NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been waiting 6 weeks for approval for my thrid eye surgery from my private insurance carrier. The carrier already pre-approved the surgery 9 months ago, but due to complications from the first eye surgery, I had to have an interim (second) surgery before this one, so I need pre-surgical approval all over again.

People say that one problem with nationalized medicine is the wait for surgery. I can't imagine that the wait here in the USA for pre-surgical approval by a private medical insurer is any longer than the wait for surgery in countries with nationalized medicine and no private insurance carrier standing in the way. Even when they pre-approve a surgery, when the bill comes they "lowball" it and fail to pay the full amount stating it is not a "reasonable and customary" charge for the area.

I think we would be better off without the private medical insurers in the USA, and wonder what others thought.

I wanted to come up with a Cohesive post....But all NHS arguments I could think of were over taken by a massive image of someone shoving a Needle in My Eye...

My eye hurts......

Having seen Sicko, and living in a country with national healthcare, I'd take waiting lists over paying loads, having to jump through hoops to actually get insurance etc.

Even while living in the UK I had a private carrier even though I could use the national health care system. You wouldn't see the private sector go away.

The biggest losers I think in a full nationalized system is the patients. Good equipment would not be as numerous as it is today which is part of the problem today. Yes we would have the same level of care for awhile however due to equipment failing and going out of date the real impact will be felt within 5 years.

I think the level of care from the doctors would suffer too. The amount of money they are used to vs a national system would probably go down. Giving someone a pay cut at their "job" typically doesn't provide for good attitudes which may have a negative impact on patient care.

You may also see the amount of actual facilities decrease due to consolidation and cost cutting. Not a good thing.

I could continue but running out of time....

Having seen Sicko, and living in a country with national healthcare, I'd take waiting lists over paying loads, having to jump through hoops to actually get insurance etc.

Sicko is over dramatized. The movie was made to scare and make a buck. Can't rely on that for the full story.

Sicko is over dramatized. The movie was made to scare and make a buck. Can't rely on that for the full story.

You know what really scares me? No national health care. Of course the movie was made to scare - its a scary situation. I think Moore did a good job.

If Obama tries national health care and the Congress blocks it because of all this socialism bullshit, I'm gunna riot in the streets.

I have been waiting 6 weeks for approval for my thrid eye surgery from my private insurance carrier. The carrier already pre-approved the surgery 9 months ago, but due to complications from the first eye surgery, I had to have an interim (second) surgery before this one, so I need pre-surgical approval all over again.

People say that one problem with nationalized medicine is the wait for surgery. I can't imagine that the wait here in the USA for pre-surgical approval by a private medical insurer is any longer than the wait for surgery in countries with nationalized medicine and no private insurance carrier standing in the way. Even when they pre-approve a surgery, when the bill comes they "lowball" it and fail to pay the full amount stating it is not a "reasonable and customary" charge for the area.

I think we would be better off without the private medical insurers in the USA, and wonder what others thought.
yeah 6 weeks seems like a long time--certainly longer than i would expect to wait. so that would piss me off too if i happened to me.

my british friend had a cataract in one eye. he had to wait a year for the surgery. then he got a cataract in the other eye. he had to wait a year and a half for that one.

its all relative eh?

No, I do not support national healthcare in the United States whatsoever. It'd be one less thing Canadians can feel superior aboot.

No, I do not support national healthcare in the United States whatsoever. It'd be one less thing Canadians can feel superior aboot.

Ok, so Canadians have national health care. In 10 days, you can't laugh at us for having a chimp President. What else is there, really?

Ok, so Canadians have national health care. In 10 days, you can't laugh at us for having a chimp President. What else is there, really?

Colder Weather? Higher Number of French Speakers?....uh...Mounties? lol

I have been waiting 6 weeks for approval for my thrid eye surgery from my private insurance carrier. The carrier already pre-approved the surgery 9 months ago, but due to complications from the first eye surgery, I had to have an interim (second) surgery before this one, so I need pre-surgical approval all over again.

People say that one problem with nationalized medicine is the wait for surgery. I can't imagine that the wait here in the USA for pre-surgical approval by a private medical insurer is any longer than the wait for surgery in countries with nationalized medicine and no private insurance carrier standing in the way. Even when they pre-approve a surgery, when the bill comes they "lowball" it and fail to pay the full amount stating it is not a "reasonable and customary" charge for the area.

I think we would be better off without the private medical insurers in the USA, and wonder what others thought.
I've had three eye surgeries. My last one was in April 2008. I have two lazy eyes, so the operations have been on both eyes. They moved the muscle from one part of my eye and attached it to another area, so the eye wouldn't drift as much. They did that to both eyes. I'll probably have to have another surgery when I'm in my early- to mid-twenties (I'm sixteen now).

Anyway, about nationalized healthcare. I think that giving people money (which is what this is, in a sense) lessens a person's responsibility. I don't want to pay for your problems. I have my own to deal with. If I can't pay for what I need, I don't want someone else to. My problems belong to me, so get the hell away from them :P



Inver Brass

Colder Weather?

Nah, they mostly live in the warmer parts anyway.

80% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the border.

Nah, they mostly live in the warmer parts anyway.

80% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the border.

Alright..Strike that off the list...Guess that just leaves the French and Mounties...


Slim Pickins, lol...

Wait since when is a higher population of French speakers a BONUS?

Wait since when is a higher population of French speakers a BONUS?

Its not, neither are Mounties...Thats the Joke, lol...

I would think that Mounties would be a bonus. Look how cool they are!

http://www.gasolinealleyantiques.com/celebrity/images/Movie/film-mounties.JPG

I've had three eye surgeries. My last one was in April 2008. I have two lazy eyes, so the operations have been on both eyes. They moved the muscle from one part of my eye and attached it to another area, so the eye wouldn't drift as much. They did that to both eyes. I'll probably have to have another surgery when I'm in my early- to mid-twenties (I'm sixteen now).

Anyway, about nationalized healthcare. I think that giving people money (which is what this is, in a sense) lessens a person's responsibility. I don't want to pay for your problems. I have my own to deal with. If I can't pay for what I need, I don't want someone else to. My problems belong to me, so get the hell away from them :P



Inver Brass
wow thats fancy surgery. did it work?

Nationalized health care will not solve our problems.

Health issues in the US are less tied to health care then we think.

Nationalized health care will not solve our problems.

Health issues in the US are less tied to health care then we think.

Explain, please.

80% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the border.

Ever watch Canadian bacon?

Ever watch Canadian bacon?

Awesome movie.

Explain, please.

Several factors affect things like preventable deaths, average age of population and otehr factors that are used

Top three that are not counted for.

1. Ethnic groups/immigrant make up. We have large groups of people with genetic predisposition to things like heart diseases.

2. Age. most of the studies in preventable death have a cut off age around 65(if you die over 65 of what is normally termed a preventable death it doesnt count). Western Europe has a older population by and large so they benefit from the cut off more. Also first heart attack in men are in their 40's and 50's for women an older population has those who have made it though that time with out one.

3. Food Subsidies. In the US we subsidies corn. This leads to corn being used as the most common oil to cook food in. Corn oil is not healthy for you.
In Europe they subsidies olives(in the places such as Italy Greece and so on).
Factor in EU trade and the most common cooking oil is olive oil. Olive oil is healthy for you.

I think while those genetic predispositions to certain illnesses you refer to might exist, I find it hard to believe you give them a greater weight than you might, say, the poverty that those with such conditions live in. The main point that I've always made and heard made for national health care is that it would alleviate the necessity for emergency care in America. If a poor, uninsured person gets a minor symptom and writes it off, the possibly expensive-to-treat-but-could-have-been-prevented condition grows worst. With national insurance, this hypothetical person would have sought treatment for the minor symptom and the condition would have been caught and treated with inexpensive drugs.

I don't use statistics to back up my arguments, so studies don't really matter to me. :)

Are you talking about omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids?

80% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the border.

Damn they are massing on our northern border for an invasion. :eek2:

Damn they are massing on our northern border for an invasion. :eek2:

I'm going to refer you to the violent gay thread at this point
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=579257

I have been waiting 6 weeks for approval for my thrid eye surgery from my private insurance carrier.

Well, maybe the reason you're having troubles is that insurance carriers are suspicious when people claim to have three eyes. I know I find it hard to believe, sir.

I would think that Mounties would be a bonus. Look how cool they are!

http://www.gasolinealleyantiques.com/celebrity/images/Movie/film-mounties.JPG

This is one of the coolist mounties ever. He always go his man.
http://sergeantpreston.com/No8/cover.jpg

Jesus, that's an enormous mutant dog. No wonder Canada is so thinly settled.

I'm going to refer you to the violent gay thread at this point
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=579257

Are you saying it is the violent gay Canadians that are massing on our northern border?

Well, maybe the reason you're having troubles is that insurance carriers are suspicious when people claim to have three eyes. I know I find it hard to believe, sir.

Left eye, right eye and japs eye.

Are you saying it is the violent gay Canadians that are massing on our northern border?

I think its something we need to seriously be concerned with. Why isn't our government doing something about the gay Canadian threat?

I think its something we need to seriously be concerned with. Why isn't our government doing something about the gay Canadian threat?

Because last time the US tried to take exception to Canada's existance it lost.

Damn they are massing on our northern border for an invasion. :eek2:

They have already invaded us. It all started with the TV invasion;
Alex Trebek, William Shatner, Peter Jennings, Keifer Sutherland, Pamela Anderson, etc.

A lot of the newer US tv shows for the last 5+ years have been filmed in Canada.

Robin Williams sang the song "Blame Canada".

Guess who sells more oil to the US? The Arabs? Noooooooo, the Canadians.

We are not allowed to drill for oil in the ANWAR, but the Canadians have very strict environmental rules and allow their oil to be drilled.

Some of our major factories have moved to Canada with the blessings of the unions: AFL (American Federation of Labor) CIO (Congress Industrialized Organizations) CLC (Canadian Labor Congress). How many GM/Ford cars have a Canadian sticker in the door jamb? Lifesavers moved all of their operations to Canada. Northern Telecom, one of the largest communication companies in the world is Canadian. CML Technologies, which does a lot of phone systems for the 9-1-1 outfits is Canadian.

Half of the battle staff at NORAD is Canadian. Most of the early warning radars are based in Canada. Most Canadian Forces bases are within 200 miles of the US border.

The only real trade route out of the Great Lakes of the US is thru the St. Lawrence River, which is controlled and can be blocked anytime by Canada.

The power outage that affected the North East US about 10-15 years ago started in Canada.

Why is there no fence and wall on the US/Canadian border? They are tall, white and speak english; very hard to detect. Illegals from the South are short, brown, no habla and are very easy to detect.

And there are many more. It is too late. They have been infiltrating the US since the end of WWII.

I will have to post my "Great Canadian Conspiracy" one of these days. :)

Because last time the US tried to take exception to Canada's existance it lost.

Back in the 19th century. You think we'd lose this time around?

Back in the 19th century. You think we'd lose this time around?

No do-overs

Because last time the US tried to take exception to Canada's existance it lost.

When was that? the only time I can recall that we fought was the War of 1812...And I wouldnt categorize that as a loss...

And even then it was The British Empire, not an independent Canada...

It wasn't the only time that Canada and the US fought, but it was certainly the most recent. And yeah, we lost pretty badly.

I think while those genetic predispositions to certain illnesses you refer to might exist, I find it hard to believe you give them a greater weight than you might, say, the poverty that those with such conditions live in. The main point that I've always made and heard made for national health care is that it would alleviate the necessity for emergency care in America. If a poor, uninsured person gets a minor symptom and writes it off, the possibly expensive-to-treat-but-could-have-been-prevented condition grows worst. With national insurance, this hypothetical person would have sought treatment for the minor symptom and the condition would have been caught and treated with inexpensive drugs.

how common is this? How many of these people qualified for medicare/medicaid but did not use their benefits? How many die from the aliment? How many people would have been saved?

I don't use statistics to back up my arguments, so studies don't really matter to me. :)

which is why you don't have an argument

Are you talking about omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids?
believe so. basically the goo cholesterol vs Bad cholesterol thing.

They have already invaded us. It all started with the TV invasion;
Alex Trebek, William Shatner, Peter Jennings, Keifer Sutherland, Pamela Anderson, etc.

A lot of the newer US tv shows for the last 5+ years have been filmed in Canada.

Robin Williams sang the song "Blame Canada".

Guess who sells more oil to the US? The Arabs? Noooooooo, the Canadians.

We are not allowed to drill for oil in the ANWAR, but the Canadians have very strict environmental rules and allow their oil to be drilled.

Some of our major factories have moved to Canada with the blessings of the unions: AFL (American Federation of Labor) CIO (Congress Industrialized Organizations) CLC (Canadian Labor Congress). How many GM/Ford cars have a Canadian sticker in the door jamb? Lifesavers moved all of their operations to Canada. Northern Telecom, one of the largest communication companies in the world is Canadian. CML Technologies, which does a lot of phone systems for the 9-1-1 outfits is Canadian.

Half of the battle staff at NORAD is Canadian. Most of the early warning radars are based in Canada. Most Canadian Forces bases are within 200 miles of the US border.

The only real trade route out of the Great Lakes of the US is thru the St. Lawrence River, which is controlled and can be blocked anytime by Canada.

The power outage that affected the North East US about 10-15 years ago started in Canada.

Why is there no fence and wall on the US/Canadian border? They are tall, white and speak english; very hard to detect. Illegals from the South are short, brown, no habla and are very easy to detect.

And there are many more. It is too late. They have been infiltrating the US since the end of WWII.

I will have to post my "Great Canadian Conspiracy" one of these days. :)

That aboot covers it... or at least what we want you to know, eh?

When was that? the only time I can recall that we fought was the War of 1812...And I wouldnt categorize that as a loss...

And even then it was The British Empire, not an independent Canada...

You're just sayin that to make yourselves feel better. It's much easier to lose to an empire than a bunch of beer swillin' lumberjacks who live off bacon, poutine and maple syrup.

Some of our major factories have moved to Canada with the blessings of the unions: AFL (American Federation of Labor) CIO (Congress Industrialized Organizations) CLC (Canadian Labor Congress). How many GM/Ford cars have a Canadian sticker in the door jamb?





Your right. Damn cheap Canadians. We are saving your jobs too. You better pony up your fair share for the Auto bailout.

Damn they are massing on our northern border for an invasion. :eek2:

No we're not....


*Kidnaps and sends to Secret Brainwashing Igloo*

...

*did I write "Brainwashing"? I meant Happy Fun Time Igloo*

No we're not....


*Kidnaps and sends to Secret Brainwashing Igloo*

...

*did I write "Brainwashing"? I meant Happy Fun Time Igloo*

Igloo X-Ray?

how common is this? How many of these people qualified for medicare/medicaid but did not use their benefits? How many die from the aliment? How many people would have been saved?

Like I said, I'm devoid of statistics. But I know its an issue, I'm not making this stuff up. We don't practice preventative care here in the US, which is a major difference between us and Europe and something I think needs to be addressed. In something like free health care.

which is why you don't have an argument
:( I didn't realize that the only actual arguments were the ones with numerical backing.

believe so. basically the good cholesterol vs Bad cholesterol thing.

Ok, because those are in olive oil too. They are in all vegetable oils.

I don't see why MDs should not take pay cuts--how many Jaguars and houses and luxury vacations does one need? Considering the state of the USA economy, with everyone taking pay cuts, losing jobs, suffering with wage freezes and so on, why shouldn't the doctors take pay cuts too?

I wish I did have three eyes, perhaps I would have needed one less surgery!

Like I said, I'm devoid of statistics. But I know its an issue, I'm not making this stuff up. We don't practice preventative care here in the US, which is a major difference between us and Europe and something I think needs to be addressed. In something like free health care.

Is it the major difference ???? or just A difference. Last time I had an Exam/check up no insurance I paid 75 dollars. not very expensive at all.


:( I didn't realize that the only actual arguments were the ones with numerical backing.

with out numbers you fail in invalidate the null hypothesis.
Do people fail to get check up because of expense ? Or do they fail to get check ups because they don't want to miss a day of work ? Yeah the services are paid for in Europe ??? do that many more people use the check ups ?? With my uncles and father the reason they get check ups is because their insurance company call them threatening to raise their rates if they don't go get one.


Ok, because those are in olive oil too. They are in all vegetable oils.[/QUOTE]

olive oil has several factors.
1. monounsaturated fats
in particular omega-3 fatty acids.
2. phenolic content a compound that seems to greatly reduce heart disease. (under study still)
3. olive oil seems to displace bad fatty acids with out affecting good fatty acids.

as for vegetable oil Vs Olive oil

Olive oil has 73g of monounsaturated fat(good). vegetable oil has 8g.

Olive oil has 11g of polyunsaturated fat(bad fat). vegetable oil has 32g.

olive oil has about 9 times the good fat and 1/3 the bad fat of vegetable oil.

Do people fail to get check up because of expense ? Or do they fail to get check ups because they don't want to miss a day of work ?
I don't think you can use your personal experiences or those of your family to back up your arguments. I know its an assumption, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you're middle class. The people who would benefit most from this change would not be middle class, they would be lower class. So yes, they fail to get check ups because of expense and because they don't want to miss a day of work, because the two are the same thing. They are wage earners, they don't work for a salary, so the hours they put in are the hours they get paid for. Plus, their jobs don't cover their health care expenses, so they go without health care entirely. They don't just pay a co-pay when they go to the doctor's office.

Olive oil and corn oil are subsets of vegetable oil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetable_oils#Particular_oils

I don't see why MDs should not take pay cuts--how many Jaguars and houses and luxury vacations does one need? Considering the state of the USA economy, with everyone taking pay cuts, losing jobs, suffering with wage freezes and so on, why shouldn't the doctors take pay cuts too?

Turn off the TV and go talk to some real doctors. Most of them are in debt from their degrees for 10-15 years after graduation. While there are some that make oodles of cash, like in any profession the norm is NOT opulance.

I have been waiting 6 weeks for approval for my thrid eye surgery from my private insurance carrier. The carrier already pre-approved the surgery 9 months ago, but due to complications from the first eye surgery, I had to have an interim (second) surgery before this one, so I need pre-surgical approval all over again.

People say that one problem with nationalized medicine is the wait for surgery. I can't imagine that the wait here in the USA for pre-surgical approval by a private medical insurer is any longer than the wait for surgery in countries with nationalized medicine and no private insurance carrier standing in the way. Even when they pre-approve a surgery, when the bill comes they "lowball" it and fail to pay the full amount stating it is not a "reasonable and customary" charge for the area.

I think we would be better off without the private medical insurers in the USA, and wonder what others thought.

We have national health care. It's called Medicare. It's run so poorly I can only shudder and pray against ANOTHER form of US Gov't run healthcare.

We have national health care. It's called Medicare. It's run so poorly I can only shudder and pray against ANOTHER form of US Gov't run healthcare.
Oh come on, now. Don't you think everything would be wonderful if we just eliminated the means testing and gave it a big budget? Then made everyone use it? Of course it would work just perfectly. And if it didn't, the only reason would be because it didn't have enough funding.

Gosh, this sounds just like the argument for public schools... They would be perfect, but for the suboptimal funding that they get now.

Gosh, this sounds just like the argument for public schools... They would be perfect, but for the suboptimal funding that they get now.

Considering that many of the public schools that do get enough funding are excellent.

Im sorry, I didnt mean to get in the way of your libertarian fantasy land.

Considering that many of the public schools that do get enough funding are excellent.

Im sorry, I didnt mean to get in the way of your libertarian fantasy land.
Adequate funding is not a necessary and sufficient condition to produce good schools. (Or health care system)

Sorry to intrude on your lack-of-logic land.

Adequate funding is not a necessary and sufficient condition to produce good schools. (Or health care system)



Im aware, but it helps you aquire things that make good schools, like good teachers, updated text books, technology, etc.

But Im sure the private sector could handle all that better. It doesnt matter if poor people dont go to school. While we're at it, lets have the private sector run things like the fire department too! Wait, didnt we try that before...?

EDIT: The Europeans seem to get along just fine with both nationalized health care and public schools. Because theyre well funded. But hey, they clearly cant be doing well, because the private sector isnt running it, right?

EDIT: The Europeans seem to get along just fine with both nationalized health care and public schools. Because theyre well funded. But hey, they clearly cant be doing well, because the private sector isnt running it, right?
And even better: we spend less per capita on the NHS than you guys do on your fancy private system, or so says the OECD.

And even better: we spend less per capita on the NHS than you guys do on your fancy private system, or so says the OECD.

But...how is it possible to be effecient without the private sector?!?

But...how is it possible to be effecient without the private sector?!?

You could just have one huge health care provider so the US health care system could benefit from the economies of scale the NHS enjoys.

Of course, you want the public to have some say in how such a monopolistic business was run. A periodic public vote would do.

And it would be easier to just take the payments for the service as people are paid rather than putting the public to all the trouble of setting up direct debits, a "national insurance" system if you will.

In something like free health care.

There is no such thing as "free health care." Someone, somewhere has to pay the bill. Also, I received "free health care in the military for 26 years and have received "free health care" in the VA system. The quality and timeliness of the health care sucks.

There is no such thing as "free health care." Someone, somewhere has to pay the bill. Also, I received "free health care in the military for 26 years and have received "free health care" in the VA system. The quality and timeliness of the health care sucks.

That depends where you go. The Veterans hospital my Grandfather goes to is just as nice as the private hospital I frequent (and its a very, very nice hospital).

Again, its all about the region. And the funding. Despite what some posters here think.

That depends where you go. The Veterans hospital my Grandfather goes to is just as nice as the private hospital I frequent (and its a very, very nice hospital).

Again, its all about the region. And the funding. Despite what some posters here think.

The funding for the VA does not depend on region. If your grandfather gets sick, how long does he have to wait to get an appointment? The normal wait is a couple of months. But then you can always go to the VA emergency room right? If you can drive 50 to 60 miles because the VA clinic in your town doesn't provide emergency care. If you go to a VA emergency room plan on spending the whole day, but that's the norm in private hospitals as well because of the numbers of people using them for routine care.

Some of our major factories have moved to Canada with the blessings of the unions: AFL (American Federation of Labor) CIO (Congress Industrialized Organizations) CLC (Canadian Labor Congress). How many GM/Ford cars have a Canadian sticker in the door jamb?

Mainly because the Big 3 don't have to pay for Canadians' healthcare, bringing us back to the topic of this thread.

Also, I received "free health care in the military for 26 years and have received "free health care" in the VA system. The quality and timeliness of the health care sucks.

Military healthcare has improved a lot recently. Instead of using Med branch officers they have DoD civilian doctors.

The funding for the VA does not depend on region. If your grandfather gets sick, how long does he have to wait to get an appointment? The normal wait is a couple of months. But then you can always go to the VA emergency room right? If you can drive 50 to 60 miles because the VA clinic in your town doesn't provide emergency care. If you go to a VA emergency room plan on spending the whole day, but that's the norm in private hospitals as well because of the numbers of people using them for routine care.

I tend to wait between 1 and 2 days for an appointment with my doctor at a time convenient to me. Of course, if it's urgent then I'm in by 11 that morning or if it's out of hours I'll get a home visit.

The NHS sucks doesn't it?

The NHS sucks doesn't it?

I don't know because I have never lived in a country that has it. What I do know is that I don't want it. I want choices and choice is not always an option in a government run system. My niece was in a NHS when she lived in Belgium. She had bot good and bad experiences with the system. At least in our system, if you have a bad experience with your medical care (and we have) you have to option to change your doctor, hospital, or clinic.

I don't know because I have never lived in a country that has it. What I do know is that I don't want it. I want choices and choice is not always an option in a government run system. My niece was in a NHS when she lived in Belgium. She had bot good and bad experiences with the system. At least in our system, if you have a bad experience with your medical care (and we have) you have to option to change your doctor, hospital, or clinic.

Just because there is an NHS in the UK it doesn't mean there are no private medical providers. You have the choice.

Do you really think Harley Street is NHS?

Why don't you want one?

Just because there is an NHS in the UK it doesn't mean there are no private medical providers. You have the choice.

Do you really think Harley Street is NHS?

Why don't you want one?

Cause it is teh socialism!11!!

Im aware, but it helps you aquire things that make good schools, like good teachers, updated text books, technology, etc.

Not only public schools, but brick-and-mortar schools in general have become increasingly obsolete. The internet is a vast repository of information that costs nothing more than the monthly electrical and broadband bill. Anyone with a home computer can gain a high quality primary education. The invention of the internet has drastically reduced the need for expensive things like schools, teachers, textbooks, etc. There is a huge excess of classrooms, teachers, and textbooks right now. If anything education spending needs to be cut, in order to reflect the new technology (internet) that has made education more efficient, higher quality, and more affordable. The notion that we suffer from a lack of educational resources is a complete fiction and myth, because the educational resources (especially provided by the internet) are widely available at cheap cost, and becomes cheaper and increases in quality every year. Your proposal to throw more money at a problem that doesn't even exist is simply insane.

Not only public schools, but brick-and-mortar schools in general have become increasingly obsolete. The internet is a vast repository of information that costs nothing more than the monthly electrical and broadband bill. Anyone with a home computer can gain a high quality primary education. The invention of the internet has drastically reduced the need for expensive things like schools, teachers, textbooks, etc. There is a huge excess of classrooms, teachers, and textbooks right now. If anything education spending needs to be cut, in order to reflect the new technology (internet) that has made education more efficient, higher quality, and more affordable. The notion that we suffer from a lack of educational resources is a complete fiction and myth, because the educational resources (especially provided by the internet) are widely available at cheap cost, and becomes cheaper and increases in quality every year. Your proposal to throw more money at a problem that doesn't even exist is simply insane.


Let me get this straight...we should cut funding to an alreay underfunded system, so that kids can just learn on the internet?

Whose proposal is insane? It certainly isnt mine.

Let me get this straight...we should cut funding to an alreay underfunded system, so that kids can just learn on the internet?

Whose proposal is insane? It certainly isnt mine.

How can you claim the system is "underfunded"? The system is horribly overfunded.

Kids today have more access to more educational knowledge than any of their predecessors in the history of mankind, all made possible by new technologies such as the internet, and you want to rip kids from their low-cost, nearly free repository of knowledge, and print more textbooks, build more classrooms, and hire more teachers? Insane.

How can you claim the system is "underfunded"? The system is horribly overfunded.

Kids today have more access to more educational knowledge than any of their predecessors in the history of mankind, all made possible by new technologies such as the internet, and you want to rip kids from their low-cost, nearly free repository of knowledge, and print more textbooks, build more classrooms, and hire more teachers? Insane.

You're funny.

How can you claim the system is "underfunded"? The system is horribly overfunded.

This shows your ignorance of the topic right there.


Kids today have more access to more educational knowledge than any of their predecessors in the history of mankind, all made possible by new technologies such as the internet, and you want to rip kids from their low-cost, nearly free repository of knowledge, and print more textbooks, build more classrooms, and hire more teachers? Insane.

Because the internet cannot replace teachers.

Tell you what, why dont you get a degree from an "online college" (if you havent already...) and try and get a job that a normal college grad would get with that. Let me know how that works out for you.

Because the internet cannot replace teachers.
The internet can't replace teachers but makes each teacher more efficient, reducing the number of teachers needed. The majority of teachers, especially in primary education, are redundant and should either be laid off or be given drastically reduced salaries.


Tell you what, why dont you get a degree from an "online college" (if you havent already...) and try and get a job that a normal college grad would get with that. Let me know how that works out for you.

In a few years when employers start realizing that traditional brick-and-mortar education is no better than internet education, I'll do just that.

In fact I'm already doing that. I'm enrolled in a brick-and-mortal medical school but I listen to all lectures taped online, read textbooks and source material posted online, and the only thing I go to the old schoolhouse for is cadaver dissection and clinical training. I won't mind at all being known as a wikipedia-trained surgeon, because the notion that productive members of society must be trained in neat rows of desks in a schoolhouse is bullshit.

How can you claim the system is "underfunded"? The system is horribly overfunded.

Kids today have more access to more educational knowledge than any of their predecessors in the history of mankind, all made possible by new technologies such as the internet, and you want to rip kids from their low-cost, nearly free repository of knowledge, and print more textbooks, build more classrooms, and hire more teachers? Insane.

4chan.


need anything else be said?

4chan.


need anything else be said?

Oh yeah, like students sitting in a classroom never daydreamed or squandered their time.

Just because there is an NHS in the UK it doesn't mean there are no private medical providers. You have the choice.

Do you really think Harley Street is NHS?

Why don't you want one?

Because I have never found the government to be able to do things better or more efficiently than the private sector. Also as I said before, I have been in two government health care systems and they both were bad.

Oh yeah, like students sitting in a classroom never daydreamed or squandered their time.

But who would enforce the learning if it's all done online without teachers?

It'd be a little too easy to just goof around all day if you're sat at home.

I won't mind at all being known as a wikipedia-trained surgeon

lolz.

Because I have never found the government to be able to do things better or more efficiently than the private sector. Also as I said before, I have been in two government health care systems and they both were bad.

I gave an example earlier showing that the government system I live with is better than the systems you've encountered. Maybe it's just the system you've been exposed to that sucks, not all national health care systems. Incidentally, which NHS have you had problems with because I'm sure you said earlier you've never experienced one?

Also, the claim that the private sector does it better than a national health care system is a little dubious considering even Cuba, the county the worlds biggest superpower has had an embargo against for decades, manages to have a better standard of healthcare than the US.

Also, the fire department.

But who would enforce the learning if it's all done online without teachers?

It'd be a little too easy to just goof around all day if you're sat at home.

The same exact people who enforce learning in classrooms - parental pressure, and the students themselves (if they're internally motivated to get anything out of their education). Students are also motivated by desire to achieve high grades and avoid low grades, but the wonderful thing about new technology is that you no longer need classrooms to get grades!

The same exact people who enforce learning in classrooms - parental pressure, and the students themselves (if they're internally motivated to get anything out of their education). Students are also motivated by desire to achieve high grades and avoid low grades, but the wonderful thing about new technology is that you no longer need classrooms to get grades!

The lulz keep on coming.

The same exact people who enforce learning in classrooms - parental pressure, and the students themselves (if they're internally motivated to get anything out of their education). Students are also motivated by desire to achieve high grades and avoid low grades, but the wonderful thing about new technology is that you no longer need classrooms to get grades!

I'm sure this will work with 6-year olds left at home to learn on the internet.

There'd be no problems with them burning down the house or anything.

I'm sure this will work with 6-year olds left at home to learn on the internet.

There'd be no problems with them burning down the house or anything.

Or not having anyone to ask questions to when they dont understand the directions or the words.

Besides, what elementary schooler wants to learn? The notion that kids will just teach themselves, when they could be playing outside, because they want to get something out of school is insane in and of itself.

The same exact people who enforce learning in classrooms - parental pressure, and the students themselves

ROFLMAO! And that folks is why we have such great schools. A majority of the parents take an active role in their children's education and a majority of the students are self motivated to get good grades. ROFLMAO. Now, about that bridge I have for sale...

ROFLMAO! And that folks is why we have such great schools. A majority of the parents take an active role in their children's education and a majority of the students are self motivated to get good grades. ROFLMAO. Now, about that bridge I have for sale...

Especially when we're talking about 6 year olds...

I'm sure this will work with 6-year olds left at home to learn on the internet.

There'd be no problems with them burning down the house or anything.

Why would 6 year olds need to learn on the internet? The 1st grade curriculum is not that complicated. Parents who no longer need to pay the excessive property taxes can easily afford to put 6 year olds in a day care center or private school.

Why would 6 year olds need to learn on the internet? The 1st grade curriculum is not that complicated. Parents who no longer need to pay the excessive property taxes can easily afford to put 6 year olds in a day care center or private school.


And here we get to the crux of the issue. Your point is basically "People with money can afford private schools. The poor must jsut learn on the internet. If they cant afford the internet, no learning to read for you!"

What about High School? You think most high schoolers will be willing to sit down, without a teacher present, and learn?

Really dude, as if I already cant take you seriously...

Why would 6 year olds need to learn on the internet? The 1st grade curriculum is not that complicated. Parents who no longer need to pay the excessive property taxes can easily afford to put 6 year olds in a day care center or private school.

So we still need schools. Didn't think you'd conceed so easily.

And here we get to the crux of the issue. Your point is basically "People with money can afford private schools. The poor must jsut learn on the internet. If they cant afford the internet, no learning to read for you!"

What about High School? You think most high schoolers will be willing to sit down, without a teacher present, and learn?

Really dude, as if I already cant take you seriously...

You don't need to sit in a classroom to learn how to read! High schoolers ARE willing to sit down without a teacher present, and learn, if there are grades assigned. The only reason anyone is doing any learning in schools is because there are grades, not because there are teachers!

So we still need schools. Didn't think you'd conceed so easily.

I'm 100% for schooling. After all, I'm enrolled in one. Where did I ever say schools are unnecessary?

Schools certainly will (and must) change in format, become more streamlined and efficient, because there's simply not enough money to go around. Online learning, distance learning, all of these new technological developments make the traditional brick-and-mortal school format obsolete. The logical thing to do is eliminate this massive excess of classrooms, textbooks, and teachers, as I've advocated this whole time.

Why would 6 year olds need to learn on the internet? The 1st grade curriculum is not that complicated. Parents who no longer need to pay the excessive property taxes can easily afford to put 6 year olds in a day care center or private school.

Do you seriously believe that if the schools were shut down the government would reduce the property tax? If you do you are dreaming.

I'm 100% for schooling. After all, I'm enrolled in one. Where did I ever say schools are unnecessary?

Schools certainly will (and must) change in format, become more streamlined and efficient, because there's simply not enough money to go around. Online learning, distance learning, all of these new technological developments make the traditional brick-and-mortal school format obsolete. The logical thing to do is eliminate this massive excess of classrooms, textbooks, and teachers, as I've advocated this whole time.

And only give the rich a quality education. The education gotten from classrooms, teachers, etc.


One cannot have the same kind of learning experiances online as they can in person. Discussions are more difficult, while one on one conversations with teachers, historical simulations, etc. will be lost. All of this damages the value of the education recieved.

So, until we reach this magical sci-fi future of yours, "brick and morter" schools must remain.

ROFLMAO! And that folks is why we have such great schools. A majority of the parents take an active role in their children's education and a majority of the students are self motivated to get good grades. ROFLMAO. Now, about that bridge I have for sale...

Are you kidding? The ONLY reason anyone studies in school is because their parents are breathing down their necks about their grades, and/or the students themselves realize the fact that one needs to achieve good grades to achieve future employability in the field of one's choice. Parents and self-motivation are EVERYTHING in education, and education is easier, cheaper, and more plentiful today than any time in past history, due to new technology.

Do you seriously believe that if the schools were shut down the government would reduce the property tax? If you do you are dreaming.

Where did I say I believed that?

I do believe however that brick and mortal education should be drastically scaled back (especially public education) and property taxes should be reduced simultaneously.

I'm 100% for schooling. After all, I'm enrolled in one. Where did I ever say schools are unnecessary?

Schools certainly will (and must) change in format, become more streamlined and efficient, because there's simply not enough money to go around. Online learning, distance learning, all of these new technological developments make the traditional brick-and-mortal school format obsolete. The logical thing to do is eliminate this massive excess of classrooms, textbooks, and teachers, as I've advocated this whole time.

There is plenty of money, you guys just need to cut spending in much less important areas, like defence.

That is the logical thing to do.

High schoolers ARE willing to sit down without a teacher present, and learn, if there are grades assigned. The only reason anyone is doing any learning in schools is because there are grades, not because there are teachers!

If you really believe this I would suggest the following: do some research. Read some peer review education journals. Read some books on teaching methods, learning styles, and student motivation. Read some books by Dewey, Prosser, Rice and others. When you are done with that let me know if you still beleive the "only reason anyone is doing any learning in schools is because there are grades."

If you really believe this I would suggest the following: do some research. Read some peer review education journals. Read some books on teaching methods, learning styles, and student motivation. Read some books by Dewey, Prosser, Rice and others. When you are done with that let me know if you still beleive the "only reason anyone is doing any learning in schools is because there are grades."

This. ^

And only give the rich a quality education. The education gotten from classrooms, teachers, etc.


One cannot have the same kind of learning experiances online as they can in person. Discussions are more difficult, while one on one conversations with teachers, historical simulations, etc. will be lost. All of this damages the value of the education recieved.

So, until we reach this magical sci-fi future of yours, "brick and morter" schools must remain.

I never once said brick and mortar schools should be eliminated either. You repeatedly misattribute words to me. I did say education is incredibly overfunded, and there is an excess of classrooms, textbooks, and teachers, which should be eliminated. This has been my point this whole time.

Also, one-on-one conversations online are FAR richer and more educational than the classroom model. I don't know about you, but I learn a LOT from reading internet discussion forums like NSG. There are issues discussed in-depth on internet forums that classrooms simply don't have time for!

There is plenty of money, you guys just need to cut spending in much less important areas, like defence.

That is the logical thing to do.

Who are "you guys?" I'm for disbanding the military, I don't know who you're referring to.

Are you kidding? The ONLY reason anyone studies in school is because their parents are breathing down their necks about their grades, and/or the students themselves realize the fact that one needs to achieve good grades to achieve future employability in the field of one's choice. Parents and self-motivation are EVERYTHING in education, and education is easier, cheaper, and more plentiful today than any time in past history, due to new technology.

Where did you get your degree in education? I received my Masters Degree in Education from Oklahoma State University in 1999. I also taught in a technical school for 11 years. The research does not support your thesis.

I never once said brick and mortar schools should be eliminated either. You repeatedly misattribute words to me. I did say education is incredibly overfunded, and there is an excess of classrooms, textbooks, and teachers, which should be eliminated. This has been my point this whole time.
Based on what? That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard stated.

If you really believe this I would suggest the following: do some research. Read some peer review education journals. Read some books on teaching methods, learning styles, and student motivation. Read some books by Dewey, Prosser, Rice and others. When you are done with that let me know if you still beleive the "only reason anyone is doing any learning in schools is because there are grades."

I suggest you consult Jensen, Gottfredson, Rushton, and others. Education journals largely endorse politically-charged quack science with the intent of protecting the all-powerful socialist teacher's union.

Based on what? That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard stated.

I gave my reasoning earlier in this thread.

I did say education is incredibly overfunded, and there is an excess of classrooms, textbooks, and teachers, which should be eliminated.

Good God the ignorance burns.

Also, one-on-one conversations online are FAR richer and more educational than the classroom model.

lulz.

I don't know about you, but I learn a LOT from reading internet discussion forums like NSG.

Oh my.

There are issues discussed in-depth on internet forums that classrooms simply don't have time for!

Maybe the classrooms youve been in...

I'm for disbanding the military

Egads.

Where did you get your degree in education? I received my Masters Degree in Education from Oklahoma State University in 1999. I also taught in a technical school for 11 years. The research does not support your thesis.

I didnt know you taught. What did you teach?

I suggest you consult Jensen, Gottfredson, Rushton, and others. Education journals largely endorse politically-charged quack science with the intent of protecting the all-powerful socialist teacher's union.

I saw this coming from a mile away, and was just waitig for it, "The vast majority of research does not support my insane arguement, so it must have some sort of political agenda!"

EDIT: And wait, did you just site Rushton? The same Rushton that says that there is a distinct racial hierarchy based on IQ, and then ignored all evidence to the contrary? Wow. I dont think I could take you any less seriously.

Who are "you guys?" I'm for disbanding the military, I don't know who you're referring to.

Americans, USians, Yanks.

The people whose healthcare, and recently education, system this thread is about.

Hang on, if you're for disbanding the military then why do you think there would be a problem funding the public schools system?

Americans, USians, Yanks.

The people whose healthcare, and recently education, system this thread is about.
For future reference, not all Americans advocate military spending.

Hang on, if you're for disbanding the military then why do you think there would be a problem funding the public schools system?

Because it doesn't need to be funded and is a waste of money that could be much more efficiently used for other things (like tax cuts and private enterprise). Freeing up funds from the military doesn't mean we should fund public education, any more than we should build gigantic Egyptian-style pyramids in Washington DC.

I didnt know you taught. What did you teach?

I taught avionics (aviation electronics) in the military for 10 years and at a civilian aviation school for 11 years. I also taught full flight simulator maintenance for about 2 years before getting into engineering.

EDIT: And wait, did you just site Rushton? The same Rushton that says that there is a distinct racial hierarchy based on IQ, and then ignored all evidence to the contrary? Wow. I dont think I could take you any less seriously.

Rushton is correct.

I taught avionics (aviation electronics) in the military for 10 years and at a civilian aviation school for 11 years. I also taught full flight simulator maintenance for about 2 years before getting into engineering.

Youre an engineer eh? That explains a lot.

For the record, my father is an engineer, so my little barb should be taken entirely in jest;)

Rushton is correct.

Yeah, despite all that contradicting evidence eh?

Wow. Thats the best you got? Really? A racist idiot who has been regularly censured for violating academic and scholarly conduct, and has been widely discredited in many academic circles? But theyre all socialists right?


You know, it shows that you learnt more from the internet then anywhere else.

For future reference, not all Americans advocate military spending.

I never said you did. I was merely pointing out that the notion there isn't enough money to pay for public education is fucking stupid.

Which you'd have got if you'd have read what I wrote instead of trying to be smart and read further into my posts.

Because it doesn't need to be funded and is a waste of money that could be much more efficiently used for other things (like tax cuts and private enterprise). Freeing up funds from the military doesn't mean we should fund public education, any more than we should build gigantic Egyptian-style pyramids in Washington DC.

Name one succesful nation currently operating that doesn't have any state funded education. I'll wait.

Yeah, despite all that contradicting evidence eh?

Wow. Thats the best you got? Really?


You know, it shows that you learnt more from the internet then anywhere else.

Probably learned most of it from all the experts here on NSG. :eek:

Probably learned most of it from all the experts here on NSG. :eek:

Seriously...

Yeah, despite all that contradicting evidence eh?

Wow. Thats the best you got? Really?


You know, it shows that you learnt more from the internet then anywhere else.
No compelling evidence exists to contradict Rushton's main theses. I would've been glad to attribute my familiarity with Rushton's work to the internet, but unfortunately it wasn't all from the internet and I did study for a while under Rushton's colleague Doug Detterman who is a tenured professor at a state-supported university.

No compelling evidence exists to contradict Rushton's main theses. I would've been glad to attribute my familiarity with Rushton's work to the internet, but unfortunately it wasn't all from the internet and I did study for a while under Rushton's colleague Doug Detterman who is a tenured professor at a state-supported university.

Best argument you've given so far for the removal of state funding for education.

Name one succesful nation currently operating that doesn't have any state funded education. I'll wait.

Darn, you had to put that qualifier in there didn't you! Without that he might have come up with Zimbabwe or the Sudan. ;)

No compelling evidence exists to contradict Rushton's main theses. I would've been glad to attribute my familiarity with Rushton's work to the internet, but unfortunately it wasn't all from the internet and I did study for a while under Rushton's colleague Doug Detterman who is a tenured professor at a state-supported university.

Since you said an education from Wiki is just as valid as one from a traditional school...

Since 2002, Rushton has been the president of the Pioneer Fund. Tax records from 2000 show that his Charles Darwin Research Institute received $473,835 — 73% of that year's grants.[10] The Southern Poverty Law Center (a civil rights activist organization) characterizes the Pioneer Fund as a hate group.[11][12] They claim Rushton has spoken on eugenics several times at conferences of the American Renaissance magazine, in which he has also published a number of general articles.[13] Anti-racist Searchlight Magazine described one of these meetings as a "veritable 'who’s who' of American white supremacy" and said Rushton's "imputation that on 'average' Asians might have a higher IQ than whites left more than one diner at our table with a bitter taste in the mouth after an otherwise pleasant meal."[14]

Popular science commentator David Suzuki spoke out against Rushton's racial theories in a live televised debate (1989) at the University of Western Ontario. "There will always be Rushtons in science," Suzuki said "and we must always be prepared to root them out!". "Oh, no!" exclaimed Rushton when asked if he himself believed in racial superiority. He went on to explain that "from an evolutionary point of view, superiority can only mean adaptive value--if it even means this. And we've got to realize that each of these populations is perfectly, beautifully adapted to their own ancestral environments."[15].

He has written articles for VDARE, a website that advocates reduced immigration into the United States.[16] Stefan Kühl wrote in his book The Nazi Connection: eugenics, American racism, and German national socialism that Rushton was a part of the revival of public interest in scientific racism in the 1980s.[17]

William H. Tucker, critic of the hereditarian point of view, states:

Rushton has not only contributed to American Renaissance publications and graced their conferences with his presence but also offered praise and support for the "scholarly" work on racial differences of Henry Garrett, who spent the last two decades of his life opposing the extension of the Constitution to blacks on the basis that the "normal" black resembled a European after frontal lobotomy. Informed of Garrett's assertion that blacks were not entitled to equality because their "ancestors were ... savages in an African jungle," Rushton dismissed the observation as quoted "selectively from Garrett's writing", finding nothing opprobrious in such sentiments because the leader of the scientific opposition to civil rights had made other statements about black inferiority that were, according to Rushton, "quite objective in tone and backed by standard social science evidence." Quite apart from the questionable logic in defending a blatant call to deprive citizens of their rights by citing Garrett's less offensive writing—as if it were evidence of Ted Bundy's innocence that there were some women he had met and not killed—there was no sense on Rushton's part that all of Garrett's assertions, whether or not "objective," were utterly irrelevant to constitutional guarantees, which are not predicated on scientific demonstrations of intellectual equality.[18]

The Southern Poverty Law Center has called Rushton "venomous"[19], citing his remarks to the Ottawa Citizen, including: "But people are pulling their hair out and are saying, ‘What about Toronto the Good? Where did it go to?’ What about Ottawa? I’m sure it is the same? What about Montreal? I’ll bet you it’s the same. I’ll bet it’s the same in every bloody city in Canada where you have black people. It’s inevitable that it won’t be."[20]



There has been criticism of Rushton's work in the scholarly literature, to which Rushton has generally responded, often in the same journal.

Steven Cronshaw and colleagues wrote in a paper for the International Journal of Selection and Assessment in 2006 that psychologists need to critically examine the science employed in Rushton's race-realist research. Through a re-analysis of the validity criteria for test bias using data reported in the Rushton et al. paper, they assert that the testing methods were in fact biased against Black Africans. They disagree with other aspects of Rushton's methodology, such as the use of non-equivalent groups in test samples.[21] Rushton replied in the next issue of the journal, explaining why his results were valid, and why the criticisms were incorrect.[22]

Lisa Suzuki and Joshua Aronson of New York University wrote in 2005 that Rushton has ignored evidence that fails to support his position that IQ test score gaps represent a genetic racial hierarchy. He has not changed his position on this matter for 30 years.[23] Rushton replied in the same issue of the journal.[24]

After Rushton had mailed a booklet to psychology, sociology, and anthropology professors across North America, Hermann Helmuth, a professor of anthropology at Trent University, said: "It is in a way personal and political propaganda. There is no basis to his scientific research." Rushton responded, "It's not racist, it's a matter of science and recognizing variation in all groups of people."[25]

Zack Cernovsky, in the Journal of Black Studies, claims "some of Rushton's references to scientific literature with respects to racial differences in sexual characteristics turned out to be references to a nonscientific semipornographic book and to an article in the Penthouse magazine's Forum


Oh, and lets not forget the censures for violations of scholarly conduct he's recieved:

Articles in the Canadian press based on interviews with Rushton's first-year psychology students claim that in 1988 Rushton surveyed student participants by asking "such questions as how large their penises are, how many sex partners they have had, and how far they can ejaculate."[27] First-year psychology students at UWO are required "to participate in approved surveys as a condition of their studies. If they choose not to, they must write five research papers. Also, many students feel subtle pressure to participate in order not to offend professors who may later be grading their work. However, if a study is not approved these requirements do not apply at all."[27] For not telling them they had the option to not participate without incurring additional work, Rushton was barred from using students as research subjects for two years.[27]

Also in 1988, Rushton conducted a survey at the Eaton Centre mall in Toronto where 50 whites, 50 blacks, and 50 Asians were paid to answer questions about their sexual habits. For not receiving the UWO's ethics committee's explicit permission, the administration at the University of Western Ontario reprimanded Rushton. This was "a serious breach of scholarly procedure," said University President, George Pederson.[27]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton#Works_by_Rushton

Youre pretty much done here.

Best argument you've given so far for the removal of state funding for education.

lulz.

I gave my reasoning earlier in this thread.

Humor me and post it again because I don't have the attention span to hunt for what must be the most ridiculous argument to grace this thread.

I never said you did. I was merely pointing out that the notion there isn't enough money to pay for public education is fucking stupid.

Which you'd have got if you'd have read what I wrote instead of trying to be smart and read further into my posts.



Name one succesful nation currently operating that doesn't have any state funded education. I'll wait.
Somalia's education system actually improved, and the number of new private schools boomed after their government collapsed. These new schools aren't OMGMUSLIMZ madrassas you hear about on Fox News, these are engineering schools, veterinary schools, other institutions that are of use to a productive free market.

The same thing will happen once public education in this country is either eliminated or drastically reduced/reformed.

Probably learned most of it from all the experts here on NSG. :eek:
You people pretend the internet is so "blase", but all of you would not know as much as you do now if it weren't for the internet.

Best argument you've given so far for the removal of state funding for education.

How? I studied under a professor who would've been much better off, and given much more intellectual freedom and funding from private sources, if government funding and regulations were eliminated.

Somalia's education system actually improved, and the number of new private schools boomed after their government collapsed. These new schools aren't OMGMUSLIMZ madrassas you hear about on Fox News, these are engineering schools, veterinary schools, other institutions that are of use to a productive free market.

The same thing will happen once public education in this country is either eliminated or drastically reduced/reformed.

Somalia? Thats your example? Somalia? He said "successful".

Honestly, Im suprised you cited them as an example. Im suprised you dont think theyre inherantly inferior and less intellegent because theyre black, like your buddy Rushton

Since you said an education from Wiki is just as valid as one from a traditional school...

Oh, and lets not forget the censures for violations of scholarly conduct he's recieved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton#Works_by_Rushton

Youre pretty much done here.


That's another good thing about wikipedia, it tends to give both sides of a debate. The massive body of literature that conclusively supports Rushton exists in volumes upon volumes of scholarly journals, including even the prestigious Nature and Science. You can use Google Scholar to find it if you are interested.

Somalia's education system actually improved, and the number of new private schools boomed after their government collapsed. These new schools aren't OMGMUSLIMZ madrassas you hear about on Fox News, these are engineering schools, veterinary schools, other institutions that are of use to a productive free market.

The same thing will happen once public education in this country is either eliminated or drastically reduced/reformed.

Somalia is successful?

You need to spend more time using the internet to learn basic reading comprehension I think.

Somalia? Thats your example? Somalia? He said "successful".

Honestly, Im suprised you cited them as an example. Im suprised you dont think theyre inherantly inferior and less intellegent because theyre black, like your buddy Rushton

They might very well have lower average IQ. But that doesn't mean I don't respect them as human beings. I know many Somalis personally and I very much admire their culture and society which has been so savagely destroyed by foreign government intervention including the American CIA.

That's another good thing about wikipedia, it tends to give both sides of a debate. The massive body of literature that conclusively supports Rushton exists in volumes upon volumes of scholarly journals, including even the prestigious Nature and Science. You can use Google Scholar to find it if you are interested.

Or you could back your own claims.

Just a thought.

That's another good thing about wikipedia, it tends to give both sides of a debate. The massive body of literature that conclusively supports Rushton exists in volumes upon volumes of scholarly journals, including even the prestigious Nature and Science. You can use Google Scholar to find it if you are interested.

Why dont you cite it?

How? I studied under a professor who would've been much better off, and given much more intellectual freedom and funding from private sources, if government funding and regulations were eliminated.

Humour.

Somalia is successful?

You need to spend more time using the internet to learn basic reading comprehension I think.

Somalia is a lot more successful today than 20 years ago when they had a central government.

Furthermore, all the "successful" rich countries today would be even more successful after they reduce their bloated public education systems. You're like someone living 5000 years ago who's asking for an example of a successful country without human slavery, when all the countries of the world at that time practiced human slavery.

Humour.

Well, to be fair, he probably would have gotten a lot of money from the KKK.


Furthermore, all the "successful" rich countries today would be even more successful after they reduce their bloated public education systems.

You have yet to prove this, or even get close to making it sound believable.

Somalia's education system actually improved,

He did it, I can't believe he actually did it. I guess with his excellent education he considers Somalia a successful nation. Damn!

Why dont you cite it?

I don't normally cite because people usually do their own legwork and research before getting in a debate. I see that doesn't apply to you. So I'll make one exception for you.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5741/1717

Somalia is a lot more successful today than 20 years ago when they had a central government.

Furthermore, all the "successful" rich countries today would be even more successful after they reduce their bloated public education systems. You're like someone living 5000 years ago who's asking for an example of a successful country without human slavery, when all the countries of the world at that time practiced human slavery.

So you have no evidence to back your claim.

He did it, I can't believe he actually did it. I guess with his excellent education he considers Somalia a successful nation. Damn!

Really, I think we all need to drop out of school/quit our jobs and get a good old internet education.

First lesson of the day, l33t Grammar!

I don't normally cite because people usually do their own legwork and research before getting in a debate. I see that doesn't apply to you. So I'll make one exception for you.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5741/1717

Now you see here at NSG we're all hyper competitive spiteful people who refuse to make other peoples arguments for them, thus defeating our own viewpoints. It sucks but thats the way it is.

I don't normally cite because people usually do their own legwork and research before getting in a debate. I see that doesn't apply to you. So I'll make one exception for you.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5741/1717

How is that article relevent? It wasnt written by Rushton, and doesnt really mention his thesis. Nor does it prove that black people are intellectually inferior, which is essentially Rushton's thesis which, per what I mentioned earlier, is based heavily on his own feelings towards blacks.

Even if it did support his hypothisis, there is still a great deal of evidence to the contrary, and scholarly disagreement. Even if the vast majority did not disagree with Rushton (which they do) it is still false to claim "Rushton is correct", like you did.

The man is a racist, and as was shown in my earlier link, widely discredited and should be ignored.

Somalia is a lot more successful today than 20 years ago when they had a central government.

Furthermore, all the "successful" rich countries today would be even more successful after they reduce their bloated public education systems. You're like someone living 5000 years ago who's asking for an example of a successful country without human slavery, when all the countries of the world at that time practiced human slavery.

So provide some evidence that a solely private and internet based education system is more successful at educating children across the socio-economic spectrum than a public school system.

How is that article relevent? It wasnt written by Rushton, and doesnt really mention his thesis. Nor does it prove that black people are intellectually inferior, which is essentially Rushton's thesis (which, per what I mentioned earlier) is based heavily on his own feelings towards blacks.

Even if it did support his hypothisis, there is still a great deal of evidence to the contrary, and scholarly disagreement. Even if the vast majority did not disagree with Rushton (which they do) it is still false to claim "Rushton is correct", like you did.

The man is a racist, and as was shown in my earlier link, widely discredited and should be ignored.

Carefully read the paper. It doesn't take THAT much intelligence to see the link between that paper and Rushton's thesis. Why must it mention Rushton's name or be written by Rushton? The fact that it doesn't mention Ruhston merely reinforces my point, which is that a legion of psychologists, biologists, and biochemists are independently investigating the same problem and reaching similar conclusions.

Also, Rushton is not "widely discredited". His research gets published regularly in mainstream scientific journals.

So provide some evidence that a solely private and internet based education system is more successful at educating children across the socio-economic spectrum than a public school system.

Cue Conservapedia

Cue Conservapedia

He already cited a racist loon (who is obsessed with the sexual capabilites of the different races, might I add), so Conservapedia is merely the next logical step.

Really, I think we all need to drop out of school/quit our jobs and get a good old internet education.

First lesson of the day, l33t Grammar!

And with that, I think I shall leave this scholarly debate and enrich my life with some television and another bourbon and soda. Nigt all, it was fun and extremely educational. Does NSG offer a Phd. for those who participate here on a regular basis?

He already cited a racist loon (who is obsessed with the sexual capabilites of the different races, might I add), so Conservapedia is merely the next logical step.

No Seriously. Conservapedia is all about trumpeting Andrew Schlafy's awesome homeschooling buisiness.

And with that, I think I shall leave this scholarly debate and enrich my life with some television and another bourbon and soda. Nigt all, it was fun and extremely educational. Does NSG offer a Phd. for those who participate here on a regular basis?

For those of us who participate here on a regular basis, our will to live steadily decreases. I can put that in writing, print it out, and put a fancy looking stamp on it if that will work for you.:wink:

And with that, I think I shall leave this scholarly debate and enrich my life with some television and another bourbon and soda. Nigt all, it was fun and extremely educational. Does NSG offer a Phd. for those who participate here on a regular basis?

I already got mine. Its kind of a 6000+ posts thing.

Night.

So provide some evidence that a solely private and internet based education system is more successful at educating children across the socio-economic spectrum than a public school system.

Never did I advocate a "solely internet based education system". You do not have a good memory for what people say do you? This whole time I've been saying that the internet and other technologies allows for drastic cost-cutting, and scaling-back of brick-and-mortal infrastructure, without sacrificing quality of education. Somalia is a good example of how government hindered rather than helped the proliferation of low-cost, high-quality education.

Carefully read the paper. It doesn't take THAT much intelligence to see the link between that paper and Rushton's thesis. Why must it mention Rushton's name or be written by Rushton? The fact that it doesn't mention Ruhston merely reinforces my point, which is that a legion of psychologists, biologists, and biochemists are independently investigating the same problem and reaching similar conclusions.

Also, Rushton is not "widely discredited". His research gets published regularly in mainstream scientific journals.

I;m reposting this post in case it was missed earlier.

Im out. Be back later tonight. Not that I expect much else to really come of this.

He's all yours Fartsniffage.

Never did I advocate a "solely internet based education system". You do not have a good memory for what people say do you? This whole time I've been saying that the internet and other technologies allows for drastic cost-cutting, and scaling-back of brick-and-mortal infrastructure, without sacrificing quality of education. Somalia is a good example of how government hindered rather than helped the proliferation of low-cost, high-quality education.

God help me.

I;m reposting this post in case it was missed earlier.

So you mean there are other racists out there who try and scientifically prove that blacks are inferior? *gasp* Who knew?!?

Just because hes published in mainstream scientific journals doesnt necissarially mean hes taken very serious or has been proven right. In fact, quite the opposite. See my prior link.

God help me.

Somebody called?

I;m reposting this post in case it was missed earlier.

Which ones? I'm not well up on Rushton so you'll need to give me examples.

Just in case you respond to me in a similar way to how you responded to KoL earlier, this is how it works. You make a claim and then you back it up otherwise your claim is judged to be bullshit.

You're not just trying to convince me, you're also trying to convince your audience.

So you mean there are other racists out there who try and scientifically prove that blacks are inferior? *gasp* Who knew?!?

Just because hes published in mainstream scientific journals doesnt necissarially mean hes taken very serious or has been proven right. In fact, quite the opposite. See my prior link.

They're not racists. They're merely investigating racial differences in IQ. If blacks have lower IQs, it does not logically follow that non-black people must or should hate black people.

God help me.

He is here to help as requested.

http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/God.jpg

Which ones? I'm not well up on Rushton so you'll need to give me examples.

Just in case you respond to me in a similar way to how you responded to KoL earlier, this is how it works. You make a claim and then you back it up otherwise your claim is judged to be bullshit.

You're not just trying to convince me, you're also trying to convince your audience.

Google is your friend.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=JP+rushton&as_ylo=2000&as_yhi=2008&btnG=Search

Anyways, I'm out for the time being, I may be back later tonight or this week.

Never did I advocate a "solely internet based education system". You do not have a good memory for what people say do you? This whole time I've been saying that the internet and other technologies allows for drastic cost-cutting, and scaling-back of brick-and-mortal infrastructure, without sacrificing quality of education.


But what about the social factor? Sure, the internet has information. But what about experience in dealing with other live, human beings? How do you account for that?


Somalia is a good example of how government hindered rather than helped the proliferation of low-cost, high-quality education.


It's not a good example, actually. Somalia is a developing country, and is barely stable enough to be called to a nation, what with all the tribal and regional conflict.

Google is your friend.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=JP+rushton&as_ylo=2000&as_yhi=2008&btnG=Search

You don't get to say that in a debate.

You've heard the phrase "put up or shut up"? That's what you need to do around here.

You still haven't shown that a private or internet only education gives a better education across the board than the current public/private school system.

But what about the social factor? Sure, the internet has information. But what about experience in dealing with other live, human beings? How do you account for that?

Hang out with your friends. Go ice skating. Go to the movies.

You don't get to say that in a debate.

You've heard the phrase "put up or shut up"? That's what you need to do around here.
I'm trying to instill good habits in people. Like using Google. It's part of my crusade for internet self learning. ;)

You still haven't shown that a private or internet only education gives a better education across the board than the current public/private school system.

The evidence that exists points to that fact. Our current public education system is clearly overfunded and bloated, and has failed the students and failed society. All we need now is action, not more dwelling on the failed system. And I never said "internet only education." Stop putting words in my mouth.

Our current public education system is clearly overfunded and bloated,

Not "clearly" otherwise youd have had no problem proving this.
All we need now is action, not more dwelling on the failed system. And I never said "internet only education." Stop putting words in my mouth.

Youre right, you never said "internet only education". But you did imply that the rich get a private school education, while those who cannot afford it use the internet. And if you cant afford the internet, your boned.

I'm trying to instill good habits in people. Like using Google. It's part of my crusade for internet self learning. ;)



The evidence that exists points to that fact. Our current public education system is clearly overfunded and bloated, and has failed the students and failed society. All we need now is action, not more dwelling on the failed system. And I never said "internet only education." Stop putting words in my mouth.

I gave you two options, the "and" I used in the first post you queried obviously wasn't a clear enough demarcation between the two so this time I used "or" to make it clearer. You're still struggling to understand the fact I'm splitting the two in order to give you a better chance to prove something in this thread.

How is the public school system failing your nation? The US is the most powerful nation on the planet, maybe when Somalia takes that spot from you I'll take you seriously.

I gave you two options, the "and" I used in the first post you queried obviously wasn't a clear enough demarcation between the two so this time I used "or" to make it clearer. You're still struggling to understand the fact I'm splitting the two in order to give you a better chance to prove something in this thread.

Gotta love that internet education!

I'm trying to instill good habits in people. Like using Google. It's part of my crusade for internet self learning. ;)


Good habits, like citing sources to support your point.

Can you imagine if an academic paper tried to pull "just google it yourself, it's all true!" instead of including a bibliography?

I have been waiting 6 weeks for approval for my thrid eye surgery from my private insurance carrier. The carrier already pre-approved the surgery 9 months ago, but due to complications from the first eye surgery, I had to have an interim (second) surgery before this one, so I need pre-surgical approval all over again.

People say that one problem with nationalized medicine is the wait for surgery. I can't imagine that the wait here in the USA for pre-surgical approval by a private medical insurer is any longer than the wait for surgery in countries with nationalized medicine and no private insurance carrier standing in the way. Even when they pre-approve a surgery, when the bill comes they "lowball" it and fail to pay the full amount stating it is not a "reasonable and customary" charge for the area.

I think we would be better off without the private medical insurers in the USA, and wonder what others thought.

the one time i've been to hospital in the last few years, i booked an appointment with my GP (family doctor) in the morning, saw her in the afternoon, and by dinner i was in the hospital being prepped for surgery the following day. ok, i had to wait 2 hours for a bed, but that wasn't so bad (my condition wasn't life threatening, just very, very painful), and was a small price to pay for walking out on the third day without anything to pay, no forms to fill in, and knowing i'd booked checkup appointments with the hospital, as well as daily appointments with my local doctors' surgery.

the NHS is fantastic. i've never had to be pre-approved for anything, or fill in all but the most tiny and basic of forms. additional things, like subsidised prescriptions, are also excellent (i pay just over £6 for 3 months worth of my meds, for example)

i'm sure something like the NHS could work in the US, but it would certainly not be without its problems!

I gave you two options, the "and" I used in the first post you queried obviously wasn't a clear enough demarcation between the two so this time I used "or" to make it clearer. You're still struggling to understand the fact I'm splitting the two in order to give you a better chance to prove something in this thread.

You're struggling mightily to understand that I never said anything about an "internet only education". Please read Post #93: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14388573&postcount=93 ( I cited, now are you happy?)

You even replied to the post where I explicitly stated I don't think an "internet only education" is possible. I don't know why you later keep blabbering on about "and's" and "or's" even after I repeatedly metaphorically beat you over the head with the idea that I don't think an "internet only education" is possible.

How is the public school system failing your nation? The US is the most powerful nation on the planet, maybe when Somalia takes that spot from you I'll take you seriously.
The US is in some deep shit, it is a paper tiger. The various causes of the deep shit that the US is in is for another thread, but in the meantime our public education system is an abject failure because it misallocates resources, forces up costs, and forces down quality. The private free market can deliver a much better education system that raises the efficiency of the entire economy. The top-down information-control system of public education completely mismatches individuals and the different type of education that each individual needs or that the economy DEMANDS. After all, no use is an education if an individual comes out of school unemployable. Wait a few years after the unemployment rate shoots through the roof and you'll see how the public education system, along with other governmental interventions, are disastrous liabilities to this country. Then we can come back here and talk again, and you'll revise your opinion.

Good habits, like citing sources to support your point.

Can you imagine if an academic paper tried to pull "just google it yourself, it's all true!" instead of including a bibliography?
Read the thread for chrissakes. You don't go around citing sources to an American to defend your claim that George Washington was the first US president. I was communicating with someone who seemed to know a lot about Rushton, so I didn't cite a source because I assumed he was familiar with the field. Turns out he wasn't, so I obliged with a link when he asked for it. My google comment was in jest to someone else, don't take it so seriously.

Turn off the TV and go talk to some real doctors. Most of them are in debt from their degrees for 10-15 years after graduation. While there are some that make oodles of cash, like in any profession the norm is NOT opulance.
Assume that if you had national health care, the MD schools would not be "private" anymore, they would be dependent solely on qualifications and subsidized for those who qualify, and medical malpractice suits were severely cut off as health care was nationalized. Assuming the whole system was reconfigured to enable national health care, why shouldn't MDs also take less pay?

Read the thread for chrissakes. You don't go around citing sources to an American to defend your claim that George Washington was the first US president.

What if they and their internet education said Peyton Randolph or possibly Samual Huntington? :p

the one time i've been to hospital in the last few years, i booked an appointment with my GP (family doctor) in the morning, saw her in the afternoon, and by dinner i was in the hospital being prepped for surgery the following day. ok, i had to wait 2 hours for a bed, but that wasn't so bad (my condition wasn't life threatening, just very, very painful), and was a small price to pay for walking out on the third day without anything to pay, no forms to fill in, and knowing i'd booked checkup appointments with the hospital, as well as daily appointments with my local doctors' surgery.

the NHS is fantastic. i've never had to be pre-approved for anything, or fill in all but the most tiny and basic of forms. additional things, like subsidised prescriptions, are also excellent (i pay just over £6 for 3 months worth of my meds, for example)

i'm sure something like the NHS could work in the US, but it would certainly not be without its problems!
Boy, does that sound good to me! I would assume that your MDs have their education "nationalized" too, so they do not incur huge debt and, instead, must qualify to go to medical school? I also assume that there are no lawsuits for medical malpractice except perhaps in the most egregicious cases (sponge left in and the like), because the healthcare is free? Boy, would that be great to have in the USA and to get rid of the paper bureaucracy (sp?).

Boy, does that sound good to me! I would assume that your MDs have their education "nationalized" too, so they do not incur huge debt and, instead, must qualify to go to medical school? I also assume that there are no lawsuits for medical malpractice except perhaps in the most egregicious cases (sponge left in and the like), because the healthcare is free? Boy, would that be great to have in the USA and to get rid of the paper bureaucracy (sp?).

Not quite. They still end up in a fair bit of debt to put it mildly. Due to the semi-nationalised university education system.

And here we get to the crux of the issue. Your point is basically "People with money can afford private schools. The poor must jsut learn on the internet. If they cant afford the internet, no learning to read for you!"

What about High School? You think most high schoolers will be willing to sit down, without a teacher present, and learn?

Really dude, as if I already cant take you seriously...

I sit down here on General, and I learn every day. Most of the time at school I spend doing absolutely nothing, or trying to. Because pointless busy work does not make me a critical thinker.

I have been waiting 6 weeks for approval for my third eye surgery from my private insurance carrier.

:eek: Did you have your third eye implanted or removed? :confused:

Anyway, well, here in Italy we have a NHS (albeit a much "regionalised" one), and times for surgery are longish, expecially for non-life-saving surgery (like eye surgery).

Boy, does that sound good to me! I would assume that your MDs have their education "nationalized" too, so they do not incur huge debt and, instead, must qualify to go to medical school? I also assume that there are no lawsuits for medical malpractice except perhaps in the most egregicious cases (sponge left in and the like), because the healthcare is free? Boy, would that be great to have in the USA and to get rid of the paper bureaucracy (sp?).

well, not quite... university education is subsidised, so everyone, including doctors, end up with a bit of debt, but not as much as it could be. the debts are usually interest free loans from the government, but often you'll need to get some private loans for extra living expenses, etc. it all used to be free until about a decade ago, mind.

and regarding lawsuits, they aren't that common to my knowledge. you do hear about them on the news, but they really tend to be for really stupid mistakes and fairly rare.

i think the doctors and medical professionals have to deal with quite a lot of bureaucracy, but us patients mostly don't have to. i'm on PAYE (pay as you earn) for tax, so each month a little of my paycheque gets taken out for taxes and National Insurance, the latter of which goes largely to the NHS, but also pays off my interest-linked (effectively 0%) student loans.

and, of course, we still have the option of going private if we want slightly faster and nicer service.

Boy, does that sound good to me! I would assume that your MDs have their education "nationalized" too, so they do not incur huge debt and, instead, must qualify to go to medical school? I also assume that there are no lawsuits for medical malpractice except perhaps in the most egregicious cases (sponge left in and the like), because the healthcare is free? Boy, would that be great to have in the USA and to get rid of the paper bureaucracy (sp?).
Sadly the number of malpractice suits are increasing as people have copied the US mentality of "if it isn't perfect sue". That and the increase of "no win, no fee" legal practices allow patients to sue without taking any of the monetary risks themselves (but the damage to Doctors reputations, even when found not guilty, can be irrepairable).
As for the bureaucracy, for the Doctors (and all medical staff) it's massive. I spend about 2 minutes after each patient inputting data into the computer (not counting that recorded whilst the patient is in the surgery). Doesn't sound like much, but with anything up to 50 patients a day that's a minimum of 100 mins (1hr 40) doing paper work before I even get round to doing any cross infection and cleaning (not to mention the additional paperwork that adds) and I'm not even the Doctor.

That said, I'm glad of the NHS (both for what it provides, and my indirect employment). The wages aren't as high as the private sector, but you get (for the moment at least) a decent pension so although it doesn't effect me it's definately worth it. I don't think a lot of the patients understand what they get for their money though and if they did maybe they would accept that the service is bloody good for what they, as individuals, put into it.

i'm fur it. give the government something useful to do to keep it out of trouble instead of making wars and killing people.

and yes, doctor's education, like all education, should be open and free, or as close to it as is possible to make it without screwing up something else in order to.

doctors used to earn their godhood when they made house calls. today they're pretty much just another kind of technician, which is what pretty much anyone who is useful is in one sense or another anyway, and don't NEED to be paid more then plumbers or engineers. though do need to remember to be careful and considerate of what they work on, of course, but that needs to be part of their training, not a punitive sword of damocles hanging over their heads, which it seems to me more likely to make them screw up then prevent it.

at any rate its the administrative overhead of insurers and managers that eats into the cost/bennifit ratio of health care.

however inefficient a service of government, corporate greed costs even more.

i'm fur it. give the government something useful to do to keep it out of trouble instead of making wars and killing people.

Oh, don't worry, they're quite capable of multitasking.

EDIT: The Europeans seem to get along just fine with both nationalized health care and public schools. Because theyre well funded. But hey, they clearly cant be doing well, because the private sector isnt running it, right?
Let's look at the only worthwhile thing you said...

But is it? The USA certainly isn't the EU. How do we compare one to the other? The normalization process to make dollars spent in the USA equivalent to Euros spent in the EU is certainly not going to be trivial. Care to take a swing at it?

And I'm not willing to concede that health care or schools receiving public money are working any better than schools in the USA. On what grounds can you make that claim?

I don't care about links to sources. I'll look up any wild claims. I'm just interested in the thought process that leads to these conclusions.

If you want a NHS why not look a little closer to home? Canada has one - it's far from ideal. In fact people die on waiting lists all the time but It's still a lot better than the Private System the Americans have and it's not as complex as the European system. The Cubans also have a very good public health care system but they manage it by paying doctors less than taxi drivers!

And I'm not willing to concede that health care or schools receiving public money are working any better than schools in the USA. On what grounds can you make that claim?


Well, lets start with European countries having higher literacy rates. Look at national test scores and compare them country by country. You'll find in things like math and science, the US scores very, very low (I think we are 33rd out of 34, beating Turkey).

There are several reasons why this is the case. But this clearly shows that European public schools are working better then whatever we have going on in the US.


It should be noted that my above case pertains only to High School. University level, it evens out, with the US having a slight edge.

Well, lets start with European countries having higher literacy rates.
Geez, this is like pulling teeth. Now, we'll suppose that's true -- show me that funding is at the heart of the reason why it's true. And just converting Euros to dollars isn't going to do it. You've already agreed that excellence doesn't follow from increased funding in the USA.

Geez, this is like pulling teeth. Now, we'll suppose that's true -- show me that funding is at the heart of the reason why it's true.

What other reasons could it be true?

Somalia's education system actually improved, and the number of new private schools boomed after their government collapsed. These new schools aren't OMGMUSLIMZ madrassas you hear about on Fox News, these are engineering schools, veterinary schools, other institutions that are of use to a productive free market.

The same thing will happen once public education in this country is either eliminated or drastically reduced/reformed.
Source?
You people pretend the internet is so "blase", but all of you would not know as much as you do now if it weren't for the internet.
Blasé. If you're going to be pretentious, do it right.

Does NSG offer a Phd. for those who participate here on a regular basis?
I wish.

What other reasons could it be true?

Mind control?

Mind control?

That's what I was going to say before my European masters chose you to say it and started making me eat my own eyeball.

What other reasons could it be true?
Dunno. Do we have less heavy metals in our aquifers here in Europe? I think that might affect it, not at all sure of the statistics and could be quite wrong, mind.

What other reasons could it be true?

Exactly.

Also what about my other comments. You know, all that bit about the US scoring much, much lower on tests.

You can say "That doesnt prove we need more funding!" all you want, but what other reason could there possibly be for European public education systems (who are well funded more often than not) having its students score higher than the under funded American education systems?

Unless you want to argue that Americans are just inherantly stupider or that Europeans are just inherantly better teachers/learners, or are born with some inate knowledge we arent, Im not seeing how you can say its anything but funding.

Exactly.

Also what about my other comments. You know, all that bit about the US scoring much, much lower on tests.

You can say "That doesnt prove we need more funding!" all you want, but what other reason could there possibly be for European public education systems (who are well funded more often than not) having its students score higher than the under funded American education systems?

Unless you want to argue that Americans are just inherantly stupider or that Europeans are just inherantly better teachers/learners, or are born with some inate knowledge we arent, Im not seeing how you can say its anything but funding.
York has some of the lowest funding per school in the whole of the UK. It also scores very highly in the league tables. That's because everyone there is at least LMC. Funding schools is nice, having rich-ish families, allowing parents to chat to their kids instead of working another job/longer hours is as good if not far better.

RE: Stupid Americans

Heres my theory about it. Everyone knows someone in their social network who is smarter than them and also someone who is dumber than them. In Europe you have subsidized post secondary education - which means people can get a very good education if they want it. Furthermore, you don't necessarily have to be ambitious because you wont be saddled with as much debt when you graduate. This fosters the growth of an educated class which is more or less devoted to the pursuit of knowledge (as opposed to profit driven by debt in the states). This intellectual wealth and the values associated with them trickles down throughout social networks until it eventually even influences the drunkenest barely literate morons europe has to offer.

In the states post secondary education is not subsidized and it is in fact very expensive. This means that you have fewer educated people and less intellectual wealth to distribute among the masses.

The second part of this theory is that the whole thing is a cycle. The intellectual elite are influenced by the morons in society by proxy - if the bar is low enough it doesn't take very much to call yourself an intellectual so the bar gets lowered for everybody.

So theres my theory... and then there's fox news. :S

Let's look at the only worthwhile thing you said...

But is it? The USA certainly isn't the EU. How do we compare one to the other? The normalization process to make dollars spent in the USA equivalent to Euros spent in the EU is certainly not going to be trivial. Care to take a swing at it?

And I'm not willing to concede that health care or schools receiving public money are working any better than schools in the USA. On what grounds can you make that claim?

I don't care about links to sources. I'll look up any wild claims. I'm just interested in the thought process that leads to these conclusions.

http://www.oheschools.org/ohech3pg1.html

The above is a link to a series of economic articles written by economists who specialise in health-care explaining in economic terms why free-market economics will simply not work for providing healthcare.

:eek: Did you have your third eye implanted or removed? :confused:

Anyway, well, here in Italy we have a NHS (albeit a much "regionalised" one), and times for surgery are longish, expecially for non-life-saving surgery (like eye surgery).
As you are all wondering about the gory details, I had graves disease which caused my eyes to bulge because the muscles behind the eyballs swelled.

The first surgery was to remove bone to make room for the eyeballs and, essentially, get them to fit back into the bony sockets better.

The first surgery caused my eyes to cross because now there was room for the muscles and this caused double vision. That was an explained and known risk from the first surgery, which we all hoped would not occur, but did. As a result, I had to have a second eye muscle surgery to uncross the eyes. Surgical/Medical protocol required a six month wait between the first and second surgeries.

The third surgery that I am waiting for now is to get my eyelids extended down as they retracted due to the bulging and I have trouble with dry eye and so on. I had pre-approval for this (now third) surgery at the time I did the first surgery.

Now, aren't you sorry you asked and made jokes? That will be three surgeries in 13 months on both my eyes. I have now been waiting almost 2 months for pre-approval for a surgery that the insurer already pre-approved (in writing) almost a year ago. The surgery was scheduled for next week, but will have to be postponed now as there still is no approval.

I don't understand this at all--which precipitated this thread as it seems like a long wait for something that was already approved once. It is probably the same amount of wait one would have to endure in a nationalized health care system, although that wait would be for the MD to do the surgery, not for a paper tiger insurance bureacracy.

Exactly.

Also what about my other comments. You know, all that bit about the US scoring much, much lower on tests.

You can say "That doesnt prove we need more funding!" all you want, but what other reason could there possibly be for European public education systems (who are well funded more often than not) having its students score higher than the under funded American education systems?

Unless you want to argue that Americans are just inherantly stupider or that Europeans are just inherantly better teachers/learners, or are born with some inate knowledge we arent, Im not seeing how you can say its anything but funding.

Most European schools are less funded and funded less per student.
They beat us because they money they have is spent more wisely.
Take Finland with school choice, and rated #1 in the world for high school education.
basically you have a kid that wants to do band you go to a school that has a focus on music. Give kids what they want and the other subjects benefit as well.

If you want a NHS why not look a little closer to home? Canada has one - it's far from ideal. In fact people die on waiting lists all the time but It's still a lot better than the Private System the Americans have and it's not as complex as the European system. The Cubans also have a very good public health care system but they manage it by paying doctors less than taxi drivers!
Yes, I have heard about the waits for surgery or care in those systems, but I also heard that they have more preventative medicine/"walk-in" types of places too, so things/problems can be caught earlier than here, where people walk into emergency rooms with colds/flu etc. I just wondered whether in countries with national healthcare, the wait was any longer than what we get here as a result of all the delays caused by private insurer pre-approvals. Also, those pre-approvals cause more delay because once you have the approval, you still have to wait for an operating date from the MD which can also be weeks away. Thus, in the end, a patient is waiting months here too, and the delays here seem quite similar time-wise to delays in countries with a NHS.

Assume that if you had national health care, the MD schools would not be "private" anymore, they would be dependent solely on qualifications and subsidized for those who qualify, and medical malpractice suits were severely cut off as health care was nationalized. Assuming the whole system was reconfigured to enable national health care, why shouldn't MDs also take less pay?

Great! While we're at it, let's just nationalize every industry and set all wages to just above zero. Then we can live in a pristine, well off utopia like North Korea or Cuba!
[/sarcasm]

Please. This idea is about as workable as going back to the gold standard: not at all.

Oh come on, now. Don't you think everything would be wonderful if we just eliminated the means testing and gave it a big budget? Then made everyone use it? Of course it would work just perfectly. And if it didn't, the only reason would be because it didn't have enough funding.

Gosh, this sounds just like the argument for public schools... They would be perfect, but for the suboptimal funding that they get now.

<swoosh!> Two points. :)

Most European schools are less funded and funded less per student.
They beat us because they money they have is spent more wisely.
Take Finland with school choice, and rated #1 in the world for high school education.
basically you have a kid that wants to do band you go to a school that has a focus on music. Give kids what they want and the other subjects benefit as well.
Here's where I doubt the correlation between money and test scores. Are the teacher certification standards different or more stringent? Finland has a pretty homogeneous population. And there are only 5,000,000 of them, with only about 900,000 at school age. And 86% of them speak Finnish. How does that affect outcomes? Do the grade levels require exams to pass on to the next level? Is social promotion carried out? How many social experiments have we done in US schools that have actually hurt the outcomes?

Nah, there's a lot more than just money ( or the lack of it ) at work.

Yes, I have heard about the waits for surgery or care in those systems, but I also heard that they have more preventative medicine/"walk-in" types of places too, so things/problems can be caught earlier than here, where people walk into emergency rooms with colds/flu etc. I just wondered whether in countries with national healthcare, the wait was any longer than what we get here as a result of all the delays caused by private insurer pre-approvals. Also, those pre-approvals cause more delay because once you have the approval, you still have to wait for an operating date from the MD which can also be weeks away. Thus, in the end, a patient is waiting months here too, and the delays here seem quite similar time-wise to delays in countries with a NHS.

Well the Canadian system is probably the best model you could adopt. You
could probably copy it without copying our mess as well. For the most part it's just like a private system except everyone has insurance. If you work you do have to pay your premiums but they still can't deny you service if you neglect to pay. Hospitals are publicly owned, doctors and nurses have salary caps, and medical procedures are billed at cost to the public insurance. The downside is that there is never enough space, doctors, medicine, supplies to go around. For the most part I think it's a good system but the CNHS is costly to run and it's perpetually underfunded.

Well the Canadian system is probably the best model you could adopt. You
could probably copy it without copying our mess as well. For the most part it's just like a private system except everyone has insurance. If you work you do have to pay your premiums but they still can't deny you service if you neglect to pay. Hospitals are publicly owned, doctors and nurses have salary caps, and medical procedures are billed at cost to the public insurance. The downside is that there is never enough space, doctors, medicine, supplies to go around. For the most part I think it's a good system but the CNHS is costly to run and it's perpetually underfunded.
I am now waiting 6 weeks for insurer approval. To make a long story short, the insurer informed me today that they are waiting for a "diagnostic code."

If I tell you again that they pre-approved this surgery almost a year ago, have paid for every surgery since, and have pictures of my eyes as they now exist and all MD reports, wouldn't you think they could fill in the "diagnostic code" themselves or, otherwise, pick up a phone, call the MD and re-ask for a "diagnostic code" that was given a year ago?

No, I had to call the MD, tell them how to get through the insurer's computerized phone system, and ask them to call wtih a code which, at this point (with surgery 5 days away), the insurer says it will take by phone. Of course, the MD office says they sent it already (by fax and by mail).

I LIKE the Canadian System! I am quite willing to continue to pay what I pay in premiums and, considering the wait and total aggravation I am presented with now, I am in favor of NHC.

I think the USA has a very LARGE middle class that has not been provided with anyting for quite a few years, and perhaps their payment of "premiums" for NHC would make it run. Right now, the USA has a burgeoning "working poor" class that keeps paying their rent and food bills, that does not take "dole" but, otherwise, does not have health insurance as their paycheck will not stretch that far. I think NHC is a good idea for them as well as for me and others that are now borderline "working poor," but former "solid" middle class citizens paying for health care (until Bush tanked us all).

Similarly, I think MDs have to tone down their office costs and expectations as to fees for inpatient/outpatient visits for regular medical care and surgery. In turn, I think the MDs have to be given some kind of educational subsidization so they are not completely footing a bill for medical school. Finally, I think the third prong of making NHC work would be to limit malpractice suits and reserve those for only the most egregious kinds of cases (right now, most states only shorten the statute of limitations on med mal suits, which is insufficient). To me, those would be fair trade-offs to NHC.

I am not an economist, so I don't know how to resolve that situation. I am convinced, however, that putting the medical insurance industry out of the business of approving or disapproving surgeries or health care treatments is a good idea. I also think that this whole "rigamarole" of getting "pre-approval" for surgeries, only to have the insurers giving the "pre-approval" then pay 50 cents on the dollar for the amount billed by the hospital, MD, anesthesiologist and labs after-the-fact, makes the whole system a complete fraud. Believe me I know. What was the need for "pre-approval" if you were still going to stick your insured for half or more than half of the bill? I already approved!

If the MD certifies a treatment or surgery as medically necessary, as has been stated in my case twice now, that should be enough. Why should an insurance bureacracy be in the middle of the MD and the patient, other than serving as bookeepers? That seems to be largely the insurers' position now, except that after approving a surgery, they then pay 50 cents on the dollar, leaving the patient to pay the rest and/or appeal the payment determination.

No one in this thread as yet as addressed the issue of private insurers paying 50 cents on the dollar after requiring "pre-approval."

I really feel most Americans are paying the insurers an awful lot of money for nothing.

Thanks for your input.

Your input and my experiences here in the grand old USA with the medical system have helped to solidify my position in favor of NHC.

Great! While we're at it, let's just nationalize every industry and set all wages to just above zero. Then we can live in a pristine, well off utopia like North Korea or Cuba!
[/sarcasm]

Please. This idea is about as workable as going back to the gold standard: not at all.
I am now waiting 6 weeks for insurer approval. To make a long story short, the insurer informed me today that they are waiting for a "diagnostic code."

If I tell you again that they pre-approved this surgery almost a year ago, have paid for every surgery since, and have pictures of my eyes as they now exist and all MD reports, wouldn't you think they could fill in the "diagnostic code" themselves or, otherwise, pick up a phone, call the MD and re-ask for a "diagnostic code" that was given a year ago?

No, I had to call the MD, tell them how to get through the insurer's computerized phone system, and ask them to call wtih a code which, at this point (with surgery 5 days away), the insurer says it will take by phone. Of course, the MD office says they sent it already (by fax and by mail).

I LIKE the Canadian System! I am quite willing to continue to pay what I pay in premiums and, considering the wait and total aggravation I am presented with now, I am in favor of NHC.

I think the USA has a very LARGE middle class that has not been provided with anyting for quite a few years, and perhaps their payment of "premiums" for NHC would make it run. Right now, the USA has a burgeoning "working poor" class that keeps paying their rent and food bills, that does not take "dole" but, otherwise, does not have health insurance as their paycheck will not stretch that far. I think NHC is a good idea for them as well as for me and others that are now borderline "working poor," but former "solid" middle class citizens paying for health care (until Bush tanked us all).

Similarly, I think MDs have to tone down their office costs and expectations as to fees for inpatient/outpatient visits for regular medical care and surgery. In turn, I think the MDs have to be given some kind of educational subsidization so they are not completely footing a bill for medical school. Finally, I think the third prong of making NHC work would be to limit malpractice suits and reserve those for only the most egregious kinds of cases (right now, most states only shorten the statute of limitations on med mal suits, which is insufficient). To me, those would be fair trade-offs to NHC.

I am not an economist, so I don't know how to resolve that situation. I am convinced, however, that putting the medical insurance industry out of the business of approving or disapproving surgeries or health care treatments is a good idea. I also think that this whole "rigamarole" of getting "pre-approval" for surgeries, only to have the insurers giving the "pre-approval" then pay 50 cents on the dollar for the amount billed by the hospital, MD, anesthesiologist and labs after-the-fact, makes the whole system a complete fraud. Believe me I know. What was the need for "pre-approval" if you were still going to stick your insured for half or more than half of the bill? I already approved!

If the MD certifies a treatment or surgery as medically necessary, as has been stated in my case twice now, that should be enough. Why should an insurance bureacracy be in the middle of the MD and the patient, other than serving as bookeepers? That seems to be largely the insurers' position now, except that after approving a surgery, they then pay 50 cents on the dollar, leaving the patient to pay the rest and/or appeal the payment determination.

No one in this thread as yet as addressed the issue of private insurers paying 50 cents on the dollar after requiring "pre-approval."

I really feel most Americans are paying the insurers an awful lot of money for nothing.

Thanks for your input.

Your input and my experiences here in the grand old USA with the medical system have helped to solidify my position in favor of NHC.

I wanted to come up with a Cohesive post....But all NHS arguments I could think of were over taken by a massive image of someone shoving a Needle in My Eye...

My eye hurts......
As you are all wondering about the gory details, I had graves disease which caused my eyes to bulge because the muscles behind the eyballs swelled.

The first surgery was to remove bone to make room for the eyeballs and, essentially, get them to fit back into the bony sockets better.

The first surgery caused my eyes to cross because now there was room for the muscles and this caused double vision. That was an explained and known risk from the first surgery, which we all hoped would not occur, but did. As a result, I had to have a second eye muscle surgery to uncross the eyes. Surgical/Medical protocol required a six month wait between the first and second surgeries.

The third surgery that I am waiting for now is to get my eyelids extended down as they retracted due to the bulging and I have trouble with dry eye and so on. I had pre-approval for this (now third) surgery at the time I did the first surgery.

Now, aren't you sorry you asked and made jokes? That will be three surgeries in 13 months on both my eyes. I have now been waiting almost 2 months for pre-approval for a surgery that the insurer already pre-approved (in writing) almost a year ago. The surgery was scheduled for next week, but will have to be postponed now as there still is no approval.

I don't understand this at all--which precipitated this thread as it seems like a long wait for something that was already approved once. It is probably the same amount of wait one would have to endure in a nationalized health care system, although that wait would be for the MD to do the surgery, not for a paper tiger insurance bureacracy.

well, not quite... university education is subsidised, so everyone, including doctors, end up with a bit of debt, but not as much as it could be. the debts are usually interest free loans from the government, but often you'll need to get some private loans for extra living expenses, etc. it all used to be free until about a decade ago, mind.

and regarding lawsuits, they aren't that common to my knowledge. you do hear about them on the news, but they really tend to be for really stupid mistakes and fairly rare.

i think the doctors and medical professionals have to deal with quite a lot of bureaucracy, but us patients mostly don't have to. i'm on PAYE (pay as you earn) for tax, so each month a little of my paycheque gets taken out for taxes and National Insurance, the latter of which goes largely to the NHS, but also pays off my interest-linked (effectively 0%) student loans.

and, of course, we still have the option of going private if we want slightly faster and nicer service.
I am now waiting 6 weeks for insurer approval. To make a long story short, the insurer informed me today that they are waiting for a "diagnostic code."

If I tell you again that they pre-approved this surgery almost a year ago, have paid for every surgery since, and have pictures of my eyes as they now exist and all MD reports, wouldn't you think they could fill in the "diagnostic code" themselves or, otherwise, pick up a phone, call the MD and re-ask for a "diagnostic code" that was given a year ago?

No, I had to call the MD, tell them how to get through the insurer's computerized phone system, and ask them to call wtih a code which, at this point (with surgery 5 days away), the insurer says it will take by phone. Of course, the MD office says they sent it already (by fax and by mail).

I LIKE the Canadian System! I am quite willing to continue to pay what I pay in premiums and, considering the wait and total aggravation I am presented with now, I am in favor of NHC.

I think the USA has a very LARGE middle class that has not been provided with anyting for quite a few years, and perhaps their payment of "premiums" for NHC would make it run. Right now, the USA has a burgeoning "working poor" class that keeps paying their rent and food bills, that does not take "dole" but, otherwise, does not have health insurance as their paycheck will not stretch that far. I think NHC is a good idea for them as well as for me and others that are now borderline "working poor," but former "solid" middle class citizens paying for health care (until Bush tanked us all).

Similarly, I think MDs have to tone down their office costs and expectations as to fees for inpatient/outpatient visits for regular medical care and surgery. In turn, I think the MDs have to be given some kind of educational subsidization so they are not completely footing a bill for medical school. Finally, I think the third prong of making NHC work would be to limit malpractice suits and reserve those for only the most egregious kinds of cases (right now, most states only shorten the statute of limitations on med mal suits, which is insufficient). To me, those would be fair trade-offs to NHC.

I am not an economist, so I don't know how to resolve that situation. I am convinced, however, that putting the medical insurance industry out of the business of approving or disapproving surgeries or health care treatments is a good idea. I also think that this whole "rigamarole" of getting "pre-approval" for surgeries, only to have the insurers giving the "pre-approval" then pay 50 cents on the dollar for the amount billed by the hospital, MD, anesthesiologist and labs after-the-fact, makes the whole system a complete fraud. Believe me I know. What was the need for "pre-approval" if you were still going to stick your insured for half or more than half of the bill? I already approved!

If the MD certifies a treatment or surgery as medically necessary, as has been stated in my case twice now, that should be enough. Why should an insurance bureacracy be in the middle of the MD and the patient, other than serving as bookeepers? That seems to be largely the insurers' position now, except that after approving a surgery, they then pay 50 cents on the dollar, leaving the patient to pay the rest and/or appeal the payment determination.

No one in this thread as yet as addressed the issue of private insurers paying 50 cents on the dollar after requiring "pre-approval."

I really feel most Americans are paying the insurers an awful lot of money for nothing.

Thanks for your input.

Your input and my experiences here in the grand old USA with the medical system have helped to solidify my position in favor of NHC.

Even while living in the UK I had a private carrier even though I could use the national health care system. You wouldn't see the private sector go away.

The biggest losers I think in a full nationalized system is the patients. Good equipment would not be as numerous as it is today which is part of the problem today. Yes we would have the same level of care for awhile however due to equipment failing and going out of date the real impact will be felt within 5 years.

I think the level of care from the doctors would suffer too. The amount of money they are used to vs a national system would probably go down. Giving someone a pay cut at their "job" typically doesn't provide for good attitudes which may have a negative impact on patient care.

You may also see the amount of actual facilities decrease due to consolidation and cost cutting. Not a good thing.

I could continue but running out of time....
I am now waiting 6 weeks for insurer approval. To make a long story short, the insurer informed me today that they are waiting for a "diagnostic code."

If I tell you again that they pre-approved this surgery almost a year ago, have paid for every surgery since, and have pictures of my eyes as they now exist and all MD reports, wouldn't you think they could fill in the "diagnostic code" themselves or, otherwise, pick up a phone, call the MD and re-ask for a "diagnostic code" that was given a year ago?

No, I had to call the MD, tell them how to get through the insurer's computerized phone system, and ask them to call wtih a code which, at this point (with surgery 5 days away), the insurer says it will take by phone. Of course, the MD office says they sent it already (by fax and by mail).

I LIKE the Canadian System! I am quite willing to continue to pay what I pay in premiums and, considering the wait and total aggravation I am presented with now, I am in favor of NHC.

I think the USA has a very LARGE middle class that has not been provided with anyting for quite a few years, and perhaps their payment of "premiums" for NHC would make it run. Right now, the USA has a burgeoning "working poor" class that keeps paying their rent and food bills, that does not take "dole" but, otherwise, does not have health insurance as their paycheck will not stretch that far. I think NHC is a good idea for them as well as for me and others that are now borderline "working poor," but former "solid" middle class citizens paying for health care (until Bush tanked us all).

Similarly, I think MDs have to tone down their office costs and expectations as to fees for inpatient/outpatient visits for regular medical care and surgery. In turn, I think the MDs have to be given some kind of educational subsidization so they are not completely footing a bill for medical school. Finally, I think the third prong of making NHC work would be to limit malpractice suits and reserve those for only the most egregious kinds of cases (right now, most states only shorten the statute of limitations on med mal suits, which is insufficient). To me, those would be fair trade-offs to NHC.

I am not an economist, so I don't know how to resolve that situation. I am convinced, however, that putting the medical insurance industry out of the business of approving or disapproving surgeries or health care treatments is a good idea. I also think that this whole "rigamarole" of getting "pre-approval" for surgeries, only to have the insurers giving the "pre-approval" then pay 50 cents on the dollar for the amount billed by the hospital, MD, anesthesiologist and labs after-the-fact, makes the whole system a complete fraud. Believe me I know. What was the need for "pre-approval" if you were still going to stick your insured for half or more than half of the bill? I already approved!

If the MD certifies a treatment or surgery as medically necessary, as has been stated in my case twice now, that should be enough. Why should an insurance bureacracy be in the middle of the MD and the patient, other than serving as bookeepers? That seems to be largely the insurers' position now, except that after approving a surgery, they then pay 50 cents on the dollar, leaving the patient to pay the rest and/or appeal the payment determination.

No one in this thread as yet as addressed the issue of private insurers paying 50 cents on the dollar after requiring "pre-approval."

I really feel most Americans are paying the insurers an awful lot of money for nothing.

Thanks for your input.

Your input and my experiences here in the grand old USA with the medical system have helped to solidify my position in favor of NHC.

I've had three eye surgeries. My last one was in April 2008. I have two lazy eyes, so the operations have been on both eyes. They moved the muscle from one part of my eye and attached it to another area, so the eye wouldn't drift as much. They did that to both eyes. I'll probably have to have another surgery when I'm in my early- to mid-twenties (I'm sixteen now).

Anyway, about nationalized healthcare. I think that giving people money (which is what this is, in a sense) lessens a person's responsibility. I don't want to pay for your problems. I have my own to deal with. If I can't pay for what I need, I don't want someone else to. My problems belong to me, so get the hell away from them :P



Inver Brass
I am now waiting 6 weeks for insurer approval. To make a long story short, the insurer informed me today that they are waiting for a "diagnostic code."

If I tell you again that they pre-approved this surgery almost a year ago, have paid for every surgery since, and have pictures of my eyes as they now exist and all MD reports, wouldn't you think they could fill in the "diagnostic code" themselves or, otherwise, pick up a phone, call the MD and re-ask for a "diagnostic code" that was given a year ago?

No, I had to call the MD, tell them how to get through the insurer's computerized phone system, and ask them to call wtih a code which, at this point (with surgery 5 days away), the insurer says it will take by phone. Of course, the MD office says they sent it already (by fax and by mail).

I LIKE the Canadian System! I am quite willing to continue to pay what I pay in premiums and, considering the wait and total aggravation I am presented with now, I am in favor of NHC.

I think the USA has a very LARGE middle class that has not been provided with anyting for quite a few years, and perhaps their payment of "premiums" for NHC would make it run. Right now, the USA has a burgeoning "working poor" class that keeps paying their rent and food bills, that does not take "dole" but, otherwise, does not have health insurance as their paycheck will not stretch that far. I think NHC is a good idea for them as well as for me and others that are now borderline "working poor," but former "solid" middle class citizens paying for health care (until Bush tanked us all).

Similarly, I think MDs have to tone down their office costs and expectations as to fees for inpatient/outpatient visits for regular medical care and surgery. In turn, I think the MDs have to be given some kind of educational subsidization so they are not completely footing a bill for medical school. Finally, I think the third prong of making NHC work would be to limit malpractice suits and reserve those for only the most egregious kinds of cases (right now, most states only shorten the statute of limitations on med mal suits, which is insufficient). To me, those would be fair trade-offs to NHC.

I am not an economist, so I don't know how to resolve that situation. I am convinced, however, that putting the medical insurance industry out of the business of approving or disapproving surgeries or health care treatments is a good idea. I also think that this whole "rigamarole" of getting "pre-approval" for surgeries, only to have the insurers giving the "pre-approval" then pay 50 cents on the dollar for the amount billed by the hospital, MD, anesthesiologist and labs after-the-fact, makes the whole system a complete fraud. Believe me I know. What was the need for "pre-approval" if you were still going to stick your insured for half or more than half of the bill? I already approved!

If the MD certifies a treatment or surgery as medically necessary, as has been stated in my case twice now, that should be enough. Why should an insurance bureacracy be in the middle of the MD and the patient, other than serving as bookeepers? That seems to be largely the insurers' position now, except that after approving a surgery, they then pay 50 cents on the dollar, leaving the patient to pay the rest and/or appeal the payment determination.

No one in this thread as yet as addressed the issue of private insurers paying 50 cents on the dollar after requiring "pre-approval."

I really feel most Americans are paying the insurers an awful lot of money for nothing.

Thanks for your input.

Your input and my experiences here in the grand old USA with the medical system have helped to solidify my position in favor of NHC.

I've had three eye surgeries. My last one was in April 2008. I have two lazy eyes, so the operations have been on both eyes. They moved the muscle from one part of my eye and attached it to another area, so the eye wouldn't drift as much. They did that to both eyes. I'll probably have to have another surgery when I'm in my early- to mid-twenties (I'm sixteen now).

Anyway, about nationalized healthcare. I think that giving people money (which is what this is, in a sense) lessens a person's responsibility. I don't want to pay for your problems. I have my own to deal with. If I can't pay for what I need, I don't want someone else to. My problems belong to me, so get the hell away from them :P



Inver Brass
As you are all wondering about the gory details, I had graves disease which caused my eyes to bulge because the muscles behind the eyballs swelled.

The first surgery was to remove bone to make room for the eyeballs and, essentially, get them to fit back into the bony sockets better.

The first surgery caused my eyes to cross because now there was room for the muscles and this caused double vision. That was an explained and known risk from the first surgery, which we all hoped would not occur, but did. As a result, I had to have a second eye muscle surgery to uncross the eyes. Surgical/Medical protocol required a six month wait between the first and second surgeries.

The third surgery that I am waiting for now is to get my eyelids extended down as they retracted due to the bulging and I have trouble with dry eye and so on. I had pre-approval for this (now third) surgery at the time I did the first surgery.

Now, aren't you sorry you asked and made jokes? That will be three surgeries in 13 months on both my eyes. I have now been waiting almost 2 months for pre-approval for a surgery that the insurer already pre-approved (in writing) almost a year ago. The surgery was scheduled for next week, but will have to be postponed now as there still is no approval.

I don't understand this at all--which precipitated this thread as it seems like a long wait for something that was already approved once. It is probably the same amount of wait one would have to endure in a nationalized health care system, although that wait would be for the MD to do the surgery, not for a paper tiger insurance bureacracy.

People bash the CNHC all the time but IMHO any NHC is better than no NHC. Another nice side effect of it is that it's not in the governments financial interests to allow people to get sick... So no more experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Study_of_Untreated_Syphilis_in_the_Negro_Male) on black people.

Thanks for your input.

Your input and my experiences here in the grand old USA with the medical system have helped to solidify my position in favor of NHC.

my pleasure :) i truly believe our NHS to be a fantastic institution, so i'm quite happy to talk it up :P its not perfect, but every system has its problems in reality. good luck getting your treatments sorted!


oh and i searched for averae salaries of doctors in the UK and the US, and this was the best i could come up with http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/334/7587/236

my pleasure :) i truly believe our NHS to be a fantastic institution, so i'm quite happy to talk it up :P its not perfect, but every system has its problems in reality. good luck getting your treatments sorted!


oh and i searched for averae salaries of doctors in the UK and the US, and this was the best i could come up with http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/334/7587/236

If the British NHS actually offered a degree of service commensurate to the money it recieves, I might object to it less. As it is, it doesn't; it is a spectacularly inefficient, expensive and frustrating institution. Think what might be achieved with education, the Police, or public transport, were the burden of the NS upon the budget to be removed.

If the British NHS actually offered a degree of service commensurate to the money it recieves, I might object to it less. As it is, it doesn't; it is a spectacularly inefficient, expensive and frustrating institution...

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

Yes; personal experiance, for one, and, if memory serves, the fact that a good 60% of all employees in the NHS are non-medical.

And the fact I find its socialist ideological basis repellent. If I gave a flying fuck about the unemployed or ill-educated, I'd give charitably. Since I don't, I see no reason for my tax money to be used keeping them alive, to the detriment of society at large.

Do you have any evidence for this claim?
All I see are anecdotes from either side. "I like it". "I don't". That pretty much settles it for me.

The only other evidence that is regularly offered is cost per capita. I wish there were a way to represent that as "service per capita" or "cost of quality". We might be able to make better comparisons to the private plans, in that event.

Yes; personal experiance, for one, and, if memory serves, the fact that a good 60% of all employees in the NHS are non-medical.

And the fact I find its socialist ideological basis repellent. If I gave a flying fuck about the unemployed or ill-educated, I'd give charitably. Since I don't, I see no reason for my tax money to be used keeping them alive, to the detriment of society at large.

Personal experience is not evidence.

Your opinion of socialism is merely evidence of your bias, not an intelligent criticism of nationalised health services.

All I see are anecdotes from either side. "I like it". "I don't". That pretty much settles it for me.

The only other evidence that is regularly offered is cost per capita. I wish there were a way to represent that as "service per capita" or "cost of quality". We might be able to make better comparisons to the private plans, in that event.

Yes. The cost per capita evidence sure screws your argument, so I can see why you would like to dismiss it.

But that's not the only evidence. There is evidence that people are actually not getting necessary surgery in the USA (https://healthlibrary.epnet.com/GetContent.aspx?token=c7d33036-86bc-497f-aff5-9309713ed08f&chunkiid=207783) because they can't get access to health care.

A U.S. study found that nearly 40 percent of early-stage pancreatic cancer patients who qualified for surgery did not get it, greatly reducing their life expectancy.

The researchers noted that about 30 percent of patients with early stage pancreatic cancer who have surgery live at least five years, compared with less than five percent of those who don't have surgery, the Associated Press reported.

The analysis of national cancer data revealed that 3,644 (38 percent) of 9,559 early-stage pancreatic cancer patients were not offered surgery. Those least likely to be offered surgery were: blacks, patients older than 65, and those with less education and lower annual incomes.

And because you apparently missed it, there is also this:
http://www.oheschools.org/ohech3pg1.html
which is a clear explanation by economists as to why the free market cannot provide an optimal system for healthcare.

There is a lot of evidence showing that public healthcare systems are more efficient. I don't see a lot of evidence for the other side.

Yes; personal experiance, for one, and, if memory serves, the fact that a good 60% of all employees in the NHS are non-medical.


my personal experience has been nothing short of excellent with the NHS.

and cleaners, managers, ambulance drivers, etc, all have a place within a healthcare system. would you really prefer the system to be full of insurance salesmen, bureaucratic 'pre-approval' call centres and crap like that as well?


its been pointed out many times on these forums before that the UK receives at least an equivalent standard of healthcare compared to the US, for much less per capita. if i wasn't at work i'd look for some figures to back that up, but i have seen that arguement round here many times.

my personal experience has been nothing short of excellent with the NHS.

and cleaners, managers, ambulance drivers, etc, all have a place within a healthcare system. would you really prefer the system to be full of insurance salesmen, bureaucratic 'pre-approval' call centres and crap like that?


its been pointed out many times on these forums before that the UK receives at least an equivalent standard of healthcare compared to the US, for much less per capita. if i wasn't at work i'd look for some figures to back that up, but i have seen that arguement round here many times.

It's a depressing indictment of the NHS if the best we can say of it is it provides better value for money than that in the USA.

In any case, regarding non-medical staff, I believe the majority do not perform active roles, even in management, instead performing largely perfunctory and utterly unnecessary bureacratic tasks.

And yes, I'd much sooner privatise the whole bloody service, regulate the insurance companies, and then put the money to better use. Like restoring Grammar schools.

If the British NHS actually offered a degree of service commensurate to the money it recieves, I might object to it less. As it is, it doesn't; it is a spectacularly inefficient, expensive and frustrating institution. Think what might be achieved with education, the Police, or public transport, were the burden of the NS upon the budget to be removed.

Well, whatever you do, I would strongly advise against going with the German system of having several semi-private insurers.
In Germany, you have to have medical insurance, but you also have to pay for it. The most common options are the 2 or 3 former public now privatised insurers, and as with everything that ought to be a public service but some clever knowitall thought might do better run privately, they are accumulating debt almost as fast as the US government at the moment.
The private insurers, however, will not take on everybody.

Not a good situation, all things considered.

...
In any case, regarding non-medical staff, I believe the majority do not perform active roles, even in management, instead performing largely perfunctory and utterly unnecessary bureacratic tasks...

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

I noticed that you had no evidence for your other claims.

Tell me, why do you have such unfounded faith in a specific economic model?

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

I noticed that you had no evidence for your other claims.

Tell me, why do you have such unfounded faith in a specific economic model?

Must be cause it worked soooo well for the British rail system...

Healthcare in Spain is of a high standard. Hospitals are many and levels of service (on the whole) are excellent. As with the UK, Spain has a public (national) health system which provides free or low cost healthcare for those contributing to the Spanish Social Security systems and their dependants. The system also caters for pensioners and includes those from other EU countries.

Spain has an excellent system of private medicine and this exists easily alongside the State system with both operated so as to compliment each other.

http://www.wemploy.com/healthcare-in-spain.html
http://www.spanishpropertyco.com/Healthcare%20in%20Spain.html

I think the US should consider this and the case of the UK healthcare system and try to implement, if the economy allows it, a nationalized healthcare system.

Must be cause it worked soooo well for the British rail system...

Better than having them drain the budget and weigh on the taxpayers pocket.

Better than having them drain the budget and weigh on the taxpayers pocket.

Cutting them into practical non-existence? Hmm... I can see that working for the health system.

Cutting them into practical non-existence? Hmm... I can see that working for the health system.

Ah; I assume you're referring to Mr. Beecham. In which case, I hardly believe the logic that a town's hospital is non-essential would ever be applied.

Ah; I assume you're referring to Mr. Beecham. In which case, I hardly believe the logic that a town's hospital is non-essential would ever be applied.

Don't be too optimistic about that... it's what's currently happening in Ireland.
"Centres of Excellence" in the major towns, no hospitals in a 300 mile radius in rural areas.

Don't be too optimistic about that... it's what's currently happening in Ireland.
"Centres of Excellence" in the major towns, no hospitals in a 300 mile radius in rural areas.

Given that the UK has rather greater, and consistent, population density, than Ireland, I doubt this would occur.

Given that the UK has rather greater, and consistent, population density, than Ireland, I doubt this would occur.

Hmm... you have never been to Scotland, have you?

There are inefficiencies in any solution. NHS is not the panacea it's often made out to be, and neither is private insurance. Some private insurance plans are obviously better than others, and fail in other respects, while NHS is very good at some things, but people fall through the cracks.

Both have the onus of trying to save money and keep medical spending under control, but neither appear to be very good at that task.

Both have the onus of trying to save money and keep medical spending under control, but neither appear to be very good at that task.

I think this is the crucial point : providing good medical care will not allow you to save money. And saving money will result in worse medical care.

Health insurance for everybody simply cannot be run with a profit. I would even say it cannot be run in a way to cut even. It will always need state subsidies, same as education, public transport, etc. etc.

I think this is the crucial point : providing good medical care will not allow you to save money. And saving money will result in worse medical care.

Health insurance for everybody simply cannot be run with a profit. I would even say it cannot be run in a way to cut even. It will always need state subsidies, same as education, public transport, etc. etc.

Even public sponsored health care has to control costs.

Otherwise, your entire budget goes to healthcare.

Hmm... you have never been to Scotland, have you?

Sorry, I meant to say England, given that the Scottish NHS works rather differently, and recieves better funding, than that in England.

Even public sponsored health care has to control costs.

Otherwise, your entire budget goes to healthcare.

That goes without saying, for every kind of budget.

However, to expect a health service for everyone to work without government contribution is just naive.
You can get privatised health service for a few, but never for all. And it will cost the individual more than a public service would.

Sorry, I meant to say England, given that the Scottish NHS works rather differently, and recieves better funding, than that in England.

True, England has - for the most part - a much higher population density. But even you have areas like Cornwall to consider.
But even in Ireland you have very few areas with no residents within 300 km. So similar measures could be introduced in lower-density areas in Britain as well.

That goes without saying, for every kind of budget.

However, to expect a health service for everyone to work without government contribution is just naive.
You can get privatised health service for a few, but never for all. And it will cost the individual more than a public service would.

Our poor and elderly are on public health service here in the US. It's called Medicare and Medicaid.

It's a vacuum for money, and is one of the most mismanaged Federal and State programs in our government.

True, England has - for the most part - a much higher population density. But even you have areas like Cornwall to consider.
But even in Ireland you have very few areas with no residents within 300 km. So similar measures could be introduced in lower-density areas in Britain as well.

Even the most scarcely populated area in the UK would merit a hospital. Frankly, you have a unmitigatedly, simplistically negative view of business practice.

Our poor and elderly are on public health service here in the US. It's called Medicare and Medicaid.

It's a vacuum for money, and is one of the most mismanaged Federal and State programs in our government.

You said it yourself, it's mismanaged and truly doesn't amount to much when it comes to really caring for the elderly and the poor. A lot of people in the US have to choose between paying the bills or buying medicines because they lack insurance.

You said it yourself, it's mismanaged and truly doesn't amount to much when it comes to really caring for the elderly and the poor. A lot of people in the US have to choose between paying the bills or buying medicines because they lack insurance.

It's the government's fault that it's mismanaged. Don't blame private insurers for the government's inability to run a health care program for the poor and elderly.

It's also a massive drain on the public budget - money that is going to what?

This is what I point to when people insist that only a public healthcare system can be good - it has no ability to be any better than a private insurance system.

Efficiency is separate from ideology. Some countries can run a NHS and others cannot.

Shall we go into how the books are balanced at the UK NHS? It's a rather creative take on accounting which under any other circumstance would get you thrown in jail.

Even the most scarcely populated area in the UK would merit a hospital. Frankly, you have a unmitigatedly, simplistically negative view of business practice.

*looks around herself at the current economy* Well... yes, actually.

Seriously though, I think that there are certain areas that are just a social responsibility of governments, no matter where you are. And ensuring a semi-decent universal health cover is one of them. I've heard a good bit about the UK model, which is essentially good but in dire need of an overhaul, I've lived with the German model and am now living with the Irish model.

In all honesty, I'd go with the UK model, personally.

This is what I point to when people insist that only a public healthcare system can be good - it has no ability to be any better than a private insurance system.


Better in what aspect?
Yes, there is better care available in the US... if you are in a position to afford it. It's not really there for the old or the poor.
Also, last time I checked, the system in the US is the least cost-effective in the developed world.

It's the government's fault that it's mismanaged. Don't blame private insurers for the government's inability to run a health care program for the poor and elderly.

Private insurers are allowed to have the high prices the have by the very government you so adamantly defend. Some families have to pay up to a $1,000 a month just to keep healthy. I worked in the US, I know what a private healthy insurance costs and who can actually apply for Medicare. You can be starving and if you're earning money you do not qualify.

It's also a massive drain on the public budget - money that is going to what?

Money that goes into securing the health of a country.

This is what I point to when people insist that only a public healthcare system can be good - it has no ability to be any better than a private insurance system.

In Spain a NHS co-exists magnificently with private HS. You won't know if it works until you try it.

Efficiency is separate from ideology. Some countries can run a NHS and others cannot.

Trial and error. The US won't know if it works unless it tries.

Shall we go into how the books are balanced at the UK NHS? It's a rather creative take on accounting which under any other circumstance would get you thrown in jail.

The law is different in other countries. Don't hide yourself behind that excuse.

Better in what aspect?
Yes, there is better care available in the US... if you are in a position to afford it. It's not really there for the old or the poor.
Also, last time I checked, the system in the US is the least cost-effective in the developed world.

We spend a lot on the poor and elderly, and they don't get much "care" in return.

That's not the fault of the insurance companies.

It's the fault of the government, which spends 9 dollars out of every 10 on the bureaucracy of providing that care.

We spend a lot on the poor and elderly, and they don't get much "care" in return.

That's not the fault of the insurance companies.

It's the fault of the government, which spends 9 dollars out of every 10 on the bureaucracy of providing that care.

Bureaucracy is the bane of every large scale enterprise, be it government or big insurance company.

I said it once, I'll say it again. Copy the Canadian system - it's far from ideal but It's failings are a hell of a lot better than the problems you already have with the private system in the US. And just because you copy our system doesn't mean you have to copy all our problems along with it.

Bureaucracy is the bane of every large scale enterprise, be it government or big insurance company.

That's what I keep saying, but Nanatsu believes that somehow, a government is immune.

What we need is some sort of crack team of Economists to devise a healthcare system that combines universal coverage with consumer choice and competition.

That's what I keep saying, but Nanatsu believes that somehow, a government is immune.

No government is immune. You're readin what you wish to believe. You're condemning an idea that could benefit your country just because, according to you, it just doesn't work. It is the government's fault that insurance companies have such high prices, it is the government's fault that Medicare and Medicaid do not work. It is mismanagement, I don't deny that, but just because that's the case, doesn't mean you cannot fix this problem and, with the proper help, establish a good NHS that can coexist, without a problem, with private HS.

No government is immune. You're readin what you wish to believe. You're condemning an idea that could benefit your country just because, according to you, it just doesn't work. It is the government's fault that insurance companies have such high prices, it is the government's fault that Medicare and Medicaid do not work. It is mismanagement, I don't deny that, but just because that's the case, doesn't mean you cannot fix this problem and, with the proper help, establish a good NHS that can coexist, without a problem, with private HS.

Show me where I condemned it. I'm saying that it isn't the end-all-be-all answer to the problem. And I said that neither is private insurance.

Please, read my posts before you knee-jerk what you think I'm posting.

That's what I keep saying, but Nanatsu believes that somehow, a government is immune.

It isn't. But it's overall just as capable of providing health insurance for all citizens, and at a lower cost to the individual.

Show me where I condemned it. I'm saying that it isn't the end-all-be-all answer to the problem. And I said that neither is private insurance.

Please, read my posts before you knee-jerk what you think I'm posting.

Kindly, Kimchi, take your own advice.

We spend a lot on the poor and elderly, and they don't get much "care" in return.

That's not the fault of the insurance companies.

It's the fault of the government, which spends 9 dollars out of every 10 on the bureaucracy of providing that care.

Now, do tell me that this is not condemning.

What we need is some sort of crack team of Economists to devise a healthcare system that combines universal coverage with consumer choice and competition.

If you mean by choice opting out then no you can't really allow that with an NHS system. The reason is that if you did then people with more money will choose to opt out of it in favor of better private care which causes the public system to suffer. Germany is a perfect example of what can go wrong with that. NHS only works if everyone has to pay into it *especially the rich*.

It isn't. But it's overall just as capable of providing health insurance for all citizens, and at a lower cost to the individual.

If you count the overall tax burden, our Medicare and Medicaid is more expensive than private insurance.

I think there's a balance to be struck somewhere.

Kindly, Kimchi, take your own advice.

Obviously, you're not reading my posts.

Obviously, you're not reading my posts.

Neither are you. I quoted you, clearly, where you're condemning the idea of a NHS.

Kindly, Kimchi, take your own advice.



Now, do tell me that this is not condemning.

It's not, since you're ignoring where I also say that private insurance is also a victim of bureaucracy.

Please do keep up.

It's not, since you're ignoring where I also say that private insurance is also a victim of bureaucracy.

Please do keep up.

It's the government's fault that it's mismanaged. Don't blame private insurers for the government's inability to run a health care program for the poor and elderly.

It's also a massive drain on the public budget - money that is going to what?

This is what I point to when people insist that only a public healthcare system can be good - it has no ability to be any better than a private insurance system.

Efficiency is separate from ideology. Some countries can run a NHS and others cannot.

Shall we go into how the books are balanced at the UK NHS? It's a rather creative take on accounting which under any other circumstance would get you thrown in jail.

Kindly, re-read your own posts.

Kindly, re-read your own posts.

You're not even reading what you quote

I said "not any better than private insurance".

Sheesh.

If you count the overall tax burden, our Medicare and Medicaid is more expensive than private insurance.

I think there's a balance to be struck somewhere.

If you compare the tax burden on the average UK citizen to the average health insurance paid by a privately insured US citizen, the UK works out cheaper.

If you compare the tax burden on the average UK citizen to the average health insurance paid by a privately insured US citizen, the UK works out cheaper.

Let's see that novel NHS accounting method now...