I Can't Wait For Government Run Health-Care!!!

soulsinging

slightofjeff wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

alrighty, i said i'm out...but seriously...i had to address this. who has ever even suggested THIS? um, senators, congressmen, and yea...the president...all are 'government workers'...and i believe they all make pretty good salaries.

Those people are elected officials. Their compensation is prescribed in the Consitution. I'm talking about civil servants. There's a difference.

Under this new and glorious system, doctors would be glorified postal workers.

There's no shame in being a postal worker. But, as someone whose mother in law is one, they are chronically underpaid. Because they can be. The government runs on cheap labor.

If you think we can have UHC, AND doctors can continue to average the salaries they are averaging now (or, hell, even the salary of a junior congressman) ... then add a couple more trillion to the tax bill.

We have an entire network of free, government paid attorneys that serve as public defenders and prosecutors in our legal system. Nonetheless, you can still make millions in private legal practice. That's a dumb argument. A government funded health care system does not make private industry disappear. We have public legal officers and public schools... yet you can still buy private attorneys and pay exorbitant amounts for private schools if you've got money to throw around. Nice try, but try again.

soulsinging

slightofjeff wrote:

You do realize that most doctors have a shit-ton of college loans to pay off, that they typically start their practices up to their assholes in debt, right?

That's part of the reason they have to make that kind of money. It doesn't make them assholes. It doesn't mean they don't care about you. It means they have bills to pay that those of us that go into other professions don't have.

And, by the way, ask your doctor if he'd be willing to work for you for minimum wage. Get back to me when he stops laughing. I'll bet you'll find he's not the altruistic saint you think he is.

I'm up to my asshole in debt from my law degree. I can make tons to pay it off in private practice. But guess what... go into public interest/government work and they forgive those loans! Holy Shit! Imagine that! And if it weren't WAY more competitive to get those low-paying public interest jobs, I'd be working one. Most attorneys I know are not altruistic saints, but many of them would also be happy to work for government wages in order to have a nice quality of life and be doing work they value. You know what kind of hours doctors and lawyers in private practice work? There is a ton of appeal for those low-paying government jobs. It is HARDER to get a low-paying government job out of law school than it is to get a 6-figure law firm job. There's huge competition and they tend to get the best, most dedicated law students. You think the medical profession would be any different? Plenty of people go into medicine and law for the $$, but even more go into those fields out of a sense of wanting work that has a social justice/service component. Do you even know any government lawyers before you dismiss them as the dregs of the profession? I guess it's easy when you're wrapped up in the corporate world to assume everybody else is a money-grubbing bastard like the rest of your business school buddies are. I admire your efforts to make up nonexistent problems though.

jlew24asu

decides2dream wrote:

i never said it wasn't *ok*......i simply suggest that to absolutely conclude, definitively, that it WILL be inferior....b/c there is no proof. i have not said it WILL be great....tho i think it well could be. i just personally dislike declarative statements, unproven. the reasons he's offered, i have countered....thus why i ask why he or others may still cling to this utter belief that it will fail. there is a difference.

1. you'd have to elaborate
2. medicare is not what UHC would be based on, and would have a far better and broader base of funds to help ustain it, and lower overall costs b/c there would be no profit built in the model ( i know medicare is not-for-profit, but it still exists and operates in a purely for profit healthcare environment)
3. while our school system is imperfect - don't know of one that is, i would hardly consider it inferior...as for infrastructure, once again, same thing...
4. yes and no.....as you would say, it's not so simple.


so go ahead and think what you like, never said otherwise! it's the statements that it can't be done, or it will be inferior....again with no true proof, that really don't 'add' to the discussion is all.

you don't think our public school system is inferior to the private one?

slightofjeff

jlew24asu wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

the whole crappy healthcare bit..i had a long response, but bottomline....you have ZERO proof that would be the case. at all. in actuality, with all i've said in other posts, truly, there is NO reason for that to occur, at all....but i am not going to spell it out again.


we CAN have UHC...and we CAN have excellent healthcare. they are not mutually exclusive.

and what proof do you have? why is it not ok for slightof to conclude that UHC would be inferior but perfectly fine for you to say it can be great?

do you agree it CAN also be inferior?

I think it would be inferior based......

1) simple supply and demand laws
2) Medicare which has basically bankrupt and 30 Trillion underfunded.
3) the government proven track record of not supplying the people with a quality product...i.e public schools and infrastructure.
4) the governments proven track record of not being able to spend our money correctly. ie. massive budget deficits and bankrupt social security program.

Seriously.

Social Security.
Frannie and Freddie.
The School System.
The Tax Code.
The DMV.
Airport Security.

You want me to entrust my health to the people who brought us all of the above clusterfucks? No. Thank. You.

soulsinging

jlew24asu wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

i never said it wasn't *ok*......i simply suggest that to absolutely conclude, definitively, that it WILL be inferior....b/c there is no proof. i have not said it WILL be great....tho i think it well could be. i just personally dislike declarative statements, unproven. the reasons he's offered, i have countered....thus why i ask why he or others may still cling to this utter belief that it will fail. there is a difference.

1. you'd have to elaborate
2. medicare is not what UHC would be based on, and would have a far better and broader base of funds to help ustain it, and lower overall costs b/c there would be no profit built in the model ( i know medicare is not-for-profit, but it still exists and operates in a purely for profit healthcare environment)
3. while our school system is imperfect - don't know of one that is, i would hardly consider it inferior...as for infrastructure, once again, same thing...
4. yes and no.....as you would say, it's not so simple.


so go ahead and think what you like, never said otherwise! it's the statements that it can't be done, or it will be inferior....again with no true proof, that really don't 'add' to the discussion is all.

you don't think our public school system is inferior to the private one?

Depends where you are. I know plenty of private Catholic schools that are vastly inferior to public schools. But to those that can't afford tuition at an elite college-prep private school, I'm willing to bet the public one is vastly superior to no school whatsoever.

slightofjeff

soulsinging wrote:

slightofjeff wrote:

You do realize that most doctors have a shit-ton of college loans to pay off, that they typically start their practices up to their assholes in debt, right?

That's part of the reason they have to make that kind of money. It doesn't make them assholes. It doesn't mean they don't care about you. It means they have bills to pay that those of us that go into other professions don't have.

And, by the way, ask your doctor if he'd be willing to work for you for minimum wage. Get back to me when he stops laughing. I'll bet you'll find he's not the altruistic saint you think he is.

I'm up to my asshole in debt from my law degree. I can make tons to pay it off in private practice. But guess what... go into public interest/government work and they forgive those loans! Holy Shit! Imagine that! And if it weren't WAY more competitive to get those low-paying public interest jobs, I'd be working one. Most attorneys I know are not altruistic saints, but many of them would also be happy to work for government wages in order to have a nice quality of life and be doing work they value. You know what kind of hours doctors and lawyers in private practice work? There is a ton of appeal for those low-paying government jobs. It is HARDER to get a low-paying government job out of law school than it is to get a 6-figure law firm job. There's huge competition and they tend to get the best, most dedicated law students. You think the medical profession would be any different? Plenty of people go into medicine and law for the $$, but even more go into those fields out of a sense of wanting work that has a social justice/service component. Do you even know any government lawyers before you dismiss them as the dregs of the profession? I guess it's easy when you're wrapped up in the corporate world to assume everybody else is a money-grubbing bastard like the rest of your business school buddies are. I admire your efforts to make up nonexistent problems though.

That's interesting stuff.

decides2dream

slightofjeff wrote:

and you conveniently did not answer the question - if your employer stopped paying for healthcare, could you actually afford to pay for the exact coverage you have right now? maybe you could, but most people can't...

Conviently for you, I did not answer this, because it supports my argument. Of course I couldn't. And when the government enacts its plan, my employer ceases to pay its share, and leaves the entire bill for me. Which I just said I can't afford.

So, I am forced to accept whatever the government will offer me. Which is guaranteed to be an inferior product to what I am getting now. I will still have to pay the same amount (if not more) via taxes.

Government-run health care gives me fewer options. Not more. This is why I am against it, in the form it is currently being proposed.

ugh - lost my post again! :evil:
seems whenever someone posts while i compose my own, it gets lost...grrr. anyway....


um, NO. this simply illustrates that clearly you pick and choose what parts of my posts you read. i CLEARLY said a few times over......your employer, instead of paying for coverage thru private insurance, yes...will pay tax equal to that amount towards UHC. they are not off the hook either. it does not increase your costs. in fact, if you read my posts discussing the costs.....there would be more funding going direct to healthcare, and most especially with more prevenative care being utilized and cutting profit out of the equation, makes it more affordable to cover more.


thank you tho, b/c it DOEs prove MY point: that without your employer's contribution, it's unaffordable. therefore, if tomorrow your employer ceased maying towards healthcare, you'd be just like many within the 44 million uninsured...ya know, those fucked people. yea, GREAt system there!


and the whoile options thing, again., HUH? you could go to ANy doctor, to ANy hospital, b/c they'd ALL be under public health. right now, your insurance company limits your choices. limits on treatments, meds, what have you.....you'd have that either way, private or public, b/c your insurance won't just cover ANYthing, etc. so not more limits, more like...less. more options.


nothing is guaranteed...to be better or worse. THAt is 100% your assumption. you've done nothing to PROVE that will absolutely be the case. however, you have proven just how tenuous healthcare is for us all under our current system.

jlew24asu

here are a few that I really like

# Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.

# Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms.

# Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the government.

# Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.


http://www.balancedpolitics.org/univers ... h_care.htm

jlew24asu

decides2dream wrote:

ugh - lost my post again! :evil:
seems whenever someone posts while i compose my own, it gets lost...grrr. anyway....

I dont think you are losing it. just scroll down when that happens, the submit button, and your post, should still be there.

slightofjeff

decides2dream wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

the whole crappy healthcare bit..i had a long response, but bottomline....you have ZERO proof that would be the case. at all. in actuality, with all i've said in other posts, truly, there is NO reason for that to occur, at all....but i am not going to spell it out again.


we CAN have UHC...and we CAN have excellent healthcare. they are not mutually exclusive.

and what proof do you have? why is it not ok for slightof to conclude that UHC would be inferior but perfectly fine for you to say it can be great?

do you agree it CAN also be inferior?

I think it would be inferior based......

1) simple supply and demand laws
2) Medicare which has basically bankrupt and 30 Trillion underfunded.
3) the government proven track record of not supplying the people with a quality product...i.e public schools and infrastructure.
4) the governments proven track record of not being able to spend our money correctly. ie. massive budget deficits and bankrupt social security program.

i never said it wasn't *ok*......i simply suggest that to absolutely conclude, definitively, that it WILL be inferior....b/c there is no proof. i have not said it WILL be great....tho i think it well could be. i just personally dislike declarative statements, unproven. the reasons he's offered, i have countered....thus why i ask why he or others may still cling to this utter belief that it will fail. there is a difference.

1. you'd have to elaborate
2. medicare is not what UHC would be based on, and would have a far better and broader base of funds to help ustain it, and lower overall costs b/c there would be no profit built in the model ( i know medicare is not-for-profit, but it still exists and operates in a purely for profit healthcare environment)
3. while our school system is imperfect - don't know of one that is, i would hardly consider it inferior...as for infrastructure, once again, same thing...
4. yes and no.....as you would say, it's not so simple.


so go ahead and think what you like, never said otherwise! it's the statements that it can't be done, or it will be inferior....again with no true proof, that really don't 'add' to the discussion is all.

You know what doesn't add to the discussion? Dismissing people's opinions because there is no "true proof" of them. Well of course there's no true proof of them. There's no "true proof" of anything.

Forcing one side to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that something won't work, while allowing the other side to operate on pure conjecture -- "Hey, you never know! This UHC *could* work" -- is hardly fair.

My point is this: We're talking trillions upon trillions of dollars here. In the midst of a recession. Trillions and trillions of dollars that our government doesn't have. If we throw all our money at this UHC stuff, and it doesn't work, we're going to sink deeper toward Depression, at which point health care will be the least of our worries.

Couple that will the fact that the U.S. government has a proven track record of fucking up everything it touches, and you should start to see my skepticism. I need more than, "Hey, what the hell. Let's try it. It might work" before I feel comfortable throwing trillions of dollars at something.

We're back at the top of the Empire State Building. Though nobody can offer any "true proof" of what will happen if you jump, we've offered several reasons to believe that the most likely outcome is not good. You seem willing to bet that, if you jump, you'll catch just the right breeze and it will drop you safely to the earth below.

Forgive me if I'm still skeptical.

decides2dream

jlew24asu wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

i never said it wasn't *ok*......i simply suggest that to absolutely conclude, definitively, that it WILL be inferior....b/c there is no proof. i have not said it WILL be great....tho i think it well could be. i just personally dislike declarative statements, unproven. the reasons he's offered, i have countered....thus why i ask why he or others may still cling to this utter belief that it will fail. there is a difference.

1. you'd have to elaborate
2. medicare is not what UHC would be based on, and would have a far better and broader base of funds to help ustain it, and lower overall costs b/c there would be no profit built in the model ( i know medicare is not-for-profit, but it still exists and operates in a purely for profit healthcare environment)
3. while our school system is imperfect - don't know of one that is, i would hardly consider it inferior...as for infrastructure, once again, same thing...
4. yes and no.....as you would say, it's not so simple.


so go ahead and think what you like, never said otherwise! it's the statements that it can't be done, or it will be inferior....again with no true proof, that really don't 'add' to the discussion is all.

you don't think our public school system is inferior to the private one?

no.
i went to private schools, i even taught in private schools....but i have plenty of friends and family who went public, married a man who went public...and i know plenty of teachers in the public system. there are advantages/disadvantages in both, but i would not outright say one is *better* than the other. there are top-rated public schools and shit private schools, and vice versa.




and soulsinging....good info!
besides which, i know we're not to discuss 'other countries'...but many in other countries HAVe said that their doctors are STILL quite well paid, rich even. there's no reason they wouldn't be here too.


i see many posts of it can't work....its guaranteed to be inferior....and then i see others simply saying 'no thank you'....don't want govt in it, etc. i think the 'no thank you's are a lot more true. simply don't want it. why, i honestly don't know...but i've yet to truly see a compelling reason to be so against it. as much as the govt can fuck things up, they obviously must still do a lot right too......and i fail to see how private industry is doing healthcare any *better* than the govt can. that's all...

jlew24asu

decides2dream wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

i never said it wasn't *ok*......i simply suggest that to absolutely conclude, definitively, that it WILL be inferior....b/c there is no proof. i have not said it WILL be great....tho i think it well could be. i just personally dislike declarative statements, unproven. the reasons he's offered, i have countered....thus why i ask why he or others may still cling to this utter belief that it will fail. there is a difference.

1. you'd have to elaborate
2. medicare is not what UHC would be based on, and would have a far better and broader base of funds to help ustain it, and lower overall costs b/c there would be no profit built in the model ( i know medicare is not-for-profit, but it still exists and operates in a purely for profit healthcare environment)
3. while our school system is imperfect - don't know of one that is, i would hardly consider it inferior...as for infrastructure, once again, same thing...
4. yes and no.....as you would say, it's not so simple.


so go ahead and think what you like, never said otherwise! it's the statements that it can't be done, or it will be inferior....again with no true proof, that really don't 'add' to the discussion is all.

you don't think our public school system is inferior to the private one?

no.
i went to private schools, i even taught in private schools....but i have plenty of friends and family who went public, married a man who went public...and i know plenty of teachers in the public system. there are advantages/disadvantages in both, but i would not outright say one is *better* than the other. there are top-rated public schools and shit private schools, and vice versa.

wow, well we can agree to disagree I guess. I'm not saying the public is bad per say. I'm just saying our private school system is better then the public one. the quality of education is better overall and comparatively. but I'm not going to dig up info on this...we'll save it for a battle in another thread perhaps

Kel Varnsen

jlew24asu wrote:

here are a few that I really like

# Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.

Actually I am pretty sure in Canada malpractice suits are less common than in the US. I think a big reason for that is because in our system no money is changing hands between doctor and patient. I mean if I was living in the US and a family member died while in surgery and then I got the bill (or in turn their estate got the bill basically cleaning it out) I would be pissed and much more likely to contact a lawyer to make sure that everything in that surgery went perfect and death was unavoidable (and remember as long as a lawsuit is filed, even if it has no merit it still costs the insurance money). Where as if no money changed hands I would be much less likely to look into what happened and contact a lawyer.

decides2dream

jlew24asu wrote:

here are a few that I really like

# Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.

# Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms.

# Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the government.

# Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.


http://www.balancedpolitics.org/univers ... h_care.htm

1. it might be possible, but it is not guaranteed to be probable.
2. they may do that anyway. and, aren't you the one who discusses choice? how is that limiting your freedom? you can still smoke and drink soda.....just you'd also have to pay more tax. it'll cost you more, but won't affect your rights to do so.
3. i say BS. i see it no more likely to be compromised then as opposed to now.
4. well, considering i do think it should be a 'right'....yes.....i think it's fine to be near impossible to remove UHC, b/c it should always exist. there are many ways to cut a budget, change things, etc. lots of things change that we don't want, even right now.


all these things can be addressed.
tho i appreciate you coming up with some actual reasons for dislike of the idea.

i guess it just amazes me that so many would rather accept the tenuous status quo, b/c even if you are insured today....that could easily change tomorrow and you'd be scrambling along with the other 44 million......rather than try to actually think of new solutions so that we ALL have healthcare access.




jlew.....just for the record, one little 'stat' for you -
public school teachers MUST be certified to teach, for private schools....while it is desired, it is not required. in the school i taught, we had a few uncertified teachers. 'stats' may give some picture, but i also have LOTs of first-hand experience. and it is not definitive that private is better than public. that said, you have that choice. you'd have the same with healthcare too. think about it - i went to private school the bulk of my schooling, i don't have children, and yet 65% of my property taxes go to support schools. my only *choice8 there is not to own a home. however, i think we ALL should contribute to education, b/c having our citizens at least with a basic education is far superior to not. i think the same of healthcare.

jlew24asu

decides2dream wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

here are a few that I really like

# Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.

# Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms.

# Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the government.

# Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.


http://www.balancedpolitics.org/univers ... h_care.htm

1. it might be possible, but it is not guaranteed to be probable.
2. they may do that anyway. and, aren't you the one who discusses choice? how is that limiting your freedom? you can still smoke and drink soda.....just you'd also have to pay more tax. it'll cost you more, but won't affect your rights to do so.
3. i say BS. i see it no more likely to be compromised then as opposed to now.
4. well, considering i do think it should be a 'right'....yes.....i think it's fine to be near impossible to remove UHC, b/c it should always exist. there are many ways to cut a budget, change things, etc. lots of things change that we don't want, even right now.


all these things can be addressed.
tho i appreciate you coming up with some actual reasons for dislike of the idea.

no shit they can be addressed. anything can be. we are all talking in hypothetical because we dont have UHC. like response to #1 "it might be possible, but it is not guaranteed to be probable." why isnt is probable? because you say so? but at least we agree its possible.

decides2dream wrote:

i guess it just amazes me that so many would rather accept the tenuous status quo, b/c even if you are insured today....that could easily change tomorrow and you'd be scrambling along with the other 44 million......rather than try to actually think of new solutions so that we ALL have healthcare access.

slightof already told you about many safeguards in place such as government subsidized Cobra costs. and I'm all for new solutions....just not one as EXTREME as UHC. I'd like to see some baby steps to see how things work. you make it sound that whoeever doesnt support UHC is for NO change at all. thats complete bullshit.

decides2dream wrote:

jlew.....just for the record, one little 'stat' for you -
public school teachers MUST be certified to teach, for private schools....while it is desired, it is not required. in the school i taught, we had a few uncertified teachers. 'stats' may give some picture, but i also have LOTs of first-hand experience. and it is not definitive that private is better than public. that said, you have that choice. you'd have the same with healthcare too. think about it - i went to private school the bulk of my schooling, i don't have children, and yet 65% of my property taxes go to support schools. my only *choice8 there is not to own a home. however, i think we ALL should contribute to education, b/c having our citizens at least with a basic education is far superior to not. i think the same of healthcare.

the cost of public eduction is a very SMALL fraction of what Healthcare would cost. would you be ok with your property taxes going up another 65% to pay for healthcare costs? its foolish to compare the two in terms of costs.

what is better, comes down to so many factors, its not worth getting into

decides2dream

jlew24asu wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

ugh - lost my post again! :evil:
seems whenever someone posts while i compose my own, it gets lost...grrr. anyway....

I dont think you are losing it. just scroll down when that happens, the submit button, and your post, should still be there.

i do that....and then it's gone.
then, i get taken to the main page of the board.
:evil:
believe me....it's happened a few times now.
and in the past, while i find that whole 'another post has been made' message annoying, it never happened before until the last few days. c'est la vie.


anyhoo....if it makes you feel any better....i sadly believe we are a long way off from my utopian dreams of true universal healthcare in america. to me, that is shame. i do believe obama will do a lot to reform the system, tweak it, get some osort of coverage for those falling between the cracks...and that's a good thing. however, i think overall our helahtcare coverage is far too tenuous, left at the mercy of our employers, private insurance companies calling the shots...and the real possibility that many of us could well find ourselves w/o insurance when we most need it. i've seen it happen. i'd like to hope we're at least at the first step at working towards that not being the case. i do realize, it takes time...b/c sure....obviously, there are plenty of people like you and jeff who share similar thinking, so we all have to work at a pace until you are all enlightened to the good of it. perhaps it will take us all that time to work on a truly *great* plan that WILL work as i would hope and desire for our country...




jlew...my gawd. i wsn't comparing ed costs to healthcare costs!
i've already posted, numerous times, how we would pay for it! i was simply countering your private vs publice, better and worse, scenario of schools.


i agree to disagree with you....that's for sure!



btw tho - do you truly read?
oftentimes your response are so out of whack to what i wrote, i wonder...such as this:

jlew wrote:

"it might be possible, but it is not guaranteed to be probable." why isnt is probable? because you say so? but at least we agree its possible

READ what you quoted me as saying. i did NOT say it wasn't probable, simply that it is not guaranteed to be so!


i oftentimes get the feeling you skim for your own content purposes. which is fine, but frustrating. you seem to miss the gist of many of my posts. granted, i know they are lengthy, but sadly i cannot seem to discuss these topics in detail, without going into lengthy detail. there are just many, many points i have made numerous times.....never addressed....and/or even within a post, such as a the comment above, totally misconstrue my words. perhaps i am lacking clarity...idk. guess it's something to work on.

chromiam

decides2dream wrote:

jlew.....just for the record, one little 'stat' for you -
public school teachers MUST be certified to teach, for private schools....while it is desired, it is not required. in the school i taught, we had a few uncertified teachers. 'stats' may give some picture, but i also have LOTs of first-hand experience. and it is not definitive that private is better than public. that said, you have that choice. you'd have the same with healthcare too. think about it - i went to private school the bulk of my schooling, i don't have children, and yet 65% of my property taxes go to support schools. my only *choice8 there is not to own a home. however, i think we ALL should contribute to education, b/c having our citizens at least with a basic education is far superior to not. i think the same of healthcare.

I would like to correct this point... in Philadelphia public schools a certification is NOT required. It is only required that you are working towards certification even if you have FAILED the certification test multiple times you can still seek employment in the district. Also, Teach for America teachers are hired by the thousands every year to teach in "hard to fill areas" and the only certification they possess is a college degree and a 5 week training program... yep sounds like they are qualified to teach in a classroom to me.


back to UHC... which I think will be a complete clusterfuck especially since to implement quickly it will be based on the underfunded and overstretched Medicaid system which only reimbursts hospitals $0.75 for every $1.00 spent.

decides2dream

chromiam wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

jlew.....just for the record, one little 'stat' for you -
public school teachers MUST be certified to teach, for private schools....while it is desired, it is not required. in the school i taught, we had a few uncertified teachers. 'stats' may give some picture, but i also have LOTs of first-hand experience. and it is not definitive that private is better than public. that said, you have that choice. you'd have the same with healthcare too. think about it - i went to private school the bulk of my schooling, i don't have children, and yet 65% of my property taxes go to support schools. my only *choice8 there is not to own a home. however, i think we ALL should contribute to education, b/c having our citizens at least with a basic education is far superior to not. i think the same of healthcare.

I would like to correct this point... in Philadelphia public schools a certification is NOT required. It is only required that you are working towards certification even if you have FAILED the certification test multiple times you can still seek employment in the district. Also, Teach for America teachers are hired by the thousands every year to teach in "hard to fill areas" and the only certification they possess is a college degree and a 5 week training program... yep sounds like they are qualified to teach in a classroom to me.


back to UHC... which I think will be a complete clusterfuck especially since to implement quickly it will be based on the underfunded and overstretched Medicaid system which only reimbursts hospitals $0.75 for every $1.00 spent.

ok, yes, you aRE 100% correct there. what i should've said, more clearly, is that there is a time limit tho for reaching certification status, at least in NYS. however, in private schools, one can remain teaching...indefinitely...uncertified. that was my main point. just to illustrate that the 'private' label, in and of itself, does not guarantee 'better'.


as to UHC, why does it have to be implemented quickly? and why would it be based on the medicare model?

chromiam

decides2dream wrote:

chromiam wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

jlew.....just for the record, one little 'stat' for you -
public school teachers MUST be certified to teach, for private schools....while it is desired, it is not required. in the school i taught, we had a few uncertified teachers. 'stats' may give some picture, but i also have LOTs of first-hand experience. and it is not definitive that private is better than public. that said, you have that choice. you'd have the same with healthcare too. think about it - i went to private school the bulk of my schooling, i don't have children, and yet 65% of my property taxes go to support schools. my only *choice8 there is not to own a home. however, i think we ALL should contribute to education, b/c having our citizens at least with a basic education is far superior to not. i think the same of healthcare.

I would like to correct this point... in Philadelphia public schools a certification is NOT required. It is only required that you are working towards certification even if you have FAILED the certification test multiple times you can still seek employment in the district. Also, Teach for America teachers are hired by the thousands every year to teach in "hard to fill areas" and the only certification they possess is a college degree and a 5 week training program... yep sounds like they are qualified to teach in a classroom to me.


back to UHC... which I think will be a complete clusterfuck especially since to implement quickly it will be based on the underfunded and overstretched Medicaid system which only reimbursts hospitals $0.75 for every $1.00 spent.

ok, yes, you aRE 100% correct there. what i should've said, more clearly, is that there is a time limit tho for reaching certification status, at least in NYS. however, in private schools, one can remain teaching...indefinitely...uncertified. that was my main point. just to illustrate that the 'private' label, in and of itself, does not guarantee 'better'.


as to UHC, why does it have to be implemented quickly? and why would it be based on the medicare model?

because Obama only has 3 years left (7 at the most) to implement it and Medicare is already in place, the infrastructure for UHC is already in place. Plus with Medicare, the government has a huge bargaining chip (which is only growing everyday) to use in trying to get everyone else on board (hospitals, doctors, healthcare providers) or hold over their heads.

decides2dream

chromiam wrote:

because Obama only has 3 years left (7 at the most) to implement it and Medicare is already in place, the infrastructure for UHC is already in place. Plus with Medicare, the government has a huge bargaining chip (which is only growing everyday) to use in trying to get everyone else on board (hospitals, doctors, healthcare providers) or hold over their heads.

3.5...;)
ok, i see. you think getting things in motion within 7 years is...too fast?
and i don't actually believe obama WILL get a true UHC system in place, said as much earlier. he'll get some semblance of a START, get coverage for those most in need.....but an across the board, true UHC, i don't think we'll see that for a looooonnnnggggg time. i think most realize that. i think he well hinted at that even in his inaugral speech, that it's gonna take TIME. you could say he was already starting his re-election campaign right from the start if one wants to be jaded about it...;) i think my main concern Is b/c there are those against such a system that we might get some half-assed version, and yea....what will that be like, and then it'll just add fuel to the 'it can't work!' crowd....and then how do we move forward? so yes, i truly hope if we're going there....and i personally hope we do....we GO there. forget medicare. new ideas, new models, new ways of seeting it in motion.


and sure...call me a dreamer....but i'm not the only one.