For those against universal healthcare -- are you against K-12 public schools? (drug, solution)

[Mack Knife]

Originally Posted by EDnurse

Hum.

So the Armed Forces of the United States of America suck?

The government doesn't run the military, they control it, two different concepts.

[ohhwanderlust]

Originally Posted by Mack Knife

The poll seems to be a product of K through 1 so, nope, don't support it.

As does your response.

[monkeywrenching]

Originally Posted by ohhwanderlust

If you're against universal healthcare, but support taxpayer-funded public schools (or vice versa) -- what do you think is the key distinction in why you don't support/oppose them both?

against obamacare, and against public schools. home school or private schools is the place that our children should be taught.

[natalie469]

Schools? Keep them like they are but allow vouchers so parents can take their kids out of crappy union run schools putting them in a private school EXACTLY like our elected leaders are doing.[/quote]


Vouches won't get you into private schools lol You want your kid to attend then you pay for it.

[ohhwanderlust]

Originally Posted by marigolds6

Schooling is locally funded and locally provided. Universal healthcare, as generally proposed, is not. Statewide universal healthcare is likely a better system than federal. County/municipal universal healthcare could work very well.

(I oppose more distributed systems, like California has. Which, incidentally, contributed to the precipitous decline in public schooling in that state.)

Edit: And just to add to that, a big part of that is the scope of failure and success. It is difficult to recover from a national K-12 failure *coughnochildleftbehindcough*. Local failures have less impact and are relatively easy to recover form. Success can come in many forms because of the wide variety of schooling options; and can then be readily replicated. Success on the national level is relatively rare simply because few national systems can even be attempted due to the sheer scope. National programs in K-12 work best when they bubble up from local successes.

I agree. I think statewide universal healthcare would be much more sustainable than a federal system.

But regardless, that would still entail some form of taxes being invested in it, whether federal, statewide, or local.

[Fish & Chips]

Americans are always saying "government ruins this, government ruins that", and then they go on to praise the private sector.

Do they not realise that the private sector owns Democrats and Republican – the two parties they keep giving their votes to?

[T0103E]

Originally Posted by Mr. In-Between

I'm sorry, but I'm just stunned by these arguments. The American public school system led the world in the early to mid-20th Century, and was one of the principal factors in positioning America for global dominance in the middle to latter portion of that century. Obviously, the current state of the American public education system is terrible and getting worse, and I don't think anyone disagree with that - but to propose that the solution is to abandon public education altogether rather than fix the dysfunctional system is absurd. If your car breaks down, do you throw the car away and buy a horse and buggy, or do you just... you know... fix the car? If you want to get rid of public education, what do you propose as a viable alternative?

That's up to individual people. As long as nobody is taking money from their neighbor (directly, or by way of the state) to pay for the things they want, I'd have no issue with it.

If you wouldn't force someone to fund your/your kids' education on your own, how does it become okay if you have someone else do it? If you would actually be willing to do that on your own, I guess you'd be consistent...but consistently thuggish.

[jetgraphics]

I am opposed to COMPULSORY CHARITY, whether for healthcare or public schooling.
HOWEVER, pursuant to law, as written, socialism is 100% voluntary as are taxes for publicly funded education.
If you do not know how and when you consented to volunteer, that's not my problem.

[Minethatbird]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

And every state will be like Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Shining examples of conservatism.

Actually I thought New Orleans was a fine example of liberals in action.

[Mr. In-Between]

Originally Posted by T0103E

That's up to individual people. As long as nobody is taking money from their neighbor (directly, or by way of the state) to pay for the things they want, I'd have no issue with it.

If you wouldn't force someone to fund your/your kids' education on your own, how does it become okay if you have someone else do it? If you would actually be willing to do that on your own, I guess you'd be consistent...but consistently thuggish.

That's a ridiculous argument. You are a member of society, and as such you derive benefits from sharing the resources of the group. Everybody contributes a certain amount of resources, and everyone draws benefits according to their particular need.

My house has never caught fire, but I don't kick and scream about how unfair it is that I am forced to pay for fire departments. Why? Because I'm intelligent enough to understand that helping pay for fire trucks is for the common good - just as it is for the common good for everyone in society to pay for the education of our nation's children.

We elect political leaders to make decisions on which things are of sufficient benefit to society as a whole to warrant using the shared resources of the community to fund them. Not everyone is going to agree on every one of those choices, but that's tough - it's just the way a society works. Anyone who doesn't like it is free to buy their own island in the South Pacific any time they like. But if you choose to remain here and take advantage of the societal benefits you do consider worthy of other people helping pay for them, you don't have much basis to complain about the overall concept of pooled resources.