Would you like to post any links to back up this fantasy?noblegas said:I don't think he ever said that. Whether you want to acknowledge this apparent truth or not, the private sector provides better quality knowledge than the public schools Thanks to the internet. Children don't learn subjects effectively when they are in a setting where they are coerced to learn subjects in a curriculum that they did not create. Why should millions of american children all learn from the same curriculum? We are all born differently and grow up in different environments, so children are not going to want to learn from the same standard curriculum.History was taught to have on a matter of fact basis and we never had any true discussions about why certain historical events occurred . If people received all of their education from public schools , there would never be discussions on the merits of anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism. If kids received all of their education from public schools, you probably wouldn't be taught that the Federal Reserve bank contributed greatly to the economic crash of 1929. If you received only your education only from public schools , there would be no discussions on the topic of athiesm versus theism. Public schools are no longer relevant imho in a society where you can go to youtube and acquire information on your topic of interest whether it be complex variable, the Haitian Revolution are revolutions in particle physics or austrian economics and both the poor and the rich have access to this wonderful tool called the Internet.
CureWashington said:#10 The WASL discriminates against minority children, gender and ability level.
How did you arrive at this viewpoint? Almost the exact opposite is true. Literacy in colonial New England, which has been studied by several historians, had high rates prior to 1800, some historians claiming 90%. Women also had high literacy rates there. In the South during that time the literacy rates were nil obviously for slaves and the poor, but then of course that was because of the government so the public-education-is-necessary theory doesn't hold there either.Astronuc said:Public education was necessary to maximize literacy in the population. Left to private/personal means, we'd have ~90% illiteracy, as was the case in England and the US in colonial times. Women were essentially excluded from education...
The abstract reports a 1997 managed care vs fee-for-service poll. In other words, isn't this the 1990's HMO vs PPO debate? HMOs lost. How does this pertain to a government single payer plan? Is the phrase "fee-for-service" loaded in some context that I've missed?adrenaline said:Volume 340:928-936, March 25th, 1999 #12
I have not renewed my subscription to nejm, so i could not get the full text sorry
but you may have access to it
And this was not in any way related to people in phnp
ABSTRACT
Background and Methods Views of managed care among academic physicians and medical students in the United States are not well known. In 1997, we conducted a telephone survey of a national sample of medical students (506 respondents), residents (494), faculty members (728), department chairs (186), directors of residency training in internal medicine and pediatrics (143), and deans (105) at U.S. medical schools to determine their experiences in and perspectives on managed care. The overall rate of response was 80.1 percent.
Results Respondents rated their attitudes toward managed care on a 0-to-10 scale, with 0 defined as "as negative as possible" and 10 as "as positive as possible." The expressed attitudes toward managed care were negative, ranging from a low mean (±SD) score of 3.9±1.7 for residents to a high of 5.0±1.3 for deans. When asked about specific aspects of care, fee-for-service medicine was rated better than managed care in terms of access (by 80.2 percent of respondents), minimizing ethical conflicts (74.8 percent), and the quality of the doctor–patient relationship (70.6 percent). With respect to the continuity of care, 52.0 percent of respondents preferred fee-for-service medicine, and 29.3 percent preferred managed care. For care at the end of life, 49.1 percent preferred fee-for-service medicine, and 20.5 percent preferred managed care. With respect to care for patients with chronic illness, 41.8 percent preferred fee-for-service care, and 30.8 percent preferred managed care. Faculty members, residency-training directors, and department chairs responded that managed care had reduced the time they had available for research (63.1 percent agreed) and teaching (58.9 percent) and had reduced their income (55.8 percent). Overall, 46.6 percent of faculty members, 26.7 percent of residency-training directors, and 42.7 percent of department chairs reported that the message they delivered to students about managed care was negative.
adrenaline said:you realize that the most verbal opponents were the medicare recipients?
When you retire, if medicare is not there, you realize you will have to brave purchasing shoddy individual coverage when you are over the age of 65 and have a fixed income? It also spared private insurance plans from insuring the oldest and the sickest, it left the younger working force to buy their plans.
You realize we spend 400 billion dollars a year on health insurance bureucracy?
Medicare and medicaid is a joy since i only have to hire one biller and coder for them. I have an army ( 45 employees with 5 docs do the math) doing precerts prior auths , fielding phone calls, 6 check in and check out to check insurances on where i can draw labs etc.
Your delusional if you think medicare/medicaid contributes to the cost of health care in this country. I have to pay salaries, workman's comp, disablity, insurance premiums etc for an army of women whose only job is to deal with private health insurance. Tell me that is not wasteful?
as for public education, I am a product of it, my parents subsisted on total salary of less than 35,000 a year after my dad lost his job. My younger brother went to princeton, i went to dartmouth and my sister was too smart and quit Emory to become a ceo of her own software company. There was no way they could afford private education on Long Island New York when tuition over 20 years ago was at least 15,000 a year.
so what you are telling me is that only the rich deserve to educate their kids? My mother cleaned houses and my dad worked so there was no home schooling. I don't think you realize even home schoolers have the luxuary of having one working parent? Guess what, in this recession those homeschoolers are back in public school, now that their housing developer dads or real estate dads are completely broke. The wives are cashing in their nursing degrees, or being full time nannies etc.and going back to work. Thank god this country gives that to me should I ever go broke.
there are numerous studies that show public education does its job.
Astronuc said:The US government owned all the land that was not owned by private citizens. Those citizens had purchased the land or had received grants from the King.
The government determines land rights - and always has.
The government (like Caesar) giveth and taketh away.
Public education was necessary to maximize literacy in the population.
Borg said:As far as the complaint that people are being forced to buy insurance, why should the rest of the taxpayers take on the risks (however small) of those who choose not to be insured? If a person lost everything in a fire because they chose not to be insured, they are the ones who have to rebuild everything. But, if they choose to not have health care and end up in the hospital, everyone else ends up paying for it if they don't pay the bill.
Astronuc said:Public education was necessary to maximize literacy in the population. Left to private/personal means, we'd have ~90% illiteracy, as was the case in England and the US in colonial times. Women were essentially excluded from education.
mheslep said:How did you arrive at this viewpoint? Almost the exact opposite is true. Literacy in colonial New England, which has been studied by several historians, had high rates prior to 1800, some historians claiming 90%. Women also had high literacy rates there. In the South during that time the literacy rates were nil obviously for slaves and the poor, but then of course that was because of the government so the public-education-is-necessary theory doesn't hold there either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Mann#Education_reform", who largely fathered the modern public education system as we know it today, didn't come along until 1838.Kenneth Lockridge's study of literacy in colonial New England is relevant here. Lockridge found that, in 1660, 60 percent of New England males signed their wills; it was 70 percent in 1710, 85 percent in 1760, and 90 percent by 1790. He estimates that half of those unable to sign wills could read. Thus, there was practically universal adult male literacy in New England by 1790.
If the ability to write one's name (rather than just making a mark on a document) is evidence of literacy, then, excluding American Indians and African Americans, there was near universal literacy, in excess of 80-90 percent, for both men and women by the end of the eighteenth century (Perlmann & Shirley, 1991). Of course, all such studies of literacy during these early years of the nation depend on samples of adults who do not represent the entire adult population of the colonies and so are contentious on the basis of sampling bias. For instance, Herndon (1996) presents data from documents of "transients" (nonpropertied persons) showing that, just as in contemporary times, literacy rates for New England's poor, including whites, American Indians, and African Americans, were considerably lower than the rates estimated on the basis of property document signatures.
Astronuc said:For the most part, from my observations, governments are run like corporations. Corporations (governments) serve mainly the management (politicians) rather than the investors/employees (people).