Those against socialised healthcare - socialised education?

[removeduser_487563287433]

We are fairly used to the arguments against socialised healthcare now, and fair be, they usually have a point and it definitely doesn't benefit the rich. But what about education? We all have socialised education, but the same arguments are never put against it - indeed, almost if not entirely everybody is for it. Why?

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Because education is something that's limits are reached when someone becomes as intelligent as possible - a good thing. The NHS's limits go past spending taxpayers' money on tattoo reversal and other nonsense.

[removeduser_487563287433]

You can't get tattoo reversal on the NHS.

[Gelgoog]

education is less about knowledge and more about socializing your youth. at the bare minimum it teaches people to do remedial tasks. at its worst school is used by as a tool of the government to spread national identity and pride for ones country. im sure its pretty much the same everywhere.

getting people smarter is not the most apparent issue in schooling.

[removeduser_487563287433]

education is less about knowledge and more about socializing your youth. at the bare minimum it teaches people to do remedial tasks. at its worst school is used by as a tool of the government to spread national identity and pride for ones country. im sure its pretty much the same everywhere.

getting people smarter is not the most apparent issue in schooling.

Really?

[Gelgoog]

Really?

someone with an degree in education might disagree, but if you look at the formation of schooling as a universal institution, it was done firstly as a way to get kids off the street ( as they were taking jobs away from adults). it was thought that socializing kids via free mandatory schooling would help indoctrinate the vast hordes of immigrants (melting pot education).

college education doesnt tend to follow these lines, but k-12 certainly does.

[republic_bohemia]

deleted

[JP226]

We are fairly used to the arguments against socialised healthcare now, and fair be, they usually have a point and it definitely doesn't benefit the rich. But what about education? We all have socialised education, but the same arguments are never put against it - indeed, almost if not entirely everybody is for it. Why?

they are, all the time. I guess you guys don't have the voucher arguments going on.

I'll grant you it's not as intense but i that has more to do with the fact that your only helping or hurting yourself with healtchare where as education is strongly correlated with crime reduction.

If you are trying to say socialized education works, why not healthcare... the only thing it does is give too much education to people who don't care and not enough to those that do.

[Maverick]

they are, all the time. I guess you guys don't have the voucher arguments going on.

I'll grant you it's not as intense but i that has more to do with the fact that your only helping or hurting yourself with healtchare where as education is strongly correlated with crime reduction.

If you are trying to say socialized education works, why not healthcare... the only thing it does is give too much education to people who don't care and not enough to those that do.

Voucher system, isn't that Keynesian economics? I think that it is one of the better strategies for public education, if we must have public education.

I think people like public schools because they think that it levels the playing field or something. Also there's that myth that teachers are under paid and under appreciated. Most public school teachers are glorified baby sitters. Economically, the government is an inherently inefficient institution and I believe very strongly in a small government and free market. Teachers should be paid like everyone else, based on their performance, we're not communists. Why should a school janitor make so much more money than someone doing the same thing in the private sector? In terms of policy, public schools are about satisfying the needs of the average student (ideally) but how many average kids are there? Anyone who is too slow or too fast is wasting their time in the public system. Lastly, whether the public school system in your country is federal or provincial the government contracts (books, computers etc.) are extremely lucrative and so naturally corruption is a major factor.

Public healthcare will never be introduced in the United States, they have a perfect example to the north of how this system just hemorrhages money while providing a very low level of care.

[chilon]

Also there's that myth that teachers are under paid and under appreciated. Most public school teachers are glorified baby sitters.

LOL @ the irony of someone calling teachers being under appreciated a "myth" and then calling them 'glorified baby sitters' in the very next sentence.

That is a Fail.

Economically, the government is an inherently inefficient institution and I believe very strongly in a small government and free market.

Would you consider the administrative costs in running Social Security in America compared to running it in UK to be evidence of this?

Why should a school janitor make so much more money than someone doing the same thing in the private sector?

Do they?

Have a link to legit source proving this assertion?

[Maverick]

LOL @ the irony of someone calling teachers being under appreciated a "myth" and then calling them 'glorified baby sitters' in the very next sentence.

That is a Fail.

Man, you worry me . There's no irony. Are you dyslexic or something?

Have a link to legit source proving this assertion?

[/quote]

Government jobs almost always pay more with much greater benefits than the equivalent job in the private sector, especially menial jobs like a custodian. I don't need any links, I thought this was self-evident.

[chilon]

Man, you worry me . There's no irony. Are you dyslexic or something?

There is ROLF irony there but it is sad that instead of seeing that you result to insults.

Good game.

Government jobs almost always pay more with much greater benefits than the equivalent job in the private sector, especially menial jobs like a custodian. I don't need any links, I thought this was self-evident.

So no proof or supporting evidence of your opinion, just a random opinion with no factual basis. Good to know.

Suffice it to say that government jobs do NOT "always pay more". You do need to do research before stating opinion as if it were fact.
First all statements like this tend to completely ignore the vast difference in economic geography. A custodian in Detroit, Michigan in the private sector is likely going to make less than a government union custodian in Michigan but that government worker is likely to make less than a private sector custodian in Silicon Valley c.2007 (let alone the difference in 1999).

Second, one of the common differences when moving to skilled labor (even just manually skilled labor) is demonstrated by comparing the US military to its private contracted mercenaries like Blackwater. The private sector earns a much greater salary but ends up with no benefits usually. That is common in some "menial" labour as well with the public sector offering more benefits/security while private sector offering more raw pay.

[Maverick]

There is ROLF irony there but it is sad that instead of seeing that you result to insults.

Good game.

there's that myth that teachers are under paid and under appreciated. Most public school teachers are glorified baby sitters

Since this doesn't contradict anything else I said, what is your point? Pointing out other people's use of literary devices isn't an argument, you can use those you know. All I'm saying is that I have a low opinion of most public school teachers, notice "myth" before under appreciated?.

Talk about a curve ball, I had no idea what in the heck your point was, you really confused me. I've never seen that before: "way to use irony, you fail!". This is the most ridiculous conversation I've had in a long time.

[Gwendylyn]

Since this doesn't contradict anything else I said, what is your point? Pointing out other people's use of literary devices isn't an argument, you can use those you know. All I'm saying is that I have a low opinion of most public school teachers, notice "myth" before under appreciated?.

Talk about a curve ball, I had no idea what in the heck your point was, you really confused me. I've never seen that before: "way to use irony, you fail!". This is the most ridiculous conversation I've had in a long time.

Its clearly ironic because it proves the myth is true. Anyone who calls public school teachers 'glorified babysitters' definitely 'under appreciates' those same teachers. No one denies bad teachers exist, but calling most teachers 'glorified babysitters' shows a completely misunderstanding of either the job of a public school teacher or a babysitter.

[Gary88]

someone with an degree in education might disagree, but if you look at the formation of schooling as a universal institution, it was done firstly as a way to get kids off the street ( as they were taking jobs away from adults).

it wasnt because they were taking jobs from adults its because young children should not be ****ing coal miners


anyway, its the same arguments as health care, rich people can afford private schools why should they pay for us urchins to be educated?

[Gelgoog]

it wasnt because they were taking jobs from adults its because young children should not be ****ing coal miners


anyway, its the same arguments as health care, rich people can afford private schools why should they pay for us urchins to be educated?

at the time child labor was normal, there was no distinction between children and adults. this concept that children should frolick about is very new. as soon as you were able you worked. this left lots of kids on the street as delinquents causing crime.

so you have lots of kids in the workforce meaning less jobs for others. how do you get rid of them? you mandate that they be in school. problem solved.

you have to look at turn of the century groups like child savers to understand this.

as far as private education goes? yea, you have more money you have more access to other things. thats capitalism for you. the state provides the same elements to everyone. i dont see how it has anything to do with healthcare.

[republic_bohemia]

deleted

[removeduser_487563287433]

That's simply not true. There was a large and vocal campaign to end child labour in Victorian Britain. Children had to do terrible jobs - factory and mining work for children in this period was horrific and often fatal.

[Gelgoog]

well i was talking about the US, not sure about y'all over there. but i would assume schools pretty much started the same everywhere, as a means to control the poor ( via socialization, indoctrination and keeping you off the street). even today this is one of the main missions of K-12 here, even though they wont admit to it. private institutions arent required to follow a strict state curriculum, so people actually learn more there.

[JP226]

That's simply not true. There was a large and vocal campaign to end child labour in Victorian Britain. Children had to do terrible jobs - factory and mining work for children in this period was horrific and often fatal.

Until very recently, mid to late 1800's, the appreciation of life and children for that matter wasn't on everyone's minds. Once you hit eleven, and even that was late in many incidents, you were working your ass off during the preindustrialization periods.

The only reason the anti children movement intially sprang up and took hold was because of the availability of capital and the lacking of child skill at it's operation. A kid can't run a machine as effectively as an adult. And a free adult for that matter.