Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 39
Thanks Tree6Thanks

Thread: " If you spend money on universal services, we all win"

  1. #1
    Scucca Æthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,944
    Thanks
    1460

    " If you spend money on universal services, we all win"

    "all people should have quality health care, higher education and child care" Bernie Sanders

    Given he is referring to basic ingredients for economic prosperity, why have the likes of the US and the UK forgotten economic rationality?
    Thanks from Dangermouse and Madeline

  2. #2
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    15,338
    Thanks
    4093

    From
    Boise, ID
    Quote Originally Posted by Æthelfrith View Post
    "all people should have quality health care, higher education and child care" Bernie Sanders
    Quality means something different than publicly funded. Sanders shouldn't beat around the bush with wordsmithing like this, saying "we should have quality (x)" instead of what he means, which is "we should publicly fund (x)."

    Given he is referring to basic ingredients for economic prosperity, why have the likes of the US and the UK forgotten economic rationality?
    Leading questions are like flatulence.

    The reason we don't publicly fund all health care is because at least half the country continues to convince itself that health care is a private good, despite the cognitive dissonance that they also fight to preserve and protect laws that establish its public good characteristics.

    As to higher education, we do have quality higher education. Say what you mean. You want it to be publicly funded. It is, and to an increasing degree. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/o...s-so-much.html

    As for weak child care supports, that is a good example of bad prioritization.

  3. #3
    Scucca Æthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,944
    Thanks
    1460

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Quality means something different than publicly funded. Sanders shouldn't beat around the bush with wordsmithing like this, saying "we should have quality (x)" instead of what he means, which is "we should publicly fund (x)."
    Quality rarely can be disentangled from public provision. Consider education. Private provision can certainly ensure that individual's get ahead. The elite careers in the UK, for example, are dominated by folk who have gone through private education (despite it representing only a minor share of the total secondary education sector). However, quality here has to include equality of opportunity. Without that notion of equality, education becomes more about certification and less about maximising overall productivity gains.

    Leading questions are like flatulence.

    The reason we don't publicly fund all health care is because at least half the country continues to convince itself that health care is a private good, despite the cognitive dissonance that they also fight to preserve and protect laws that establish its public good characteristics.
    Anyone believing health care is a mere 'private good' is clearly ignorant of basic economics. Neo-liberalism, representing an ideological-led corruption of policy, essentially forces inefficiently low levels of public provision.


    As to higher education, we do have quality higher education. Say what you mean. You want it to be publicly funded. It is, and to an increasing degree. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/o...s-so-much.html

    As for weak child care supports, that is a good example of bad prioritization.
    Charging for merit goods, inducing greater inequality of opportunity, does not make any economic sense. The only defence I've seen, and it was a weak one, was the notion that tuition fees can subsequently be used to fund widening participation campaigns. The truth is that, as predicted by the human capital model, such fees ensure reduced intergenerational mobility (and reduce the link between education and innate ability)

  4. #4
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    15,338
    Thanks
    4093

    From
    Boise, ID

    " If you spend money on universal services, we all win"

    Quote Originally Posted by Æthelfrith View Post
    Quality rarely can be disentangled from public provision.
    You pivot. Sanders wasn’t lamenting quality, but he frames it as quality. Mere political finesse.

    Anyone believing health care is a mere 'private good' is clearly ignorant of basic economics.
    I agree.

    Charging for merit goods, inducing greater inequality of opportunity, does not make any economic sense. The only defence I've seen, and it was a weak one, was the notion that tuition fees can subsequently be used to fund widening participation campaigns. The truth is that, as predicted by the human capital model, such fees ensure reduced intergenerational mobility (and reduce the link between education and innate ability)
    I’m not disagreeing with you here either. But given that public education investment has increased in inflation-adjusted dollars over the same period of time that higher education cost has vastly outpaced economic growth, the notion of “making college free” is met with skepticism and political resistance. The overwhelming partisanship of university professors and administration doesn’t help either, as it politicizes and polarizes something but in theory should just be about education.

  5. #5
    Scucca Æthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,944
    Thanks
    1460

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    You pivot. Sanders wasn’t lamenting quality, but he frames it as quality. Mere political finesse.
    Try and respond to the comments I make. We can't use neurotic economic conservatism as an excuse!

    I agree.
    You still have time to join the ranks of economic rationality. Just need to shed the conservative ideological limitation.

    I’m not disagreeing with you here either. But given that public education investment has increased in inflation-adjusted dollars over the same period of time that higher education cost has vastly outpaced economic growth, the notion of “making college free” is met with skepticism and political resistance. The overwhelming partisanship of university professors and administration doesn’t help either, as it politicizes and polarizes something but in theory should just be about education.
    I'm not particularly interested in how the US political system fails. It would help, of course, if the Democrat Party were truly progressive.

  6. #6
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    15,338
    Thanks
    4093

    From
    Boise, ID
    Quote Originally Posted by Æthelfrith View Post
    Try and respond to the comments I make. We can't use neurotic economic conservatism as an excuse!
    Why intentionally refer to the other thread in which you make a comical stumble? Think it will relieve your feelings of embarrassment? Just let it go.

    The last comment you made was in response to mine, which called out Sanders for not saying what he meant. You pivoted away from that and started jabbering. He obviously was referring to public funding, but applied political finesse. Not hugely central to the issue, but we might as well start by decrypting the political bullshit.

    You still have time to join the ranks of economic rationality. Just need to shed the conservative ideological limitation.
    You obviously haven't paid a lick of attention to my comments on health care and insurance around here.

    I'm not particularly interested in how the US political system fails.
    You're obviously very interested in it. You advocate a certain position concerning the funding of higher education. Barriers here involve politicization and polarization of education. The cause isn't advanced by elitist, left wing, partisan ideology that pervades in American academia, nor by a conservative party that insists on pandering to religious belief systems that are inevitably anti-evidence.

    Between higher education and child care, I think higher education should take a bit of a back seat to child care, as I believe the latter could make a much more positive long-term difference. I think educators have been successful at keeping the focus and emphasis on themselves and themselves and their own need for funding, while the need for and benefits associated with infancy and early childhood support goes practically ignored.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 24th October 2017 at 10:24 AM.

  7. #7
    Scucca Æthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,944
    Thanks
    1460

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Why intentionally refer to the other thread in which you make a comical stumble? Think it will relieve your feelings of embarrassment?
    I'm talking to someone that thinks neurotic economic conservatism is important. Seems fitting!

    The last comment you made was in response to mine, which called out Sanders for not saying what he meant. You pivoted away from that and started jabbering.
    I provided detail. You ignored it. Its your standard reaction.

    You obviously haven't paid a lick of attention to my comments on health care and insurance around here.
    i do know you struggle with economic rationality though.

    You're obviously very interested in it.
    Again, you demonstrate that you can't respond to what is said.

    You advocate a certain position concerning the funding of higher education. Barriers here involve politicization and polarization of education. The cause isn't advanced by elitist, left wing, partisan ideology that pervades in American academia, nor by a conservative party that insists on pandering to religious belief systems that are inevitably anti-evidence.
    I refer to economic rationality. Naff all to do with the US political system. Indeed, its in Britain where we have the clear evidence of shifting from grants to fees: reductions in social mobility.

    Between higher education and child care, I think higher education should take a bit of a back seat to child care, as I believe the latter could make a much more positive long-term difference. I think educators have been successful at keeping the focus and emphasis on themselves and themselves and their own need for funding, while the need for and benefits associated with infancy and early childhood support goes practically ignored.
    Child care is typically more associated with general interest in removing 'glass ceilings' and 'sticky floors'. More generous systems, typically associated with social democratic welfare systems, have been successful in narrowing gender wage differentials at key quartiles of the wage distribution. The continued focus on higher education is correct, given the continued search for equality of opportunity

  8. #8
    Veteran Member TNVolunteer73's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    32,300
    Thanks
    8285

    From
    TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Æthelfrith View Post
    "all people should have quality health care, higher education and child care" Bernie Sanders

    Given he is referring to basic ingredients for economic prosperity, why have the likes of the US and the UK forgotten economic rationality?
    We all win a Death Sentence why.

    1. 20,000,000,000,000 of debt prevents the government from having the funds to adequately fund a 1/2 assed Universal care system
    2. If you get sick in Canada you are more likely to DIE than in the US. Same for UK and Same for every other nation.
    3. Short life expectancy in the US is LIFESTYLE not healthcare causation.

  9. #9
    Scucca Æthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,944
    Thanks
    1460

    Quote Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
    2. If you get sick in Canada you are more likely to DIE than in the US. Same for UK and Same for every other nation.
    How are the amenable mortality rates going?
    Thanks from Iolo

  10. #10
    Veteran Member TNVolunteer73's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    32,300
    Thanks
    8285

    From
    TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Æthelfrith View Post
    How are the amenable mortality rates going?


    Who is number one in survival rate?







    BA BOOM
    Last edited by TNVolunteer73; 24th October 2017 at 11:05 AM.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Confused Clevelander "DEA Agent" Offers Valet Services
    By Madeline in forum Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 19th September 2017, 07:55 AM
  2. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 9th November 2016, 02:42 AM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 17th February 2014, 10:18 AM
  4. Biden: " We have to spend more money...."
    By Six in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 19th July 2009, 07:21 AM
  5. Wisconsin reveals the cost of "universal" health care.
    By Truth Detector in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 26th July 2007, 04:50 AM

Facebook Twitter RSS Feed