A) Does this not seem true, all down the line? and
B) Doesn't theirs seem vastly wiser than ours?
Discuss.
Link to original source: http://ilovecharts.tumblr.com/post/2846110150/furryogre-now-france-is-on-the-attack-maybe-i
Posts
Kansas City Mayor Q 2024 Year In Review
39 minutes ago
12 comments:
Exaggerated elitist anti-American crap.
Education as a privilege vs. right: We've got education as a right up to a reasonable level--where should the cutoff point be, does a plumber need to have a P.H.D? This is based on the mistaken notion that blue collar work is only for those not smart enough for college.
It makes sense to speak the primary languages of major areas within a few hundred miles of you. In Europe that is likely to be 2 or 3. In the US? Not as necessary, although I would agree it would be useful.
Cheaper is usually better--but like most things, not if taken to extremes, stay away from the bottom 10%. (or the top 5%, usually) Before big box stores, we had some decent local places, and some that were expensive and difficult to get along with. The difficult ones didn't last as long. If our local grocery had the cleanliness standards of a national chain, I might shop there...
...What's the proportion of undeveloped European land compared to undeveloped US land?
There's places where Europe is better than us, places where it is worse. This is nothing more than "Europeans are cultured, Americans barbarian".
Okay, I'll go down the list:
--The mistake I think we make in America is that we think everyone must have a liberal arts education and we all have to be great at all of it. The kid who's good at plumbing or electrical or woodworking or carpentry or some other thing, but is horrible at grammar or whatever, why can't that kid just go do that thing? Blue collar or whatever. Yes, get some, maybe even most of that education but not all of us and not at everything. That said, education as a right and not having corporations run it so it gets absurdly expensive makes sense, too, however;
--So very few people in the US knowing a 2nd language is not smart, period.
--Cheaper, taken to the extremes of Wal-Mart has not been good for the US, I'd argue. It's not good for jobs--wanna' live on one of their salaries?--or other retail. They're smashing other small business and ruining whole towns.
With the exception of how too much of Europe runs its retail, I'd take their setup over ours most any time.
Corporations running education rather than the government would be a major improvement--or really, just about anything where there is competition and where the students have a say in cutting costs, or picking a school with the right balance of cost vs. quality. The diploma mill schools that do the bare minimum to qualify for student aid would have to straighten up--people pay more attention to quality and value when it is their own money.
The out of pocket cost for an average student has remained fairly stable--but the overall cost has risen astronomically--and will continue to rise, as long as subsidies continue to rise.
I'm not saying that corporate colleges are the way to go--but somehow we need to get away from student aid being how most middle class people afford college.
I don't know how education typically works in Europe--Is higher education generally a right?
There is nothing about education that corporate America couldn't cut costs on, shoot up their profits and eventually ruin.
Yes, education and health care are, by and large, considered an investment in the citizenry and so, the nation, instead of here, where we fight for whatever we get, be it health care and so, our health, and education, both, thus pitting the "haves" vs. the "have nots."
But our health care system also pits the corporations, their existence and their profits--ever larger--against the people and their needs for good health care, with the corporations, to date, winning the battles every time, resulting in what we have--that is, the most expensive health care system, literally, in the world, with mortality rates behind Costa Rica and 35 other countries, as I've said many time (and as you know).
Both are prime examples of what happens when there's a disconnect between who pays and who gets the services. The problem isn't corporate vs. the little guy, it is too many steps between wallet and cash register. Government should make sure that business doesn't lie to us--but should also let us make our own decisions, and should encourage free markets.
Health care is not currently even close to a free market-your employer picks, based on what's best for them. We need to end this, or at least end the tax system that makes anything but employer sponsored insurance cost prohibitive.
Education is similar--you get the education that will be covered by student aid, or you pay inflated costs.
In a free system, I'd be free to choose from a Walmart-grade education (or medical care) to Harvard-level, based on what I could afford and what I needed. For a lot of stuff, a Walmart-quality education would be adequate, and there would be better quality still available at a reasonable price.
For that matter, Walmart level medical would be fine for a lot of conditions--we already get some of this with Walmart flu shots, and Walmart $5 prescriptions. I'd want to go somewhere better for anything serious--but that should be my choice.
I know you mean well, I'm sure you do.
I'd be nearly willing to bet you've never been off this continent, first of all. I may be wrong but I bet not. Second, if you have, I bet you haven't been to the Continent.
Your commitment to free markets and Capitalism is so complete, so total, it's unshakable. It--Capitalism and truly free markets--end up working against your benefits, Sevesteen, whether you know it or agree to it or not.
The big corporations, most especially, in this case, the health care insurance companies and their demands for ever-increasing profits, year after year, are what make our health care so expensive. It's also what makes for health care rationing and for the awful results we get now, in 2011, in America. I don't know that you'll ever see that but I hope one day you do.
That there would be "levels" of care, based on what you can pay and afford in unconscionable. That's barbaric. So the wealthy live long, feel great and have terrific health care and all else are miserable, in pain and die young? And you think that's a good, working system? That's a bloody inhuman nightmare.
You're right, I'm provincial and unsophisticated, not a world traveler.
Do you have a basis for your claim of excessive insurance company profits--do you know their profit margins, can you compare it to other business sectors?
In a true free market system, health care and education would be unequal--but both the base level and the average would be considerably higher than it is now, at lower overall cost.
Totally ignoring the fact that we have the most expensive health care system in the world and with some of the worst results to go with them, I'll get the data.
You say this: "In a true free market system, health care and education would be unequal--but both the base level and the average would be considerably higher than it is now, at lower overall cost..." That is based on total assumptions and theory, no hard data. It's total theory.
Our current health care system is a mess, because it is neither socialized nor free market, but rather combines the worst aspects of both.
Where we have competition, costs are lower--everywhere. If costs are lower, we can afford to purchase more, whether it is health care or Chinese Walmart crap.
Look at glasses--Not really a free market, most states have silly requirements for opticians and other things that limit competition. An $85 pair of basic prescription glasses is relatively inexpensive-but in a free market (based on the prices at Zenni Optical, a company I've used) that would buy 10 pairs.
But if corporations don't have competition and, instead, collude because they can give their government representatives money so they can and do create legislation that's in the favor of those same corporations, then they can gouge their customers with the highest prices they desire.
And that's what we've got.
That's also why you don't let health care be tied to profit and profits, unless you're in America.
create legislation that's in the favor of those same corporations, then they can gouge their customers with the highest prices they desire.
And that's what we've got.
This is where I've got the biggest problem with your logic, that Obamacare is a step in the right direction--keeping the insurance companies involved, requiring that we purchase from them, and banning the most economical coverages that give the most choice to consumers.
Or that the answer to government corruption is more power for the government.
Sevesteen,
I was responding only to you and your last post, here, but my response was far longer than Google and Blogger would let me insert. So in my effort to answer you, see my next post, put up today, just now.
Best,
MR
Post a Comment