism – an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. I emphasize private decision. We are living healthier and longer than at any other time in the history of the world. Our health care system is the best in the world. Yes, it can be expensive, but it is still a choice and that is what I am advocating is choice, not a bureaucracy.
There\’s really no point to going on with this. You\’re not reading my postings. Again, I\’m not denying we have a good health care system (in quality)…Again, I\’m not advocating broad socialism in our industries….I\’m going to say this one more time as simply as I possibly can…
This is not a question of who can provide a more efficient, more profitable system. It is a question of soul. Every citizen of this country should have health care. That\’s the premise of my argument. Your\’s is that capitalism is better than socialism. You\’re not arguing the same issue I am. I know capitalism is better, but if we have to inject some socialism in our health care system to cover everyone, then so be it. I don\’t mind paying extra in taxes to give the lazy, drunk bum coverage or the 5 year old with a single mother that works at Denny\’s.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Milt,
I graduated from IU in 1997, and I have to tell you…I take a little offense to your comments. IU has many, many, many schools that are in the tops of the nation. Before I went to IU, I attended a little engineering school, and feel that I have a fine degree, from a fine institution. To address vouchers…they don\’t work. I\’ve never been employed in the field of education, but I know from friends and families they don\’t provide the educational advantages that you\’re talking about. If, for example, the annual tuition of a private school is 10,000 / year and the voucher is for 3,000 / year, many parents still can\’t afford to send their kids there. What tends to happen is that kids with wealthier parents get a benefit from what is essentially a coupon, and poorer kids from the inner city or from rural America are still out of reach. Since vouchers are publically funded, they take away essential money from public schools and throw money into the hands of people that have more than enough money to send their kids to private school anyway.
The point that RNR makes about admittance is important too. It\’s easy to say you have a superior school if you only let in the smartest. If you have to take all or most, than SAT scores are irrelevant when discussing the ability to score. Either way, the example is app to show that in certain situations the whole free market, capitalism doesn\’t answer all questions. And, further, there are certain situation where a result is too important to be left up to a concept that puts profit above all else.
Holy crap again. All these threads and no one is upset that the Terminator wants to provide health care to all illegal aliens, too??? I don\’t mind doing something for our own citizens, but how the hell do we take care of all those who come here illegally? Name me one other country that would allow an American to enter illegally and then bestow all the riches of its citizens?
I\’m still waiting for an answer to my question. When has the government stepped in and provided a better service or product than private enterprise?
Your not going to get an answer because AZUW can\’t give you one. Socialism has never worked; never will.
Milt,
You cannot compare the two because the intended ends are different. When the private sector gets involved in any industry, they are obviously looking to make money. In order to do that they have to make tough choices and are given an incentive (profits) to find cheaper and better ways to do things. And on that piece, they would be much better at providing the services to some or most of the public. The government ends are to protect its citizens, all of them regardless of the price. Take for example national security. We spend 400 billion / year on that. Don\’t tell me that some company couldn\’t swoop in and provide the same protection for half the price. Now, that might involve not giving soldiers what they need to protect them, and it might involve out-sourcing our intelligence to India, but they would make it work. The deal is that there needs to be this particular product for all. You don\’t have to take the private sector out of the business, you just subsidize them in order for them to maintain a profit and continue to employee what I\’m sure is thousands upon thousands of people in the state of CA. So to answer your question, you have to decide what you want out of the process.
You can\’t name just one industry? In your reference to national defense, who builds all the machinery from bullets to B-1 bombers? Wouldn\’t it be cheaper if we cut out the middleman?
Milt,
You\’re asking an impossible question. I\’m not a socialist, and I\’m not trying to say the US should be a socialist country. Of course the private sector is more efficient than government. That was never my argument. But, if you goal is to provide everyone in the country with health care, the standard supply and demand curves don\’t work. They work in the sense to maximize profits and charge the legitimate market price for a good, but AGAIN, this is not a product that we should be letting people go without. This isn\’t a high end car, this isn\’t a big home, this isn\’t a 2 month European vacation…this is basic quality of life stuff. We\’ll have to just agree to disagree. You think the free market should be the rule and if people can\’t afford health care at the price that gives a profit to the industry, screw \’em. I think that we all need to pitch end to make sure everyone has it.
I am a free market capitalist. There is no question by my comments, however you are in denial about your socialist leanings. From Meriam Webster – socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. Is that not what you are advocating? And here we have capitalism – an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. I emphasize private decision. We are living healthier and longer than at any other time in the history of the world. Our health care system is the best in the world. Yes, it can be expensive, but it is still a choice and that is what I am advocating is choice, not a bureaucracy.
Milt,
There\’s really no point to going on with this. You\’re not reading my postings. Again, I\’m not denying we have a good health care system (in quality)…Again, I\’m not advocating broad socialism in our industries….I\’m going to say this one more time as simply as I possibly can…
This is not a question of who can provide a more efficient, more profitable system. It is a question of soul. Every citizen of this country should have health care. That\’s the premise of my argument. Your\’s is that capitalism is better than socialism. You\’re not arguing the same issue I am. I know capitalism is better, but if we have to inject some socialism in our health care system to cover everyone, then so be it. I don\’t mind paying extra in taxes to give the lazy, drunk bum coverage or the 5 year old with a single mother that works at Denny\’s.
Mr. AZUW,
Let me just ask you one question: What about the ILLEGALS? You can\’t be in favor of them getting health care benefits, are you?