Educated vs "Non-Educated"

Again, you are fabulously incorrect. In almost all cases it's a function of parental neglect.

 

The Left has few liberals in the 21stC.

 

Schools are paid for through local property taxes.

 

Socialism is practiced in every democracy on earth.
You think Social security isn’t socialism ?

 

Don't get me wrong here. I agree with a WHOLE lot of "shoulda". I have lots of ideas about what others should do, how well they should do it! and how much better the world would be for them having done that.

But, we ARE leaving kids behind in a serious way with our system of education that is so important to individual employment, national copetitiveness, and our standard of living. We do that by allowing it to be seriously hard for a significant portion of the population to be able to take part.

That's just a fact. We can argue about what percent are being left behind, or whatever, but there is no doubt that they ARE being left behind due to the way we have constructed the system.

My view is that regardless of what parents do, we don't have an morally or ethically defensivel excuse for leaving teenagers behind due to parental disinterest or poverty. On top of that, it is expensive FOR US to leave them behind.

 

There is no left, no liberals. Just caricatures.

 

I think she might be one of those foreigners who tries to confuse Americans. Of course she just keeps going around in circles because liberals don’t buy that nonsense and conservatives already have.

 

Not in my country.

 

Of course it isn't socialism. It's a purchased 'luxury', funded via the profits of capitalism.

It's frankly bizarre, that you thought it was (socialism).

 

Huh ?

 

Are you saying majority of the Third World are mentally challenged? Are you saying large portions of the populations in pre-industrialised West were mentally challenged? Are you saying blind people are mentally challenged?

You realise literacy is highly overrated when hunting on the savannah, right?

 

I already trust my veterinarians more than most doctors. Do you think medical errors would surpass cancer and heart disease and become the number one killer if we dropped standards? Maybe errors would only move to number two. It’s important to look out for those unintended consequences.

Truth is my goal. And I certainly have no ulterior motive when it comes to this subject. I’m called a liar here from time to time... for presentation of irrefutable facts or logic.

I’m skeptical of lowering standards of admission. But I would give it a try. Perhaps more emphasis on training people driven more by empathy than earning potential. And more emphasis on hands on skills and diagnostic ability than straight ability to memorize and regurgitate information? Thoughts?

You use the word risk and then describe things that aren’t risks, but quantifiable realities in the present. Reinsuring known losses isn’t insurance. It’s temporary passing the buck to others with deeper pockets. Mathematics dictate those pockets will run dry eventually. It’s exactly like the housing derivatives scenario. Putting off the inevitable.

Pretty well covered above.

I think people who want to should have the option.

I have no doubt you did a great job mitigating effects of poor parenting on early childhood development. I’ve seen what you are talking about as well. But there is no substitute for early learning in the home. Study after study confirms this. Not only learning, but nutrition, emotional security, etc., etc.

There’s also no universal fix for lack of parental involvement during formal education.

It’s kind of funny seeing that graph show up here while discussing health insurance. Non monetary compensation and productivity increases from automation and other technologies account for the lion’s share of divergence between the lines on your graph. Don’t believe me? Think for a while about the change in standard of living for average working Americans from ‘79 to the present.

It’s just a fact that redistribution violates private property rights. It’s not debatable.

 

It’s funded by taxes. It’s managed and run by the government....that’s socialism. Next, you’ll tell us that social security doesn’t have the word social in it.

 

Beeegus. Government schools rock.

 

How about making sure people with drug resistant TB aren't spreading the disease?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Public_Health_Service

Fine with me as long as we don't have to care for you if you show up at the hospital or clinic without proof you can pay.

The people pushing them often want to get out of paying taxes toward the overall program, so they're not meeting with as much support as they might otherwise enjoy.

 

There is nothing in the definition of socialism that says anything about capitalism not paying for it.
“It’s a policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.”

social security is based on the practice of socialism.
Capitalism is found in every country in the world also.
Illegal drug sales is capitalism. It’s the free exchange of goods and services not controlled by the government.
Name one major industry in the United States that is not regulated by the government.....

 

Oh, we might have let in magna cum laude grads? Darn.

Yeah, sure... magna cum laude grads are stupidos who need to try harder.

 

Social security is not a “luxury”. It’s mandatory for salaried workers to pay into. No one who has to depend upon social security ever lived in “luxury.”
Social security is a retirement income and disability government run insurance plan. That makes it socialism.

 

So we agree. Public goods should be things individuals can’t reasonably provide for themselves. Healthcare does not fit in that category. If it does, so do automobiles.

Why would someone with a HSA and catastrophic insurance not be able to provide proof of payment? I’ve already stated opting out on both ends is only fair if one opts out.

Of course. They want to be responsible for their own choices. Not poor choices of others. Authoritarians will always criticize and suppress such behavior.

 

You're still pretending that the parent or parents are in a position to do anything about it. If they are single parents working two jobs, they probably don't have the money for school or adequate time at home. The same is true if they are unemployed due to unavoidable necessity (such as illness).

When we create high tuition requiremenst, we leave these kids behind.

And as I pointed out, that is expensive for us.

I don't know what your comments on choice and demands means. I said nothing about that.

 

Would you guys decide on a definition of socialism and post it. This is ridiculous.

 

For some of these issues, you're going to have to identify what country you're talking about.

 

You’re delusional and sleeping under a rock. We have Medicare, Medicaid CHIPS and other programs that provide healthcare for people who can’t afford it ALREADY. It’s already decided. We do it.

 

Well, as yet, you haven’t.

 

Yes. I brought that up earlier. People murder each other over sexual partners. Doesn’t mean murder is the best option for settling disputes.