Understanding the Issues: Education

[That Guy]

i've gone back and tried to make this easier for you.

Originally Posted by me

talking to our enemies while bombing our allies (iran/pakistan)

that's colored coded, in a former/latter configuration that's actually pretty common in English. so you can put that one to bed.

Originally Posted by me

the japanese have a sorta decent idea (you pay 100% upfront, the gov pays you 80% back

Originally Posted by you

Those covered under Employee Health Insurance pay 20% of their medical costs when hospitalized

Originally Posted by math

what's 100% - 80%?

again, you call it out-of-thin-air, i call it "cause my friends in japan are covered by the system so they probably know how it actually works", but to each his own... way to assume though.

lemme know if there's anything else you're having trouble with...

[saden1]

Originally Posted by That Guy

then you should learn to read, iran was the former, pakistan was the latter, it's really not that hard.

you can be as childish as you like, but your speculation isn't any better than mine, and in light of that it'd probably be better to stick with the facts, but you seem opposed to that.

again, any proof against your opinions is written off. bush may be for nuclear, but is he going to get 30 reactors under construction before leaving office? mccain admits to global warming is far more than bush as done, and there are plenty of other instances (his voting record is only 85% with the GOP, obama votes on party lines 97% of the time, so much for change right?) but it's worthless wasting my time since you seem content on the "i'm right and your stupid routine," or else you might do a little research before making such blanket statements like you don't see how he's different without even bothering to look. emissions caps are different, health insurance credits are different (And again, obama is happy with both of those), yet you decide not to mention them at all.


you posted a f'ing article saying only 20% is consumer cost after i just said if you want socialized medicine japan is probably the closest and they pay 80% back, CAUSE I HAVE FRIENDS IN JAPAN, and they told me how it works there. i mean, do actually read the posts you're responding to?

if you can't be reasonable... i mean, you can ask for clarification without being an a-hole, and you can try using facts instead of opinions. i don't know why i'm even bothering to respond honestly, cause its obvious you're looking for excuses to say mccain is evil and can't seem to follow what's actually been said anyways.

I don't really care what you think of me but clearly you can't respond without getting angry and personal. I hope felt good getting it out of your system.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by That Guy

again, you call it out-of-thin-air, i call it "cause my friends in japan are covered by the system so they probably know how it actually works", but to each his own... way to assume though.

lemme know if there's anything else you're having trouble with...

Your statement implied that everyone pays that 20% which is not true with respect to the elderly and very poor. You neglect the fact that there's is a monthly ceiling for co-payments which means you never pay more than the ceiling in any given month (the cost is capped monthly but if you can't afford the 20% the government will assist you). In 1999 this ceiling was roughly $600 ($330 for those with low income and $1140 for those with significant income). The effective co-payment for the elderly was 7.3%.

Also, contribution to the program is a percentage based on your income (~4%) sorta like social security with everyone getting the same deal. There's government control across the board (drugs prices, profit margins on drugs, procedures prices, private insurance prices, level of interaction between doctors and private insurers, etc, etc). It's a highly complex system to say the least.

This my friend is a full blown socialized health care system. Let's just say I like it and I'm glad you like it too.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by saden1

I don't really care what you think of me but clearly you can't respond without getting angry and personal. I hope felt good getting it out of your system.

i assure you that i'm not the least bit angry, but you should probably follow your own advice.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by saden1

Your statement implied that everyone pays that 20% which is not true with respect to the elderly and very poor. You neglect the fact that there's is a monthly ceiling for co-payments which means you never pay more than the ceiling in any given month (the cost is capped monthly but if you can't afford the 20% the government will assist you). In 1999 this ceiling was roughly $600 ($330 for those with low income and $1140 for those with significant income). The effective co-payment for the elderly was 7.3%.

Also, contribution to the program is a percentage based on your income (~4%) sorta like social security with everyone getting the same deal. There's government control across the board (drugs prices, profit margins on drugs, procedures prices, private insurance prices, level of interaction between doctors and private insurers, etc, etc). It's a highly complex system to say the least.

This my friend is a full blown socialized health care system. Let's just say I like it and I'm glad you like it too.

that's probably because the point was obama wants full socialized health care eventually and how he'd pay for it without tax increases. the japanese system was a footnote example, not an essay, cause again, that really was tangential to the discussion at hand, so i didn't think it was necessary.

i mean, i could levy the same statement back at you about every rash generalization you've made in this thread, so it seems like a silly thing to say. I'm glad you learned something though, and hopefully some of the baseless mccain crap can be shown the door.

neither one is perfect and neither one is really what i want, but i'll always choose smaller government and less senseless taxing (libertarian).

i'm all for social programs, but only if they can prevent abuse and show a clear economic/social benefit and a sane payment system, which most don't.

i mean, if someone went ahead and said social security is going to be killed off completely, they'd have my vote (since i save and invest and would get an amazingly better return on that money than some crap annuity when i'm 70), but it'll never happen. even if they just gave people the option to opt out and lose whatever they've contributed thusfar, i'd be jumping at it.

tax and legalize prostitution, drill where you can safely drill without massive eco-damage, i mean, there's a lot of small issues that make sense and would be very easy to implement (and added together, you'd get a better economy, less wasteful spending, more tax revenue, cheaper energy, less dependence etc), but there's so much that's verbotten it's stupid.

there was an actual argument over building a 120mill$ bridge to nowhere for a tiny (<100 i think) village... relocation across the water body or private cessna's for every person would have been cheaper, and they actually had to waste time entertaining that kind of crap. honestly the amount of pork in our spending is almost nothing compared to the budget or other nations, but hearing about it just rankles at how wasteful some people can be.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

That sounds an awful lot like saying:

Because kids grew up in a broken home, they should continue to be treated as children once they are 18 years old, because they never learned to be a responsible adult.

I don't buy it. By the time you hit 18, your free pass expires. You're expected to be responsible and make wise choices.

No I'm not saying that at all, it's not the black and white issue you seem to be trying to make it. I don't think anyone deserves a free pass because of their past, but it's definitely a reason to keep in mind why some people make the decisions that they do. It's easy for someone from a solid background to sit here and say the things that you are saying.

Of course someone can be expected to make wise choices, but when you've never been shown the way to make wise choices, it kind of complicates things a bit.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

That sounds an awful lot like saying:

Because kids grew up in a broken home, they should continue to be treated as children once they are 18 years old, because they never learned to be a responsible adult.

I don't buy it. By the time you hit 18, your free pass expires. You're expected to be responsible and make wise choices.

No, it's not. It's saying that many kids who grow up in broken homes did not receive the guidance necessary to be responsible and make wise choices.

There's no question that responsibility and decision making are learned behaviors - just look across the different cultures at what the social norm comprises.

If someone is trying to break the cycle and take responsibility, but is unable to do so due to bad choices made in the absence of a socially acceptable moral framework that was not of their doing, how is it not the government's responsibility to help them?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

No I'm not saying that at all, it's not the black and white issue you seem to be trying to make it. I don't think anyone deserves a free pass because of their past, but it's definitely a reason to keep in mind why some people make the decisions that they do. It's easy for someone from a solid background to sit here and say the things that you are saying.

Of course someone can be expected to make wise choices, but when you've never been shown the way to make wise choices, it kind of complicates things a bit.

I believe that some people perceive that the "government is not the solution, it's the problem" crowd has an oppressive, people be damned mentality. But, speaking at least for myself, that is not the case. These programs that help "show people the way", are undoubtedly important. But I believe it should be exactly, to show them the way so they can go it alone next time (or sometime in the future). It's akin to the "buy a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach him to fish and he'll eat for life" mantra. I understand though, that for some people they will never be in position to go it alone. But I believe, perhaps naively, those cases are not as frequent nor as numerous as we tend to think.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I believe that some people perceive that the "government is not the solution, it's the problem" crowd has an oppressive, people be damned mentality. But, speaking at least for myself, that is not the case. These programs that help "show people the way", are undoubtedly important. But I believe it should be exactly, to show them the way so they can go it alone next time (or sometime in the future). It's akin to the "buy a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach him to fish and he'll eat for life" mantra. I understand though, that for some people they will never be in position to go it alone. But I believe, perhaps naively, those cases are not as frequent nor as numerous as we tend to think.

But that's exactly what subsidized after-school care for people working full-time is - "a handup, not a handout". It's not a check from the feds to be spent on the parents at the expense of the kids. It's a way for people looking to provide for their family who don't want to put their kids on the street at 2:30p every day.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I believe that some people perceive that the "government is not the solution, it's the problem" crowd has an oppressive, people be damned mentality. But, speaking at least for myself, that is not the case. These programs that help "show people the way", are undoubtedly important. But I believe it should be exactly, to show them the way so they can go it alone next time (or sometime in the future). It's akin to the "buy a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach him to fish and he'll eat for life" mantra. I understand though, that for some people they will never be in position to go it alone. But I believe, perhaps naively, those cases are not as frequent nor as numerous as we tend to think.

I totally agree. I'm not saying the gov't needs to "take care" of these people for the rest of their lives, I just think some people need a helping hand at times and should receive the help they need.

The fact is our social services programs stink and they don't address the root problems. But that's a problem with lack of funding and with our society at large that tends to be reactive rather than proactive. Until the root issues are addressed we'll always have these problems, it's just an endless cycle.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I totally agree. I'm not saying the gov't needs to "take care" of these people for the rest of their lives, I just think some people need a helping hand at times and should receive the help they need.

The fact is our social services programs stink and they don't address the root problems. But that's a problem with lack of funding and with our society at large that tends to be reactive rather than proactive. Until the root issues are addressed we'll always have these problems, it's just an endless cycle.

Lets be honest and say what the real problem is. Its the parents and the lack of guidence, having children they cannot afford, signle parent families, etc... Just yeasterday here in our area a parent worked really hard to get parents together (in a low income area) to form a new PTA for their local school. Three other parents showed up on Monday night and this is a school with over 1,000 students. Thats the real problem and the problem within our schools These are not problems that the federal goverment can correct they are problems within each community which can only be fixed within the community. We have allready spent billions and all it has done is aided this behavior. If Obama is serious about chang then maybe we need to start holding the parents more accountable for their childrens action or lact of actions.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Lets be honest and say what the real problem is. Its the parents and the lack of guidence, having children they cannot afford, signle parent families, etc... Just yeasterday here in our area a parent worked really hard to get parents together (in a low income area) to form a new PTA for their local school. Three other parents showed up on Monday night and this is a school with over 1,000 students. Thats the real problem and the problem within our schools These are not problems that the federal goverment can correct they are problems within each community which can only be fixed within the community. We have allready spent billions and all it has done is aided this behavior. If Obama is serious about chang then maybe we need to start holding the parents more accountable for their childrens action or lact of actions.

How is that going to happen exactly?

If the gov't isn't helping how is a community supposed to fix things on their own? The gov't has to play a role somewhere along the way in terms of funding and social service programs.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Lets be honest and say what the real problem is. Its the parents and the lack of guidence, having children they cannot afford, signle parent families, etc... Just yeasterday here in our area a parent worked really hard to get parents together (in a low income area) to form a new PTA for their local school. Three other parents showed up on Monday night and this is a school with over 1,000 students. Thats the real problem and the problem within our schools These are not problems that the federal goverment can correct they are problems within each community which can only be fixed within the community. We have allready spent billions and all it has done is aided this behavior. If Obama is serious about chang then maybe we need to start holding the parents more accountable for their childrens action or lact of actions.

ever think some of those parents are working second shift? or working 2 jobs? not everyone that is down, wants to be down. alot of these people are good, decent people. but it is a very hard cycle to break. yes, it can be broken, but it sometimes starts with a helping hand. remember, most of the decisions these people are making, are the same ones they have learned from their parents.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

No I'm not saying that at all, it's not the black and white issue you seem to be trying to make it. I don't think anyone deserves a free pass because of their past, but it's definitely a reason to keep in mind why some people make the decisions that they do. It's easy for someone from a solid background to sit here and say the things that you are saying.

Of course someone can be expected to make wise choices, but when you've never been shown the way to make wise choices, it kind of complicates things a bit.

I get what you're saying, and for the record I am for the idea of providing after-care to kids from low-income households. It's about the kids first and foremost.

But regarding the general discussion, do you really think you're 100% the product of your environment and upbringing? I don't, I think my parents provided guidance and tremendous support, which is a big part of getting a solid start in life. But at the same time, I also think I'm my own man. I've learned some things from my parents, but other things and decisions they'd make I totally disagree with. And I'd do it a different way. The difference is, no matter what decisions I make, I would never expect my parents to accept any responsibility for a bad decision I made. I grew up to make my own decisions. They guided me, but in the end, I OWN my decisions. And I'll stand by and accept the consequences of all of them.

I expect EVERYONE to do the same, regardless of upbringing. Be your own man and don't cop out.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

ever think some of those parents are working second shift? or working 2 jobs? not everyone that is down, wants to be down. alot of these people are good, decent people. but it is a very hard cycle to break. yes, it can be broken, but it sometimes starts with a helping hand. remember, most of the decisions these people are making, are the same ones they have learned from their parents.

Yea, out of a 1,000 students all but three where working at their second job. Funny thing is the lady that is working so hard to form the PTA and trying to get parents involved is finding the time working THREE jobs. Your kind of thinking and making excuses for these people is part of the problem. I'm not saying your totaly wrong and that maybe some were working at there second job. This lady had notices out one month prior to their first meeting so thats still not a good excuse. By reading your post and others I think we all agree that these children need help because their parents are not doing their job its how they are helped we disagree on.