If there are public schools, why can't there be public health care?

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

I love it when liberals use this arguement, because it only hurts the arguement for socialized healthcare.

Yes, just look how great public schools are compared to private schools. Just look how much cheaper they are too...:roll:

SpartanMSU

Private schools are typically far more expensive than public. . .

No...they aren't. The Wahsington D.C. district gets $15,000 per student. Most private schools are waaay under that, unless you go to a really, really, really prestigious one...

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

I love it when liberals use this arguement, because it only hurts the arguement for socialized healthcare.

Yes, just look how great public schools are compared to private schools. Just look how much cheaper they are too...:roll:

Ontain

Depends on where you go...

And you're forgetting that state universities get a lot of money from the government.

And btw, I also go to a state university (look at my avatar). There's not really any private universities comparable to Michigan State. I wanted the big college experience.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

I love it when liberals use this arguement, because it only hurts the arguement for socialized healthcare.

Yes, just look how great public schools are compared to private schools. Just look how much cheaper they are too...:roll:

hamstergeddon

What?

Does this only apply to US ?

Because in England we have NHS

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

I love it when liberals use this arguement, because it only hurts the arguement for socialized healthcare.

Yes, just look how great public schools are compared to private schools. Just look how much cheaper they are too...:roll:

SpartanMSU

Private schools are typically far more expensive than public. . .

No...they aren't. The Wahsington D.C. district gets $15,000 per student. Most private schools are waaay under that, unless you go to a really, really, really prestigious one...

Even though your tax dollars go towards the public schools, having to pay more money for tuition in a private school is less expensive than we all think? One way or another, you're still paying far more for a private school than you would have to pay for a public school.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Private schools are typically far more expensive than public. . .

Ontain

No...they aren't. The Wahsington D.C. district gets $15,000 per student. Most private schools are waaay under that, unless you go to a really, really, really prestigious one...

Yes there are...

And even if there are who cares. I knew people who went to religious schools that weren't religious. You get a great education. If there were vouchers, there would be much, much more non-religious private schools.

And Duxup, many private schools take in the students that weren't doing well at public schools are turn them into excellent students.

@carl_w21::I hope you didnt have to pull the plug on grandma.

Depends on where you go...

And you're forgetting that state universities get a lot of money from the government.

And btw, I also go to a state university (look at my avatar). There's not really any private universities comparable to Michigan State. I wanted the big college experience.

SpartanMSU

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Private schools are typically far more expensive than public. . .

tycoonmike

No...they aren't. The Wahsington D.C. district gets $15,000 per student. Most private schools are waaay under that, unless you go to a really, really, really prestigious one...

Even though your tax dollars go towards the public schools, having to pay more money for tuition in a private school is less expensive than we all think? One way or another, you're still paying far more for a private school than you would have to pay for a public school.

Obviously, because you can't get out of paying taxes. So you might be paying for a school you're child doesn't even attend. The point is that a private school that doesn't recieve money from the state can offer a better education at a cheaper cost than a public school. Why? Simple, profit-motive and competition. Public schools don't have competition and don't have to worry about innovating or spending less money.

Obviously, because you can't get out of paying taxes. So you might be paying for a school you're child doesn't even attend. The point is that a private school that doesn't recieve money from the state can offer a better education at a cheaper cost than a public school. Why? Simple, profit-motive and competition. Public schools don't have competition and don't have to worry about innovating or spending less money.

SpartanMSU

Yes there are...

And even if there are who cares. I knew people who went to religious schools that weren't religious. You get a great education. If there were vouchers, there would be much, much more non-religious private schools.

And Duxup, many private schools take in the students that weren't doing well at public schools are turn them into excellent students.

SpartanMSU

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

No...they aren't. The Wahsington D.C. district gets $15,000 per student. Most private schools are waaay under that, unless you go to a really, really, really prestigious one...

SpartanMSU

Even though your tax dollars go towards the public schools, having to pay more money for tuition in a private school is less expensive than we all think? One way or another, you're still paying far more for a private school than you would have to pay for a public school.

Obviously, because you can't get out of paying taxes. So you might be paying for a school you're child doesn't even attend. The point is that a private school that doesn't recieve money from the state can offer a better education at a cheaper cost than a public school. Why? Simple, profit-motive and competition. Public schools don't have competition and don't have to worry about innovating or spending less money.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

No...they aren't. The Wahsington D.C. district gets $15,000 per student. Most private schools are waaay under that, unless you go to a really, really, really prestigious one...

SpartanMSU

Even though your tax dollars go towards the public schools, having to pay more money for tuition in a private school is less expensive than we all think? One way or another, you're still paying far more for a private school than you would have to pay for a public school.

Obviously, because you can't get out of paying taxes. So you might be paying for a school you're child doesn't even attend. The point is that a private school that doesn't recieve money from the state can offer a better education at a cheaper cost than a public school. Why? Simple, profit-motive and competition. Public schools don't have competition and don't have to worry about innovating or spending less money.

But the problem is that if you're already paying for the public school, sending a child to a private school is going to be automatically more expensive than the public option. Beyond that, the vast majority of private schools in the United States are religiously affiliated. The few that aren't are usually reserved for people who either receive a massive scholarship or for the more affluent families.

why would you want two failing over-expensive programs?....Omni-Slash

Don't forget the Postal Service and Social Security...

[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"]why would you want two failing over-expensive programs?....tycoonmike

Don't forget the Postal Service and Social Security...

Uhh, you need an education! Duh. :PxTheExploited

I'm not sure if you were talking about him personally or everyone but he certainly does apparently lol

And public schools illustrate quite well that government is not equipped to be involved in social programs. As do other programs.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"]why would you want two failing over-expensive programs?....Omni-Slash

Don't forget the Postal Service and Social Security...

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And public schools illustrate quite well that government is not equipped to be involved in social programs. As do other programs.Ontain

all the doctors at my office are worried about public health care because their pay will be cut from it lol.

Crimtmp

why would you want two failing over-expensive programs?....Omni-Slash

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="Locke562"] How Public or accessible the care is is a standard. It's a standard because every other first world country has some sort of public health care system.

SamusFreak

over 40 million don't. and several million more either have huge loans from paying for it and have other financial problems, or suffer without it to avoid teh bills. first rate? not quite. again 37th on the WHO rateing, and the countries above us( with socialized healthcare) have better stats and such, like higher life expectancy.

So who is actually uninsured?

[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"]why would you want two failing over-expensive programs?....Kid-Icarus-

I don't think the fact that we lag behind other countries can solely be blamed on parenting.:|LJS9502_basic

if the system has done some bad things its that it let politics get in the way over education. they adjust the curves and standards on tests to make it look like there's improvement even when there is not. of course when that happens they credit themselves and when there's bad results they blame teachers. never the parents or policies they put in place (like removing phonics many years back or changing the math ciriculum, both happened in NY and were reverted back and claimed as "new" better ideas)

I dont want goverment controlled health-care.

I was saying parenting, our current culture of no responsibility, and overworked underpaid population (our wages have not gone up with the rate of gdp growth but execs and ceo's have grown faster than gdp) Ontain

Here's a solution. If you already have health insurance you are exempt from the increased tax. If you don't have the insurance then you pay the tax. That's fair.....LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Here's a solution. If you already have health insurance you are exempt from the increased tax. If you don't have the insurance then you pay the tax. That's fair.....duxup

You are using your OWN insurance and not the governments....which is what I said.;)

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Here's a solution. If you already have health insurance you are exempt from the increased tax. If you don't have the insurance then you pay the tax. That's fair.....LJS9502_basic

You are using your OWN insurance and not the governments....which is what I said.;)

Having insurance is not a permanent sate. Having insurance now, doesn't mean you won't use the government program in the future if you lost it.duxup

Here's a solution. If you already have health insurance you are exempt from the increased tax. If you don't have the insurance then you pay the tax. That's fair.....LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Ontain"] I was saying parenting, our current culture of no responsibility, and overworked underpaid population (our wages have not gone up with the rate of gdp growth but execs and ceo's have grown faster than gdp) LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Here's a solution. If you already have health insurance you are exempt from the increased tax. If you don't have the insurance then you pay the tax. That's fair.....-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="duxup"] Having insurance is not a permanent sate. Having insurance now, doesn't mean you won't use the government program in the future if you lost it.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Here's a solution. If you already have health insurance you are exempt from the increased tax. If you don't have the insurance then you pay the tax. That's fair.....-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="Ontain"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And public schools illustrate quite well that government is not equipped to be involved in social programs. As do other programs.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="duxup"] Having insurance is not a permanent sate. Having insurance now, doesn't mean you won't use the government program in the future if you lost it.duxup

Anyone for government healthcare should be able to answer the last question.

[QUOTE="duxup"] Having insurance is not a permanent sate. Having insurance now, doesn't mean you won't use the government program in the future if you lost it.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="duxup"] Having insurance is not a permanent sate. Having insurance now, doesn't mean you won't use the government program in the future if you lost it.Ontain

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Here's a solution. If you already have health insurance you are exempt from the increased tax. If you don't have the insurance then you pay the tax. That's fair.....Darthmatt

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] And that is what is in the house bill.fillini

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Then you would move into that category. But as long as you have your own....you should not have to pay for those that would rather spend money on vacation, electronics, and automobiles. Many of the uninsured make very good money....some around 70K or more. Tell me again why they can't afford insurance?

LJS9502_basic

Anyone for government healthcare should be able to answer the last question.

[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"]why would you want two failing over-expensive programs?....Kid-Icarus-

Even if it meant all the naysayer's worst nightmares coming true: the death panels, the rationing of health care, and the long lines to get a life-saving operation? Isn't it more immoral to provide healthcare but deny it to someone for so long that they eventually die because of the government's negligence?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Here's a solution. If you already have health insurance you are exempt from the increased tax. If you don't have the insurance then you pay the tax. That's fair.....Darthmatt

[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

Don't forget the Postal Service and Social Security...

Darthmatt

And the public school system I went to has been lowering its testing criteria every year for years on end. Though admittedly standardized testing isn't an incredibly reliable window into what people are learning, I would think that, if anything, public schools would want to raise their criteria to levels that actually force people to study. Indeed, out of all the Regents exams I had to take in high school, the only one I actually sat down and full on studied for was my physics exam.

I'm not saying that we should raise the difficulty of our exams to where our educational system resembles something like Japan's system, but considering how lax it has been, at least in New York, I would think it is high time to raise the difficulty of the tests.

Both are social saftey nets. You pay for roads, you pay for military, you pay for social security disability income, you pay for schools that you may not use, you finance college loans, you pay for all sorts of things that you personally may not use nor ever directly benefit from. When folks visit the emergency room you pay for that too.duxup

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] And that is what is in the house bill.-Sun_Tzu-