Education reform: Government to unveil new technical qualification in bid to ease UK skills shortage

[notcool]

@Wibble
I think we're arguing at cross-purposes here. By private I meant privately funded, privately spent. I think you mean publicly funded, privately spent. I should have used the word independent instead of private.

 

[Bobcat]

1. Yes, is is. If entrepreneurs make money, they do it from creating jobs. Then with the capital they've made, they can invest in the same thing to create more jobs or invest in something else to make more jobs (something which the government, as it doesn't make any money, can't do).


2. I don't see why this would be the case. Why would it all be the same?


3. Well, I didn't mean private as in those that were getting state funding but then chose how to spend that funding. I meant schools that completely funded by the parents. I suppose I should use independent to describe it instead.

I will repeat that if the government wasn't involved, independent schools would be affordable for all. A bigger market will drive the cost down. And it's only the government being involved that means rich kids get better education: their parents are the only ones who can pay both taxes and go to a privately funded school.

1. A state/federal institution "create jobs" as well. Where does this notion come from that all the jobs in the world are created by private entrepreneurs? A business like Wal-Mart employs a tremendous amount of people, but pays them shit wages and i'd wager most people work there just because they have to. Also, it's not like the capital they get in all goes back into the market and i'd wager that much of the capital the super wealthy DO put back into the market are into pointless luxury bullshit that don't really makes the economy "grow" in any tangible way.

I come from Norway, we pay a shitload of taxes and ALL of our oil wealth is owned by the state, which may sound like a nightmare for a capitalist, but this wealth actually funds pretty much all of our basics needs like education, healthcare etc. Also, just because we have state owned institutions like that does not mean there is no room for private enterprise. There are PLENTY of private clinics around that people with money can use.

2. The very basic premise of starting a business, be it a shop or something huge like a school is that you could run it with profit. If you don't you go bankrupt and you have to stop selling that service. Education should be a right for all citizens, regardless of their wealth. If you had an education system where the state had no hand in it what so ever the tuition fees would be so expensive that only the wealthiest could afford it. Hell, colleges in the US gets HUGE federal payouts, but still charge like 15,000 - 10,000$ a year and then you have the top dogs like Harvard who charge obscene amounts like 60,000-80,000$/year. Unless you have some golden scholarship, there is no way in hell a regular family could afford such a thing. Imagine all the talent going to waste if only 10% of the population could afford to send their kids to school.

3. How is the government not being involved going to drive down the price? Government schools are free to attend and funded by the state, can't get much cheaper than that. And how do you propose you split the costs so that it's affordable for all? Every parent pays the same to some central authority that redistributes the funds to the schools by need? That's basically taxes

 

[africanspur]

@Bury Red
Get rid of welfare too. It takes money out of society that could be used to create jobs, which leads to more welfare. And people choose welfare over a job in some cases too, which means more welfare (more of a drain).

Schools won't back teachers because they are required to give education no matter what. Yes, they can expel but the kid just gets bounced to the next state school. But if the schools were privately funded, they could kick out whoever they wanted. Which would see behaviour become much better (there is actually a deterrent). People behave much worse when they believe they are entitled to something but when they believe someone is helping them and it's their choice, they behave much better.

And if you get rid of welfare, people will want to send their kids to school.

You want to get rid of welfare too? Jesus christ man, so what do you do for the old, sick, infirm and homeless?

I don't think it disincentives them but since the reward is less, the incentive is less.


I think that schools would have more profit from having more students, which comes from having a better education. I don't see why profit is a dirty word. If I'm making cars and I make them significantly safer than my competitor, won't I sell more than him? It benefits me to do good for the people I am serving.

Parents would choose to not send their children a school that was influenced by special interests, something they can't do with government schools.


Whatever they wanted to do.


I'm not trying to defend their system, I'm trying to say that it has some good points. But I will say that it's insurance that people don't have access to, not healthcare. And also that the government is involved in insurance there too so it could be the government's fault for high prices.

You know that the USA makes most of the advances in new drugs? That's because of their system. Socialism distributes the wealth in society more 'fairly' but it's capitalism that creates that wealth. People want to take care of poor people but we'd all be a lot poorer if we didn't allow people to be free and invest and make money.

So you don't realise the flaw in that argument at all? How many people do you think go to university with the aim of staying at a cool 20k/ year for decades after graduation?

Having more students may generate more profit but that does not mean better education and a better society. Nobody said profit is a dirty word. But it has its place. I don't really want someone profiting off my child, becuase I don't think profit is the best driver for a good and equitable education, which gives those from disadvantaged backgrounds the chance to advance themselves. Cars are not children. That should be pretty self explanatory.


Riight, that kind of assumes that the parents won't want to send their kids to such a school. If they decide that they want their kids to go to a school that doesn't teach science as a major subject for example, they can. That should not be acceptable. And it would also assume that there would be other schools in the local area that can cater to what they want from their schools.

I'm not trying to attack or defend their system, this isn't really the thread for that. You mentioned the healthcare system so I'm telling you why people mock you for it. Yes that is true but its much of a muchness. If I don't have access to insurance, I either don't go and seek healthcare because I can't afford it or I have to go and bankrupt myself and potentially lose my home because I can't afford it. That should not be how a civilised country runs its healthcare system.

It could be the government's fault for high prices? Are you joking? Then why are their prices so high compared to the UK where the government is the main provider then? I don't want to be rude but have you thought that one through at all?

You say people want to look after poor people as if that is a bad thing?

What you seem to be mentioning is not that far off what we've had in quite a few African countries post independence. Its not great.

 

[notcool]

Too many people replying and it's exhausting to argue. Be back some other time.

 

[Wibble]

@Bury Red
Get rid of welfare too. It takes money out of society that could be used to create jobs, which leads to more welfare. And people choose welfare over a job in some cases too, which means more welfare (more of a drain).

Schools won't back teachers because they are required to give education no matter what. Yes, they can expel but the kid just gets bounced to the next state school. But if the schools were privately funded, they could kick out whoever they wanted. Which would see behaviour become much better (there is actually a deterrent). People behave much worse when they believe they are entitled to something but when they believe someone is helping them and it's their choice, they behave much better.

And if you get rid of welfare, people will want to send their kids to school.

Better get rid of healthcare as well as all these poor people are dragging us down

You don't get an educated efficient workforce by widening the social divide and everything you talk about reduces social mobility. It is why the US has the worst social mobilty in the developed world.

 

[Manny]

3. How is the government not being involved going to drive down the price? Government schools are free to attend and funded by the state, can't get much cheaper than that. And how do you propose you split the costs so that it's affordable for all? Every parent pays the same to some central authority that redistributes the funds to the schools by need? That's basically taxes

He's talking about parents paying directly to the school they chose for their kid. Remove any tax for education and pay a school fee.

So lower and working class families would be resigned to sending their kids to shite schools. Keep poor people poor.

 

[Carolina Red]

He's talking about parents paying directly to the school they chose for their kid. Remove any tax for education and pay a school fee.

So lower and working class families would be resigned to sending their kids to shite schools. Keep poor people poor.

Basically what the GOP is wanting to do in the US.

 

[Cassidy]

@Bury Red
Get rid of welfare too. It takes money out of society that could be used to create jobs, which leads to more welfare. And people choose welfare over a job in some cases too, which means more welfare (more of a drain).

Schools won't back teachers because they are required to give education no matter what. Yes, they can expel but the kid just gets bounced to the next state school. But if the schools were privately funded, they could kick out whoever they wanted. Which would see behaviour become much better (there is actually a deterrent). People behave much worse when they believe they are entitled to something but when they believe someone is helping them and it's their choice, they behave much better.

And if you get rid of welfare, people will want to send their kids to school.

So you think people don't send their kids to school because they can get welfare?

 

[Bury Red]

@Bury Red
Get rid of welfare too. It takes money out of society that could be used to create jobs, which leads to more welfare. And people choose welfare over a job in some cases too, which means more welfare (more of a drain).

Schools won't back teachers because they are required to give education no matter what. Yes, they can expel but the kid just gets bounced to the next state school. But if the schools were privately funded, they could kick out whoever they wanted. Which would see behaviour become much better (there is actually a deterrent). People behave much worse when they believe they are entitled to something but when they believe someone is helping them and it's their choice, they behave much better.

And if you get rid of welfare, people will want to send their kids to school.

Go out and sample the real world please. Go and see how towns that grew up around a single industry that has realised there were greater profits to be made by relocating to another country cope.

Spoiler

It's not by them spontaneously adapting their skills and becoming budding entrepreneurs and it's not by other benevolent industries stepping in spotting the extensive labour opportunities and opening up new vibrant industries

In an ideal world welfare should only be a long term support for those who genuinely cannot work and a safety net for those who temporarily find themselves out of work but that relies on society being able to offer full and fair employment for all and we've been a long, long way from that for well over 40 years which is why we have not one but two or three generations of people who have been left behind. You'd have us abandon them because they lack the ambition or drive your capitalist society insists upon but don't seem to realise it will come back and bite you in the arse when they eventually get angry enough to do something about the gulf between you and them, at best they vote for Brexit and feck our economy over, at worst they might actually decide to take back the 20% of the country they believe is theirs.

 

[notcool]

Better get rid of healthcare as well as all these poor people are dragging us down

I didn't argue that they were dragging us down. But sure, why not get rid of state healthcare? The NHS could invest more in medical machinery and do a better job because of it. The drugs would be better too. What makes you think I'm against the poor? If there's no welfare, does that mean there is no charity? If people don't have medical insurance, the hospitals could take care of them pro bono. And they would actually be able to do that, unlike now where they barely have enough staff to look after the patients they have now.

In an ideal world welfare should only be a long term support for those who genuinely cannot work and a safety net for those who temporarily find themselves out of work but that relies on society being able to offer full and fair employment for all and we've been a long, long way from that for well over 40 years which is why we have not one but two or three generations of people who have been left behind.

There would be more jobs in society if there was less welfare. They are inextricably linked. You want society to go one way (more jobs) but you pull them back the other (welfare).

Go and see how towns that grew up around a single industry that has realised there were greater profits to be made by relocating to another country cope.

Since everyone hate me anyway, I will just say good. If we didn't build better machines than we had during the industrial revolution and kill all the jobs that they provided, we'd still be stuck with the same material prosperity that we had then. Same with those towns of single industry: they put their own special interest (my job) over the general interest (lower prices).

 

[Cassidy]

I didn't argue that they were dragging us down. But sure, why not get rid of state healthcare? The NHS could invest more in medical machinery and do a better job because of it. The drugs would be better too. What makes you think I'm against the poor? If there's no welfare, does that mean there is no charity? If people don't have medical insurance, the hospitals could take care of them pro bono. And they would actually be able to do that, unlike now where they barely have enough staff to look after the patients they have now.


There would be more jobs in society if there was less welfare. They are inextricably linked. You want society to go one way (more jobs) but you pull them back the other (welfare).


Since everyone hate me anyway, I will just say good. If we didn't build better machines than we had during the industrial revolution and kill all the jobs that they provided, we'd still be stuck with the same material prosperity that we had then. Same with those towns of single industry: they put their own special interest (my job) over the general interest (lower prices).

1. Your healthcare view is interesting, you have the situation in the US as a great example of what you are advocating and it doesn't look great. I lived in the US for a few years are our healthcare setup is better. Do we need to improve yes, but basic healthcare should be free on the point of contact. Pro bono? Seriously so basically you think we can rely on society to just be charitable without it being written into a law and it made an obligation? So if I am poor and can't afford healthcare then I just have to rely on the luck that maybe some hospital will be feeling charitable enough to treat me for free?

2. You seriously need to explain how removing welfare will create more jobs. Creating more jobs is what will remove the need/dependence on welfare not the other way round.

3. As a society there is so much wealth that you should actually ask yourself why we need jobs to be so profit driven? There are more ways to look at things and the reliance on profit and greed to drive society will always only lead to disparity and people getting short changed.

 

[fcbforever]

I didn't argue that they were dragging us down. But sure, why not get rid of state healthcare? The NHS could invest more in medical machinery and do a better job because of it. The drugs would be better too. What makes you think I'm against the poor? If there's no welfare, does that mean there is no charity? If people don't have medical insurance, the hospitals could take care of them pro bono. And they would actually be able to do that, unlike now where they barely have enough staff to look after the patients they have now.


There would be more jobs in society if there was less welfare. They are inextricably linked. You want society to go one way (more jobs) but you pull them back the other (welfare).


Since everyone hate me anyway, I will just say good. If we didn't build better machines than we had during the industrial revolution and kill all the jobs that they provided, we'd still be stuck with the same material prosperity that we had then. Same with those towns of single industry: they put their own special interest (my job) over the general interest (lower prices).

You are utterly disgusting.
You also have a pretty poor understanding of education.
You also don't understand how taxes work and you've probably never worked a day in your life.
Tell that 3 kid, low income family in Manchester how great it would be for them if they had to pay for the school of their kids. And don't tell me "but they pay taxes already". fecking bullshit. Of course they do. But their taxes invested into education are way way less than what directly paying a school would be, since the more wealthy are paying more taxes and are crossfinancing their kids education.

I also wonder why public education systems are the best in the world and not your beloved privatized ones.

 

[Silva]

Let's just privatise everything while we're at it. It's not my fault if you can't pave the road outside your house. Or if cancer treatment is too expensive for you. Hey, if you want to send your kid to school move to a poorer city where it's cheaper. Oh? Your place of work just shut down? Get a job you bum! It's been 5 whole minutes, how stupid are you? Take a real degree you loser, no one wants you to read that Assyrian papyrus. Oh what's that? Can't afford a private militia? Well, feck off you're not worth protecting then.

 

[notcool]

So you don't realise the flaw in that argument at all? How many people do you think go to university with the aim of staying at a cool 20k/ year for decades after graduation?

Having more students may generate more profit but that does not mean better education and a better society. Nobody said profit is a dirty word. But it has its place. I don't really want someone profiting off my child, becuase I don't think profit is the best driver for a good and equitable education, which gives those from disadvantaged backgrounds the chance to advance themselves. Cars are not children. That should be pretty self explanatory.


Riight, that kind of assumes that the parents won't want to send their kids to such a school. If they decide that they want their kids to go to a school that doesn't teach science as a major subject for example, they can. That should not be acceptable. And it would also assume that there would be other schools in the local area that can cater to what they want from their schools.

I'm not trying to attack or defend their system, this isn't really the thread for that. You mentioned the healthcare system so I'm telling you why people mock you for it. Yes that is true but its much of a muchness. If I don't have access to insurance, I either don't go and seek healthcare because I can't afford it or I have to go and bankrupt myself and potentially lose my home because I can't afford it. That should not be how a civilised country runs its healthcare system.

It could be the government's fault for high prices? Are you joking? Then why are their prices so high compared to the UK where the government is the main provider then? I don't want to be rude but have you thought that one through at all?

You say people want to look after poor people as if that is a bad thing?

What you seem to be mentioning is not that far off what we've had in quite a few African countries post independence. Its not great.

I think that you won't be as interested in going up a wage bracket if you have to start paying off your loan as if the money you had to pay was the same no matter what you were earning.

Why doesn't it mean that? Are parents stupid? They can't choose what is best for their child? And you don't think that better education leads to more students?

It should be acceptable. An individual is better at deciding what is best for their child than the government. Science is a waste of time anyway. If you are going into something that requires Science then go ahead but there's no need for every child to be taught it. It doesn't make one a better person.

Do you think that people just die in the US because they don't have access to healthcare? A lot of times the reason why they overpay is because they want better care than they can afford.

In America, they have 'Obamacare' and Medicare. That's the government getting involved.

It's not a bad thing to look after people, I just think the state doing it is wrong. I think people are worse off in the longterm if the state gets involved. The advances that could be made in healthcare are less because there is less money to invest. This means people that wouldn't have died had the government not been involved, will die. If you look at grain (or whatever) production in the USSR, they weren't able to keep up with the demand. The same happens with the NHS: doctors are overworked. Someone linked me an article which mentioned independent schools. They said the class sizes were of 11 pupils. State schools have around 30. Same thing: they can't keep up with the demand.

 

[fcbforever]

Let's just privatise everything while we're at it. It's not my fault if you can't pave the road outside your house. Or if cancer treatment is too expensive for you. Hey, if you want to send your kid to school move to a poorer city where it's cheaper. Oh? Your place of work just shut down? Get a job you bum! It's been 5 whole minutes, how stupid are you? Take a real degree you loser, no one wants you to read that Assyrian papyrus. Oh what's that? Can't afford a private militia? Well, feck off you're not worth protecting then.

Especially since we have a country just over the pond where you can see those problems first hand...I mean, does anybody really want to trade in the German healthcare system for the American, with or without Obamacare? For sure not.
Also wouldn't trade ur University system. They have more elite institutions for sure, but most people will never be able to attend those, their high schools are shit as are their public colleges.

 

[Silva]

It should be acceptable. An individual is better at deciding what is best for their child than the government. Science is a waste of time anyway. If you are going into something that requires Science then go ahead but there's no need for every child to be taught it. It doesn't make one a better person.

Holy shit, you're not even a capitalist, you just have no idea how anything works. And here was me worrying you'd been brainwashed by some ideological purists. Nah, you're just ignorant

 

[Skills]

I think that you won't be as interested in going up a wage bracket if you have to start paying off your loan as if the money you had to pay was the same no matter what you were earning.

Why doesn't it mean that? Are parents stupid? They can't choose what is best for their child? And you don't think that better education leads to more students?

It should be acceptable. An individual is better at deciding what is best for their child than the government. Science is a waste of time anyway. If you are going into something that requires Science then go ahead but there's no need for every child to be taught it. It doesn't make one a better person.

Do you think that people just die in the US because they don't have access to healthcare? A lot of times the reason why they overpay is because they want better care than they can afford.

In America, they have 'Obamacare' and Medicare. That's the government getting involved.

It's not a bad thing to look after people, I just think the state doing it is wrong. I think people are worse off in the longterm if the state gets involved. The advances that could be made in healthcare are less because there is less money to invest. This means people that wouldn't have died had the government not been involved, will die. If you look at grain (or whatever) production in the USSR, they weren't able to keep up with the demand. The same happens with the NHS: doctors are overworked. Someone linked me an article which mentioned independent schools. They said the class sizes were of 11 pupils. State schools have around 30. Same thing: they can't keep up with the demand.

 

[Bobcat]

I didn't argue that they were dragging us down. But sure, why not get rid of state healthcare? The NHS could invest more in medical machinery and do a better job because of it. The drugs would be better too. What makes you think I'm against the poor? If there's no welfare, does that mean there is no charity? If people don't have medical insurance, the hospitals could take care of them pro bono. And they would actually be able to do that, unlike now where they barely have enough staff to look after the patients they have now.


There would be more jobs in society if there was less welfare. They are inextricably linked. You want society to go one way (more jobs) but you pull them back the other (welfare).


Since everyone hate me anyway, I will just say good. If we didn't build better machines than we had during the industrial revolution and kill all the jobs that they provided, we'd still be stuck with the same material prosperity that we had then. Same with those towns of single industry: they put their own special interest (my job) over the general interest (lower prices).

If you "got rid of state healthcare" the NHS would cease to exist and would have no money to invest in anything. Seriously, the rest of the world is shacking their head in disbelief at the american healthcare. Not at it's quality, which im sure is top notch if you have the money for it, but just the fact that healthcare is seen as some sort of "privilege". Hell, why not privatize the police and fire dpt as well. I could see how that went down
"Hello, 911? There is a burglar in my house"
"Hold on mam, what is your insurance number"
"Blablabla"
"Sorry, your insurance does not cover home invasions" *Click*

No welfare = More jobs, thats a false equivalence if i ever saw one. Now i don't know anything about you, but lets assume you are married with two kids and a wife/husband that you have to provide for. You have student loans and a mortgage on your house. Then you lose your job. No welfare means you then have to sell your house, maybe move onto the streets and then beg for handouts from strangers. Is that truly an ideal society? Or would you maybe, just maybe let the state take care of you until you got back on your feet?

That last paragraph makes no sense. No one is denying that technological advancement creates prosperity in the long run, but human suffering does not have to be a part of the equation. Also, the advancements in fields like robotics have drastically reduced the need for manual labor. That and global trading is what is killing small towns with big cornerstone industries. Not taxes and "big government"

 

[711]

There are plenty of countries where people pay little or no tax and just look after themselves. Third world and failed states, sadly.

 

[notcool]

Holy shit, you're not even a capitalist, you just have no idea how anything works. And here was me worrying you'd been brainwashed by some ideological purists. Nah, you're just ignorant

It's good for society to have people have different scientific knowledge which they can apply in their jobs. But a broad understanding of science isn't really needed (what need does a doctor have of physics or an engineer of medicine?) for anyone who uses science for their job and any scientific knowledge (i'm talking about chemistry, biology, physics) isn't needed for a plumber or electrician. Or what is needed can be easily taught if you want to do one of those jobs.

Please don't misinterpret me.

 

[Silva]

It should be acceptable. An individual is better at deciding what is best for their child than the government. Science is a waste of time anyway. If you are going into something that requires Science then go ahead but there's no need for every child to be taught it. It doesn't make one a better person.

It's good for society to have people have different scientific knowledge which they can apply in their jobs. But a broad understanding of science isn't really needed (what need does a doctor have of physics or an engineer of medicine?) for anyone who uses science for their job and any scientific knowledge (i'm talking about chemistry, biology, physics) isn't needed for a plumber or electrician. Or what is needed can be easily taught if you want to do one of those jobs.

Please don't misinterpret me.

Ok, I see the problem here guys, his doctor's a child.

 

[notcool]

There are plenty of countries where people pay little or no tax and just look after themselves. Third world and failed states, sadly.

Or the USA at a certain time. It's adopted a lot of socialistic practices recently though and people are wondering why things aren't going as well as they used to.

 

[fcbforever]

It's good for society to have people have different scientific knowledge which they can apply in their jobs. But a broad understanding of science isn't really needed (what need does a doctor have of physics or an engineer of medicine?) for anyone who uses science for their job and any scientific knowledge (i'm talking about chemistry, biology, physics) isn't needed for a plumber or electrician. Or what is needed can be easily taught if you want to do one of those jobs.

Please don't misinterpret me.

A medical engineer does need to know a lot about medicine.
And medicin wouldn't even work without physics.

Also, what you are proposing here is some pre-1800 society. Doesn't matter they are dumb as long as they are working aye?

 

[Silva]

Or the USA at a certain time. It's adopted a lot of socialistic practices recently though and people are wondering why things aren't going as well as they used to.

At what time? And, please find a citation.

 

[fcbforever]

Or the USA at a certain time. It's adopted a lot of socialistic practices recently though and people are wondering why things aren't going as well as they used to.

Are you kidding me? What "socialist" practices have they adopted? Their healthcare system, which is privatized, was so shit the gouverment needed to intevene (hence Obamacare) and a lot of people are left behind because it's impossible for them to attend a college. These are "socialist" problems?

I wonder if you are just really, really dumb.

 

[africanspur]

I think that you won't be as interested in going up a wage bracket if you have to start paying off your loan as if the money you had to pay was the same no matter what you were earning.

Why doesn't it mean that? Are parents stupid? They can't choose what is best for their child? And you don't think that better education leads to more students?

It should be acceptable. An individual is better at deciding what is best for their child than the government. Science is a waste of time anyway. If you are going into something that requires Science then go ahead but there's no need for every child to be taught it. It doesn't make one a better person.

Do you think that people just die in the US because they don't have access to healthcare? A lot of times the reason why they overpay is because they want better care than they can afford.

In America, they have 'Obamacare' and Medicare. That's the government getting involved.

It's not a bad thing to look after people, I just think the state doing it is wrong. I think people are worse off in the longterm if the state gets involved. The advances that could be made in healthcare are less because there is less money to invest. This means people that wouldn't have died had the government not been involved, will die. If you look at grain (or whatever) production in the USSR, they weren't able to keep up with the demand. The same happens with the NHS: doctors are overworked. Someone linked me an article which mentioned independent schools. They said the class sizes were of 11 pupils. State schools have around 30. Same thing: they can't keep up with the demand.

You don't go to university to be earning 20k a year when you're 40. To suggest that you won't be as interested in going up a wage bracket (or indeed that most graduates won't end up entering a wage bracket higher than the limit for paying back student loans immediately after graduating) is frankly a bit silly and not really couched in any facts or logic.

Actually and I know this is going to sound a bit elitist, yes, parents are stupid. People are stupid. A lot of people can't choose what is best for their child no, they need help. Hence why lots of parents come crying to me in clinic with babies who have nothing more than a runny nose worried their child is on the verge of dying. Hence why they buy parenting books, go to parenting groups, look to advice from their elders about how to raise children. Its why they look to send them to school and get them educated, so they don't spend their life tilling the field like they do. It is why they send them to centres of higher learning because they probably can't produce world class doctors, engineers, lawyers or architects in their living room.

So the study of science, the thing that has brought our species to where we are now, is a waste of time? Even if we are to accept that premise, how are we to know that what the child is going to do will definitely need science? Did Newton, Einstein, Hawking, Galileo etc just run around from a young age, interested and experts in their own fields? Do you think that I was showing an innate ability to be a doctor back home as a child in Sierra Leone? As a refugee in this country? What about the fact that when I did decide to go to university, I had an incredible interest in both Medicine and Zoology. In fact, I also had a great interest in law and history. Could have chosen any of those. Thankfully, I wasn't shoehorned into a certain profession from a young age.

I was using science as an example. It has nothing to do with being a better person. Kids should also learn maths, languages, history and geography. It is how we create an educated, well informed society which can fulfill its own needs. It is how we breed tolerance. It is how we advance as a species and try to solve our problems.

Actually, yep that is exactly what happens. May not be in a direct way. But those weird symptoms you've left for 5 years (because you were worried about the doctors bill) may well have been a cancer. And in those five years, it may have gone from a very treatable condition to one that has spread throughout the body. Or you may opt for the treatment, bankrupt yourself, lose your home and put your family on the street.

That is 100% patently wrong. It is not because they are trying to get better treatment than they can afford. It is because insurance companies charge through the roof for things that you would get for a reasonable price anywhere else in the Western world. American gauze is not somehow more amazing than French gauze and yet they overcharge massively for even small things like that on their bills.

Yep the ACA only came in very recently. Before that, tens of millions were uninsured. And Medicare does not cover everyone who can't afford their own insurance.

I have literally no idea what point you're trying to make there tbh. Those things are linked. The grain production and famines in the USSR have nothing to do with government provided education. The reason we are overworked in the NHS is complex and multifactorial and not simply becuase it is a socialised healthcare system.

 

[Silva]

It was better in the good old days, when sons would learn the trade their father had and daughters were sustenance farmers. When people with mental health issues were locked in the basement so society didn't have to look at them. When unmarried women who bore a child were sent to the covenant and their babies abused for being aberrations of gods good word. When the poor could join the army and die to enrich our nations. When black and brown people knew their place and bowed to the superior race. feck you and yours, I ain't paying no taxes jack.

 

[notcool]

No welfare = More jobs, thats a false equivalence if i ever saw one. Now i don't know anything about you, but lets assume you are married with two kids and a wife/husband that you have to provide for. You have student loans and a mortgage on your house. Then you lose your job. No welfare means you then have to sell your house, maybe move onto the streets and then beg for handouts from strangers. Is that truly an ideal society? Or would you maybe, just maybe let the state take care of you until you got back on your feet?

More welfare means less money to create jobs, which means more people need welfare.

If you "got rid of state healthcare" the NHS would cease to exist and would have no money to invest in anything. Seriously, the rest of the world is shacking their head in disbelief at the american healthcare. Not at it's quality, which im sure is top notch if you have the money for it, but just the fact that healthcare is seen as some sort of "privilege". Hell, why not privatize the police and fire dpt as well. I could see how that went down

It's the idea that things are a right, that raises prices. It's because the government has got involved that prices are so high. If someone is forced to have insurance, it means you don't have to lower prices to get their business and so prices go up. People criticise Americans for not wanting the government involved because the prices are involved but it's precisely the government being involved that has pushed prices so high. Same with college. If you want everyone to go college, you might want the government to get involved, but this is exactly what raises the prices for everything. For years in the USA, people went out to make money for themselves and this did two things: both improved the goods that people offered and made it so everything was much more affordable. How exactly can that not work with healthcare?

 

[africanspur]

notcool, I'll reiterate again. Your small government paradise already exists, sometimes has existed very powerfully, in many African countries post independence.

A government that abdicates all responsibility over its citizens.

It does not lead to this utopia you think of. It leads to an uneducated, illiterate populace, non existent infrastructure, appalling healthcare and no social services to speak of.

At least in most of our countries, we have a family network to fall back on. Doesn't seem to be so strong in Europe.

 

[notcool]

So the study of science, the thing that has brought our species to where we are now, is a waste of time? Even if we are to accept that premise, how are we to know that what the child is going to do will definitely need science? Did Newton, Einstein, Hawking, Galileo etc just run around from a young age, interested and experts in their own fields? Do you think that I was showing an innate ability to be a doctor back home as a child in Sierra Leone? As a refugee in this country? What about the fact that when I did decide to go to university, I had an incredible interest in both Medicine and Zoology. In fact, I also had a great interest in law and history. Could have chosen any of those. Thankfully, I wasn't shoehorned into a certain profession from a young age.

It's good for our species, not for any particular person. Now history, philosophy, literature, art: these are important for everyone.

Actually and I know this is going to sound a bit elitist, yes, parents are stupid. People are stupid. A lot of people can't choose what is best for their child no, they need help.

Well, I believe in people.

Actually, yep that is exactly what happens. May not be in a direct way. But those weird symptoms you've left for 5 years (because you were worried about the doctors bill) may well have been a cancer. And in those five years, it may have gone from a very treatable condition to one that has spread throughout the body. Or you may opt for the treatment, bankrupt yourself, lose your home and put your family on the street.

There are free clinics. And people that bankrupt themselves go for the more expensive treatment. They think: well, this person I know went to a really expensive hospital so I need to go there.

That is 100% patently wrong. It is not because they are trying to get better treatment than they can afford. It is because insurance companies charge through the roof for things that you would get for a reasonable price anywhere else in the Western world. American gauze is not somehow more amazing than French gauze and yet they overcharge massively for even small things like that on their bills.

Because they can. Normally they would not be able to charge that much but because the government forces people to get insurance, the prices go up.

Yep the ACA only came in very recently. Before that, tens of millions were uninsured. And Medicare does not cover everyone who can't afford their own insurance.

Medicare came in quite a while ago and it raised the prices.

I have literally no idea what point you're trying to make there tbh. Those things are linked. The grain production and famines in the USSR have nothing to do with government provided education. The reason we are overworked in the NHS is complex and multifactorial and not simply becuase it is a socialised healthcare system.

The point is that socialism, however implemented, doesn't meet demand and that it doesn't allow things to get better.

 

[Cassidy]

More welfare means less money to create jobs, which means more people need welfare.

Have you actually checked the budget and the percentage that is actually spent on what we call welfare? Welfare isn't that place where the money is being wasted.

 

[notcool]

@africanspur
Why doesn't it work? Because you are poor? Perhaps you were poorer 20 years ago. Maybe it's not actually being implemented. For example, with healthcare in the USA, people might say: look at the free market and how that's destroyed healthcare, when really, it hasn't been in place with regards to healthcare for a long time.

Family and charity is good; welfare is bad.

I don't really know much about Africa.

 

[fcbforever]

It's good for our species, not for any particular person. Now history, philosophy, literature, art: these are important for everyone.


Well, I believe in people.


There are free clinics. And people that bankrupt themselves go for the more expensive treatment. They think: well, this person I know went to a really expensive hospital so I need to go there.


Because they can. Normally they would not be able to charge that much but because the government forces people to get insurance, the prices go up.


Medicare came in quite a while ago and it raised the prices.


The point is that socialism, however implemented, doesn't meet demand and that it doesn't allow things to get better.

Okay, you are dumb. Those statements don't hold up to the most basic standards of logic.

 

[Cassidy]

@africanspur
Why doesn't it work? Because you are poor? Perhaps you were poorer 20 years ago. Maybe it's not actually being implemented. For example, with healthcare in the USA, people might say: look at the free market and how that's destroyed healthcare, when really, it hasn't been in place with regards to healthcare for a long time.

Family and charity is good; welfare is bad.

I don't really know much about Africa.

The problem is some people don't have alot of family, not everyone comes from a family that can support them financially. I get the feeling you can't relate because you just don't understand what its like to be in that situation (that is an assumption I am making there though) I could be wrong.

Also Charity - Charity is such a great thing, that is why there are starving children in the world and people even living homeless in our country whilst we have billionaires driving around in Ferraris. You can't rely on charity to ensure peoples basic needs.

 

[Bobcat]

More welfare means less money to create jobs, which means more people need welfare.


It's the idea that things are a right, that raises prices. It's because the government has got involved that prices are so high. If someone is forced to have insurance, it means you don't have to lower prices to get their business and so prices go up. People criticise Americans for not wanting the government involved because the prices are involved but it's precisely the government being involved that has pushed prices so high. Same with college. If you want everyone to go college, you might want the government to get involved, but this is exactly what raises the prices for everything. For years in the USA, people went out to make money for themselves and this did two things: both improved the goods that people offered and made it so everything was much more affordable. How exactly can that not work with healthcare?

Where do you get this idea that money creates jobs? Demand creates jobs. With that kind of logic we might as well euthanize the elderly since they are nothing but a drain on the economy.

What you are suggesting in the second paragraph is basically anarchy, and it has been an ongoing and failing project in Africa since the 1950's. The notion that it's the governments fault for healthcare premiums going up is just false. The US actually had socialized healthcare post WW2, but then came Regan and just said "feck it, let the insurance companies handle it"

The ironic thing is that the US spends more on healthcare pr capita than any other nation, but a lot of it gets lost in red tape bullshit and ends up in the pockets of super wealthy board members. This is also while the poorest gets denied healthcare altogether, or end up in crippling debt because they were uninsured when they fell down the stairs

Ok, if government involvement causes raise in prices, why are US Unis so incredibly expensive compared to European universities (which are free to attend for the most part)? What should be the deciding factor of a person being able to attend higher education? Their families wealth or their academic pedigree?

 

[notcool]

Have you actually checked the budget and the percentage that is actually spent on what we call welfare? Welfare isn't that place where the money is being wasted.

I'd cut most things really. Schools I'd maybe localise but colleges I wouldn't have the government involved in it. And healthcare, I move towards privatising that too. Although, I would have my doubts with that.

 

[Skills]

It's good for society to have people have different scientific knowledge which they can apply in their jobs. But a broad understanding of science isn't really needed (what need does a doctor have of physics or an engineer of medicine?) for anyone who uses science for their job and any scientific knowledge (i'm talking about chemistry, biology, physics) isn't needed for a plumber or electrician. Or what is needed can be easily taught if you want to do one of those jobs.

Please don't misinterpret me.

This is getting better and better You have to be trolling right?

 

[Manny]

Basically what the GOP is wanting to do in the US.

Yeah, sounding more and more like a Republican.

 

[Cassidy]

I'd cut most things really. Schools I'd maybe localise but colleges I wouldn't have the government involved in it. And healthcare, I move towards privatising that too. Although, I would have my doubts with that.

Education and healthcare are 2 things that should exist in society which should really be accessible to all, in others words shouldn't be linked to profit and price should never be a barrier to entry.

 

[africanspur]

It's good for our species, not for any particular person. Now history, philosophy, literature, art: these are important for everyone.


Well, I believe in people.


There are free clinics. And people that bankrupt themselves go for the more expensive treatment. They think: well, this person I know went to a really expensive hospital so I need to go there.


Because they can. Normally they would not be able to charge that much but because the government forces people to get insurance, the prices go up.


Medicare came in quite a while ago and it raised the prices.


The point is that socialism, however implemented, doesn't meet demand and that it doesn't allow things to get better.

Mate, you can't just pick and choose things to reply to.

Of course it is important for our entire species. It is also good for people. The analytical thinking and background, as well as academeic rigor, can help in many field of life after education. The question then becomes, as I asked earlier and which you have ignored, is how we choose who will do which subject? At which age do we start sorting kids into their future careers? 16? 11? 5? From birth? What about my colleagues who trained as doctors, decided it was shit and have since left to do baking, consulting, banking and law? Where do they fit in your system?

Well you can believe in people all you want. Like I said, people don't have the expertise to understand all of the important things that happen in their lives and their kids lives. It is why people spend so much money for help.

Free clinics won't provide high quality secondary and tertiary care like they would for someone with insurance in Germany/ France/ Australia or someone in the UK.

I don't know if you're on the windup here but people do not bankrupt themselves because they try to go for a treatment they can't afford because they've heard someone else has used it. Be reasonable and think for a second about what you're saying. I thought you believed in people?

And again think about what you're saying here. Why is gauze more expensive in the USA, with a mostly private system of healthcare vs the UK, an almost exclusively public system of healthcare? Why is it more expensive than other insurance based systems like France, Germany, Australia? Why is it more expensive than Canadian gauze?

It has only recently been a requirement in the USA for everyone to have insurance. This has been a requirement for quite a bit longer in other countries, who have government interference. Why then has American healthcare always been so much more expensive?

But prices have been rising, Medicare or no medicare.

That point is not backed up by the examples you used, especially as the USSR was not socialist. More importantly, saying that socialism does not work is not the same as saying we should unleash uncontrolled capitalism on the very fundamental aspects of our lives.