Re: Public health care = public schools?

On Aug 10, 3:46 pm, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 10, 4:23 pm, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"





<Iamtj4l...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bear with me for a second...

Wondering if that's how all this is going to play out - that public
health care will essentially be like public schools - and that private
insurance will equal private schools - the provence of the rich and
those who make the moral decision to send their children there (Altho
will there be a religious factor to private health care insurance?
dunno....)

And I'm wondering if the results will be the same - grinding
mediocrity with private merely having to do "just enough better"
either in reality or perceived quality to justify its existence.

If this is so, then I also wonder if we'll end up perceiving OUR local
health care scho^H^H^ whatever it'll be as "good/sufficient/adequate"
and worry about the shitty teach^H^H^care given to those most "in
need" - aka the inner city/rural residents.  And whether or not there
will be tremendous regional (Yes, The South - I'm mocking you) in
terms of perceived educ^H^H^health care.  And whether or not we'll see
something similar to realizing the great dedication and talent of many
on-the-spot professionals who are harnessed under the weight of
breathtaking red tape and a stifling lack of innovation and an
unwillingness demand more from the stud^H^H^patients involved while
receiving a large crap from paren^H^H^patients who are unwilling to be
responsible for their chil^H^H^health.....

Yeah - it's not a perfect parallel - but I'm beginning to wonder how
close it actually is.....

fire away

One thing wrong with yuor analogy is that public schools are funded
and controlled lately, (with help from the feds but not fully funded
by them).  It's not like every county will have an elected health care
board that will run its own system.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes - and I realize that - it's not a *perfect* analogy, however....

And I do wonder if much of this might end up being pushed onto the
states at some point - and perhaps eventually devolve into a model
such as is used in public school financing - this, b/c of the regional
differences in health care costs and needs - with ultimata issued from
on high.

Actually I wouldn't be shocked to see certain states/localities
deliberately try to "add" to fed funding levels too - much as
happenings with say certain school boards relative to state funding
levels. Not sure if it's still the case or not, but Wisconsin
actually had a cap/fine setup with school funding to prevent the rich
suburban districts from taxing themselves above state levels in order
to circumvent state funding payments. I do know we still use a "pool
system" for large parts of the state - that locally raised taxes are
pooled in large blocks and then doled back out to "level the playing
field" etc.

Of course, there's the corollary that funding /= metric measured
performance in education - and I'd suspect health care too.

Anyhoo - yes - that is a valid difference.
.

Loading