Mainly, the fact that the state is the ultimate arbiter of what is "right" and "good" knowledge, actually.
So in other words, it doesn’t actually matter to you that they’re being educated properly, you’re just opposed to it even when you can point to numerous successful cases.
We're "supposed to be skeptical of the government" (not that I expect anyone on the left to be inherently skeptical of the state - unless it happens to be under Republican control at the time), but that's pretty tough to do when the state is literally spoon feeding people "information" like "government is how we solve problems!" from age five.
How is State mandated education incompatible with governmental skepticism? In other words, where does the Japanese government go wrong in it’s mathematical education of it’s people? Germany in Chemistry? Finland in virtually anything? That’s what government education is. I can’t magically will myself to be educated, nor can you, we have to get it from somewhere. Education tout court, involves a vast outlay of resources, teachers who in turn have to be educated, printers, books, water, electricity, etc. There’s no goddamn way to expect each individual to be able to procure all that’s needed to educate people throughout a country. In plain dollar terms, the average American family of four can’t afford 20k a year to pay for their kid’s education (that’s the minimum cost of education in the US, public or private), so we depend on a system of subsidies and taxation to provide for basic services that are necessary for all of us.
No. I have. We spend more than the OECD average, and score below the OECD average on the international PISA test - predominantly because of the low performance of black and hispanic students, which is probably due to the fact that they live in impoverished communities, and the U.S. school system forces them to put their kids into schools based on where they reside (in impoverished communities).
Which takes us back to the original point I made. How does the recognition that our educational performance is substandard at international levels, buy you the conclusion that the remedy for that is to abolish public financing of education all-together? Since the cases that I mentioned and alluded to are direct disproofs of your assertion, you can’t point to them that they’re lacking sufficient education in some capacity. Moreover, the disproportion failure in educational achievements in black and hispanic communities is as much a function of culture and doesn’t speak to the efficacy or say anything about the logic or proposed solutions a market could offer in addressing it.
It's a pretty fucking spectacularly stupid system, one which the left contends would be all fixed right as rain if the Evil Rich People™ would just, you know, stop voting for their children's best interests, and just be okay with their property taxes and good teachers going to schools their children are literally forbidden from attending.
Like the systems I mentioned? Yeah, that’s a real failure of education, bro, one that you’ve still not contested directly. And personally, I don’t know what the hell your issue is in your inability to speak about the issue objectively, instead leaving others with the impression that the Illuminati, or for that matter some evil, liberal satanic cabal running the world is out to poison the minds of children all over the world. In democratic political systems, it’s already been know that there’s good reasons for thinking it’s impractical to want an educated population if you’re seeking voters for political offices.
The state should not be the ultimate arbiter of what is or isn't "knowledge."
Ignoring all the philosophical problems with this, given the fact that that’s not likely to happen, the only real question at hand is how best to use the resources at our disposal to provide effective education.
For the past forty years, the per-pupil cost of public education has outpaced inflation - yet our student academic performance at the end of high school hasn't budged. We are paying more, for the same outcomes.
And as I’ve said, that’s not merely a function of how much money we’ve put into public education. By that logic, west and northern Europe, as well East Asia as well should all be colossal failures by the same metric. Given that that’s not true, money is a symptom, not a cause.
Finland is a country of 5.5 million pretty much completely homogenous people, with only 3.4% of them being "foreign born" - and most of those foreign born are from Sweden, Estonia, and Russia -- cultures that aren't THAT expressly different from Finland's. I shouldn't have to explain why that model doesn't apply here, besides the fact that generally speaking, we are culturally predisposed against a centralized, government-run system because of our long-standing distrust of government-run anything. You're just bitching that 320 million people from all manner of different backgrounds don't all basically agree on how everything should be run, like those 5.5 million people from relatively similar backgrounds over in Finland.
Clearly you’ve not read a thing about the prior state of Finland’s system, you can read Pasi Sahlberg on that (or PM me for a link to the audiobook), because that’s simply factually false, even on their own account of the data.
Sure there is. An actual market in healthcare would result in lowering prices, and increasing quality.
Just like it did before the ACA was implemented? Ooops, I guess that doesn’t work, does it? (By the way, I actually teach healthcare economics at a university for a living).
The left refuses to allow that to happen, usually "because poor people" automatically implies that the government MUST step in and give them free shit.
… Huh? Uh dude, I don’t even know what the hell you’re talking about at this point.
If healthcare wasn't 60% funded by the government, if HIPAA and the HITECH Act weren't laws, if the government wasn't exempting compensation in the form of healthcare from payroll taxation, if the government wasn't in the business of dictating when and how hospitals can open, if the government wasn't dictating who is or isn't a REAL pharmacist/doctor/nurse/radiologist, if the government wasn't driving the costs of pharmaceutical companies with the overly cautious FDA, healthcare would be quite affordable.
Again, you clearly have no idea what the hell you’re talking about. The only contentious argument in there that has any degree of merit is the regulation of news by the FDA. Here is what the ACA did: put in the kinds of policies that will reduce cost. So why aren’t you counting this as an example of government working? As far as factors like increasing access go, the only thing I could conclude and tie any sense to (as far as your argument is concerned), is either Medicare or emergency access for the impoverished. But all Medicare is, is just another insurance company (so it can’t have made any difference that’s not already made by any other insurance company), and emergency care for the impoverished is exactly why the ACA is an improvement. It reduces the cost per person by getting everyone to pay into it (which is the basic law of insurance companies already). And that couldn’t have been a factor in increasing costs (of hundreds of percent every few years) have occurred in non-emergency care centers equally. So, requiring ER’s to treat those in penury can’t explain that.
There's no reason to think that markets don't work for services. They work literally everywhere else. They worked before Medicare, the HMO Act of 1973, EMTALA, HIPAA, HITECH Act, and the PPACA. It just so happens that towering goddamned notebooks of regulation and legislation dictating how the market must work eliminates the entire set of advantages markets bestow in the first place.
Well yeah, if you discount the failure of our healthcare system prior to the ACA, then no shit. By that standard, what the hell is a failure on your terms apart from absolute chaos. Additionally, since you’ve provided no concrete data to substantiate your as (it’s purely conjecture), the fact remains that adequate and superior care in countries with single payer remain a direct defeater of your thesis because in point of fact, it’s a system that does work.
Non-sequitur. Profits are cyclical. If you weren't spouting ridiculous, easily debunked platitudes, you'd know that.
The only reason any corporation in a market based system survives, is due to it’s ability to profit and draw in revenue. End of argument.
Well, every economist on the Left and the Right disagrees with you, as does history, so forgive me if I refrain from joining in on your "business is evil" tirade.
I’m an economist that works directly in healthcare, and I know the field. You’re entirely full of shit and are talking out of your ass.
Oh, I dunno, maybe every fucking industry that markets have been given a chance to work?
Oh like Enron? You mean like every elementary example to the contrary?