Nope. Nevermind. I have been wrong this entire time. Americans suck. We deserve all of this.

I maintain that public education poorly serves almost all students, an inevitable outcome of its mass orientation and burgeoning bureaucracy.

Not going to get into my personal history.

Your side murdered him for his opinions.

Is that how this works?

I've made no claim.

Oh look, Paladin's had some cheese on his tacos and thinks there was enough calcium there to replace his missing spine.

But you have no real evidence.
Just a belief.

Convenient.

And your side murdered MLK for his opinions.
I know which was the bigger loss, at least.

Of course not. You often adamantly avoid making claims.

The failure of US lower education is, IMO, mostly due to the 3 cueing reading pedagogy taking over everywhere for 20 years. And I mean everywhere, both public and private schools. This has resulted in a generation of people with far higher functional illiteracy rates than previous generations. It might actually become a full demographic crisis, as literacy is necessary for most jobs.

Except POTUS.

Sorta like your health care system too? Spend twice as much per patient for lesser outcomes...

Honestly? For brand name bragging rights and a preferred matriculation to future brand name bragging rights. Exclusivity and gatekeeping don't confer quality so much as vanity.

I go with the accountable product that can be held to a standard... something private education notoriously lacks.

We don't wait months for an MRI. Or get advised to be euthanized to ease the burden on a rickety system.

I question what standard and what accountability is applied to public education when there are whole school districts with students below grade level in basic things like math and reading.

I see a lot of poor quality, and little accountability.

Fun fact, Pringles have only about 42% potato content, the remainder being wheat starch and flours (corn and rice) combined with vegetable oils, an emulsifier, salt, and seasoning.

so you've got an exaggeration and a misrepresentation regarding healthcare

I'm not sure what your point is about underperforming districts other than that there's a massive disparity in funding allocations which in turn has a number of effects on learning outcomes and student potential.


"I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.”

Reminder, Paladin has stated in the past how he would prefer a less effective health care system that costs more because if a public system ran well and was cheaper it would be bad for his ideology. Any arguments about efficiency are irrelevant.

Paladin never said that, at least not as you have framed it.

State run is notorious for inefficiency. If you pay nothing and get free stuff, it only appears efficient to you.

I recall you saying essentially the same thing about mass transportation.

Blanket statements about state inefficiency are articles of faith, not fact.

I don't remember the exact wording so would take forever to try and search for it, so will take that at your word. So if a public system could be proven to be cheaper and provide better outcomes you wouldn't be opposed to it for ideological reasons?

yes play with yur guns an wonder. with yur posting history you wonder alot don't you. you should start wandering away instead wondering then maybe you could wonder about wandering.

you have been looking at the performance of the pedo-prez administration have not you bubba. i can understand that you might be agains't education you are and support MORANS.

could be why they are called POTATO CRISPS chips and not potato chips. bubba all ya gotta do it read the label.

nobody thinks they're paying nothing for free stuff... it comes out of our tax dollars.

we simply get more for our buck from publicly administered, not for profit models.

look at health care. Canadians, asides from being covered no matter what our circumstances, enjoy longer life spans and quality of care-starting with infant mortality rates being 50% higher in the US... for half the spending per patient.

You may perceive it as inefficient, but we (and the rest of the developed world) seem to be doing better than the US for it...

Oh really?
When's the last time you had to get an MRI?

So you will deny the school's funding, deny a standardized nationwide curriculum, undercut their enrollment with voucher programs, and then tut-tut when they suffer for it?
Gotcha.

I feel our health care system has gone a bit downhill and there are definite inefficiencies like @Paladin says but it's still pretty great and preferrable to the US model where it's so bad that insurance companies won't even cover you for what you pay them to cover

US Healthcare system sucks. There is no real oversight of hospitals or big pharma so they just charge whatever they want for everything. If I can cross either border (Canada or Mexico) and get a pill for a mere fraction of what it costs in the US, then we're being fleeced. BAD.

yup... in Onterrible it's been a downhill slide since Harris started amalgamating everything in the mid 90s. At least as far as the notion of a "family" doctor goes. Still, I can't complain in the sense that I can use my OHIP in any other province and not have to worry about "portability".

My sense is that is way overblown. While people occasionally have differences with insurance companies, people are generally happy with their coverage.

Myself, I've never had any significant problem with my health insurance and I've had plenty of interaction with the system. I even had a pretty significant emergency a few years back and I was very well taken care of.

If an insurance company doesn't cover what it is contracted to do, that's what the government is for.

It may be overblown, but how do you reconcile higher per patient cost and worse outcomes when compared to the rest of the developed world?

Not every health outcome is a function of the health system, we have the latest technologies and treatments, and we don't usually have to wait for rationed care.

For example, a hip replacement isn't a medical emergency, but it's difficult to live comfortably while needing one. The system that rations that treatment may save money, but does so at the expense of the patient's well-being.

Here, I get what I pay for and the care is generally very, very good. I can choose other insurance and providers if I'm unhappy. And the system is very responsive. I had a non-emergency surgical procedure in 2021 and my wait time was a couple of weeks.

so why even have the private insurers in the first place?
you have an inferior product at twice or more of the cost and you're going to see a massive jump from the all time low of 10% created by ACA go back up to 15-17% in people with no insurance at all.
incidentally, what's your income tax bracket rate? At $60K-115K I'm barely paying over 14% on the first half of what I make, and about 20% on that last (being that I'm on the lower side of that).
I'm betting your health care premiums alone are more than my monthly tax bill.

Worse outcomes are associated with the aggregate, not the individual.

I understand your views. If you're happy with for profit entities deciding what care to make available for you then good.

But consider the aggregate for a moment. Doesn't it bother you that government managed health systems are more efficient and have better outcomes for the populations they serve?

meh-even people on assistance here can get a hip replacement within a year.

where I work we have very frequent fliers to the local medical services. ain't nothing being "rationed", just under staffed.

The great thing is that a strong public system doesn't necessarily prevent you from paying for private care of you want it.

I just priced up private cover assuming I was single.

On the comparison websites went for the highest possible level of cover I could find for my age bracket, ticking every single box including services I don't need like IVF. As a 42 year old male, if I was single and wanted the highest level of private cover possible the most important expensive plan I could find would set me back ~AUD$450 a month. (~USD$300)

If we didn't have a strong public system acting as a baseline to mean people don't need private cover then that cost would almost certainly be much higher.

Edit: the actual final cost would be less than that, forgot that if I had private health cover I'd get a tax reduction of about $1000 a year.

Alas, I am an individual.

Without our for-profit system to piggyback on, state-run systems wouldn't have modern technologies, treatments, or medicines.

I don't believe they're more efficient. They certainly don't give better service.

We have government run health care here: the VA. And it's abysmal.

Do you still have to pay for the public one if you want the private one?

And why would anyone pay for a private system where a public one is available?