|
|
Quote:
Medical Loss Ratio is what you're looking for. |
Quote:
There's no magic bullet that will solve all the problems out there. What I proposed was simply a way to get everyone access to catastrophic coverage and go from there. Yes, there will be some people who have crap coverage or no coverage now and join a plan that doesn't promote wellness/prevention. But, what people are essentially doing is answering the old classroom question of "A man offers free college to 10 of 30 kids in a poor area classroom. Do you take it?" with "No, because 20 kids won't get to go to college". Even though this potentially benefits 10 kids and doesn't adversely impact the other 20, we can't do it because it doesn't solve the problem of all 30 going to college. |
Quote:
The only bone of contention I have with that is the critera for determining who lives or dies. The concept itself? Not a big problem for me tbh. |
Quote:
Hold on a sec. You started out by positing a 6K deductible catastrophic plan and did not mention the cost of doc visits, but now you're qualifying that as only a $40 difference in the cost of doc visits? That's moving the goalposts. Anyway, if we take a catastrophic plan with a 6K deductible and having to pay full costs for doctor's visits (which is what is implicit in your original proposal), I'd bet good money many women wouldn't go to the full suite of prenatal visits usually recommended, because those costs would add up too much. And then, on average, costs for live births would be considerably higher. Single-payer countries already mitigate this with births by offering more in the way of prenatal visits as it's been shown that more education and care prior to birth will lead to less overall live birth costs when aggregated across the population. Even U.S. private insurance companies realize this, and offer incentives for pregnant mothers to see their doctors, attend wellness sessions, get screened, etc.... Catching a problem only once you're in labor is far more expensive than getting it in the first trimester. |
Quote:
But if you are trying to control costs, then just giving access to catastrophic coverage doesn't do much at all. |
Quote:
The thing is, however, is that in most cases that's not the question. The question tends to be do we keep you alive for another 4 weeks at a cost of $2.3M, or do we let you die in peace now. Studies have shown that most people, when presented with the option, including the fact that those extra 4 weeks (or whatever) aren't really great from a quality of life standpoint, will choose the former. Relevant reading: A Pacemaker Wrecks a Family's Life - NYTimes.com |
Quote:
Sure there is! :D 1. Extend Medicare Advantage to the entire population. 2. Remove state-by-state regulation of health insurance (i.e. allowing plans to be truly nationwide). Single-payer, aggregated data upon which to make good health policy decisions, and private administration of the system (who tend to do it better) that still allows space for innovation and keeps a market component (with oversight based on good measures) that weeds out the lousy actors. Everyone wins! :D |
Quote:
Your whole post is horribly incorrect...but in the interest of actually trying to educate someone, I'm only going to use your last paragraph to demonstrate why perhaps you need to better understand the issue before commenting or presenting "solutions" that don't work. After all, much of what you have proposed others have commented on and shown why those ideas don't work. --- Do you know that you can't negotiate directly with doctors and hospitals? Or, more appropriately, they won't negotiate with you because those same "private companies" that you tout won't let them? *shock* I'll provide an example so it's easy to understand. For whatever reason, Blue Cross decided after 3 years of health payments to not cover my birth of daughter. Yep, they decided to drop the coverage, leaving me high and dry because it was now a preexisting condition for all the other insurance companies. That's not legal now, but that required government regulation to enforce. It was legal then. So instead of a couple of grand, I was facing about $15k in costs. I have a little money in the bank, so I went to the two hospitals nearby and had the same exact discussion. I offered to pay for the prenatal care and the birth care IN CASH if I could get a discount. Nope. Do you know why? Because the "private companies" - this insurance industry you want people to rely on - had specifically written into their contracts that they could not give Joe Average Cashpayer the same rate that they had pre-negotiated with the doctor & hospital. So while the hospital would only get about $5-$6k for birth of my daughter through the insurance companies, I had to pay full price ($12k) because of the price-fixing that is legal in this industry even if I paid in cash (meaning they had no billing or collection costs). So simply put your final paragraph demonstrates how little you understand about health care coverage and shows why your opinion is ill-informed and incorrect. It's nothing like taking your car to the shop. There are 20 repair places and they're in competition with each other. The two hospitals nearby are both owned by the same conglomerate. A defacto monopoly + an inelastic good = free market solutions don't work |
Quote:
Quote:
1. If you or your husband work and get pregnant - you are covered through employer plan. 2. If you are a single mom who doesn't make much or make near the poverty level as a family - you currently can enroll in a program like ACCESS here in AZ. 3. If you are a middleclass family where neither parent has employer coverage but you make more than what is needed to qualify for state programs (maybe self employed), you would have to buy a private plan with better prenatal coverage (just like now). However, you atleast would have cheap access to catastrophic coverage - something you don't have now. So, again, who is worse off with what I proposed as compared to what's available today? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Well if it is just a matter of what goes to the insurance company now (your contribution + the employer's) + existing Medicare withholdings would instead go to the uber-Medicare, then it is close to a wash. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
The concept of 'death panels' was impressing PR/marketing from the anti-ACA crowd tbh ... especially so when you consider most private policies I've seen in the US have 'maximum' amounts which are covered in most areas, effectively being exactly the sort of thing they decried. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Actually, most everyone does win, except the insurance companies who rake in the premiums hand over fist. From a GDP standpoint, the USA spends 50% more than any other industrialized nation in the world. The US spends 17.7% of its GDP on healthcare, whereas every other nation is 12% or less. Per capita, the US spends about $7,500k on healthcare while the next closest country (Norway) is at about $5,000. In the UK and Switzerland, that number is closer to $3k. Simply put, raising taxes $5k/yr isn't a problem for me if I don't have to spend $8k/yr on health care. I still come out with $3k more in my pocket. So yeah, most everyone does win. |
At the end of the day, no one would even consider what I proposed because it doesn't fit the agenda of the democrats (full government provided single payer system) or the republicans (no government interference at all). So, we end up with this Obamacare option that will probably end up doing more damage to quality of coverage and overall cost than just staying put. Either way, time will tell.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
No, it won't happen because Big Insurance doesn't allow it. Quote:
Yep, they did. Or more precisely, they refused to pay for her pregnancy even though I had the paperwork that showed we checked the appropriate box and all the documentation they sent talked about maternity coverage. They claimed we hadn't been paying for it (we fully paid the premium every month) and flat out refused to cover the pregnancy. We appealed and providedthe documentation. They refused again. We sent it to the insurance commissioner of NC. Blue Cross dropped us. The NCDOI did diddly squat for almost a year, by which time my daughter was already born and we had found other coverage. Since we no longer had coverage with Blue Cross, the insurance commission's inquiries went nowhere. Meanwhile, I got stuck paying the bill. Thank you very much. |
Quote:
I am employed, you pompous asshole. I've been working for 30 fucking years now. Don't be a jackass. And the math is simply the math. Overall costs will be reduced in a single payer system. There's no logical way to deny it, there's no historical way to refute it. The math is the math. Due to this very simple fact, there will be far more winners in a single payer solution than losers. In fact, the self employed would be some of the biggest winners because their premiums are so damned high. It's the self-insured that would likely be "losers", but the single biggest loser would be Big Insurance. Sorry if I don't cry over that. |
Quote:
You were positing a system where people were given a 6K deductible catastrophic plan. Now you're changing the context, or, simply put, moving the goalposts. It's very difficult to have a meaningful discussion with you if you keep changing the rules of the conversation. Quote:
Um, that is what's available now, due to the ACA. #1 is employer-provided coverage, #2 is Medicaid, and #3 is an Exchange plan. Prior to the ACA, #3 didn't exist. |
Quote:
Not really. Medicare Advantage reimburses at close to (sometimes above, sometimes below) Medicare A & B rates, with bonuses and penalties for plans with good and bad quality ratings, respectively. I haven't (and probably can't) run the numbers, but it probably saves money overall, from a system-perspective. But it also makes it far easier to control costs in the future, and also moves the entire system, through use of incentives and penalties, to outcome-based care, which really should be our overall objective. |
Quote:
Huh? If I'm employed and spend $8K on health care (premiums, co-pays, deductible, etc...) and the government comes along and says I can have single-payer care for an extra $5K in taxes, meaning I no longer have to pay $8K on health care, I'm taking that deal. |
I think I've figured out this thread after a long period of posting:
1. Someone comes out with an idea that isn't equal to "single payer" 2. 80% of the readers tar and feather that idea because it isn't single payer. 3. Rinse and repeat I doubt we will ever see a single payer plan anytime soon because of: 1. The hold of the insurance companies on both sides of congress 2. The increased cost and decreased coverage to people who currently have employer based coverage 3. The fact that a sizeable percentage (maybe 25-30%?) don't want a government managed health care system in the US. Hate to be realist, but that is the situation we are in. |
Quote:
Last year the average premium for employer-provided coverage was $16,351, of which $4,565 was paid by the employee. Medicare's tax rate is 1.9%. Average income last year was $50,054 per household. Take the $16,351 plus the 1.9% Medicare tax, and it sure looks like it would come out to a wash, probably even less than the 20% hike you predict. To the employee, the $4,565 (~9%) would turn into a tax. |
Quote:
Well, a normal family with an employer-sponsored plan pays ~$9,000/year for health insurance, while their employer picks up ~$12,000. So take what that family pays in tax for Medicare, plus $9,000, and keep the new taxes below that. Ta-da! And since every single other single-payer system actually costs less on a per capita basis, this seems likely. And that's not even discussing the money the employer gets back for not having to pay the other part of the premium. How to pro-business Republicans not like that? :D Data from here: Annual Healthcare Costs For Family Of 4 Now At $22,030 - Forbes |
Quote:
|
Since when has the government ever felt the need to increase taxes to pay for stuff?
|
Quote:
No, I'm saying that would be a tax, not a premium payment. |
Quote:
Well, over 100M Americans get their insurance from a single-payer entity, i.e. the government, now (Medicare, Medicaid, VA). So there's that. Quote:
I know, right? |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
WE AREN'T SAYING THAT You take a line from the OpEx budget for insurance premiums, and that exact same amount moves to the increased Medicare tax. Yes, the amount paid in taxes goes up, but the amount paid by the company for insurance payments would go away. You seem to be saying that a single-payer plan would only be funded by what employees were contributing, and the amount that companies paid doesn't count. BTW, here is where I got my figures for premiums: http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/...-premiums.aspx |
Quote:
46% Oppose Single-Payer Health Care System - Rasmussen Reports™ 38% in favor 46% oppose 16% not sure You would need well over 60% support to override the big business aspect of health care and get close to a single payer across the board. Ain't happenen. |
Quote:
Thank you for that wonderful example of Ad Hominem! I imagine that if you ever have an idea that is at least equal to single payer, you'll find people more receptive. When your ideas are ill-conceived and illogical, I think you'll find that people aren't receptive to them. Also, insults don't work well either. Quote:
#1 = True. #2 = False. This was already addressed above. #3 = True, because they have a vested interest in keeping the current system or they're too ill-informed to know any better. |
Quote:
Yeah, and look at the numbers on gay marriage a few years ago. |
Quote:
Gosh, wouldn't want it to be because we don't believe that's an area where government involvement should be increased. |
Quote:
I cited a respected annual study for my numbers and provided a link. It is you who should get your numbers right. Pull it together Arles. |
Quote:
You mean Medicare's 60 to 70% approval rating? Who's Afraid Of Public Insurance? - NationalJournal.com Americans love single-payer healthcare... except when it's called single-payer, universal, or Obamacare. |
Regarding healthcare.gov, having a not-ready-for-primetime website is one thing, but a bigger issue is how prices are hidden. I still haven't been able to figure out what the marketplace prices are. Is there some complexity I am missing - shouldn't a spreadsheet be posted somewhere that lists all possible prices based on a combination of factors? How many factors go into determining price?
And their online live chat assistance makes Comcast support look awesome:
Spoiler
|
Pretty good article on CNN about the launch:
What else could go wrong with Obamacare? - CNN.com Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
I know I've seen polls where support for ACA is highest among the youngest age group and drops as age goes up. That doesn't necessarily translate into enrollments, but there is reason to believe the young want health insurance.
|
Quote:
Almost 30% of those aged 18-35 are uninsured. (Source) Assuming a general population of 300 million, that's 90 million young people who will likely be going to the Exchange or Medicaid. The risk you raise is a real one, of course, but it is also very easy to overstate. Quote:
You're still making the assumption that the Exchange plans are, on average, worse in terms of cost & benefits to employer-provided coverage. Quote:
As I linked before, the average family of four pays over $9,000/year for their employer-sponsored plan. Which means some are far worse than that. Again, it's a concern, but it's an easily-overstated concern. |
Quote:
Most of the factory workers also make more than 40K, so they wouldn't qualify for a subsidy. Now, I know everyone is going to say "Well, they are only paying $300 a month and the company is paying the remaining $700." That is correct, but we are not giving every worker a 5K raise if we cut benefits. There are tax benefits to our company of covering workers and if those go away or we decide to drop coverage because of financial reasons with exchanges, those employees will be forced to eat that $5700 a year. That's reality and that's what no one is saying. Just like these other "unintended consequences" we are seeing now where it's obvious the "you can keep the plan you had" line was a farce - you will see companies start dropping coverage in 2015 and most employees aren't going to get a $5K raise to makeup the difference. Finally, the plans on the exchange have double the deductible as the lowest deductible you can get on the exchange is a $1K/2K. You couldn't even get the plan subsidized by our employer if you went to an exchange. So, here's what we are going to see over the next 2-3 years: (2010) "Hey, if you like your plan, you can keep it" (2012) "Hey, if you lose your plan, there's a similar one on an exchange" (2014) "Hey if you lose your plan, there's one on an exchange that costs $5-7K more a year with a deductible twice as high as you had" I'm scared at what this will morph into in 2015+. A lot of people making between $40K and $80K are going to take it in the shorts if/when exchanges start replacing employer coverage. |
Quote:
Haven't really followed the debate here closely, but this post seems to have some flaws in reasoning. Why bring up the tax savings benefits for employers while not accounting for them on the employee side? The dire scenario you paint is one where employers drop benefits and don't give raises (thus saving ($8,400-tax savings)/employee) and lament how this will be worse for employees. Of course, in that worst-case scenario. This scenario really avoid the big picture, which is overall costs (who cares how it is split out between employees and employers - capitalism should help shake that out). |
Quote:
Because he's fear-mongering. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
A legit #2.
Leader of Pakistan Taliban killed in US drone strike, US, Pakistani officials say - Investigations Quote:
|
Good hit.
Hakimullah was a legit baddie. |
More discussion on the new 5%.....
Health Care Shoppers Aren’t as Dumb as Obama Thinks - Yahoo Finance |
Quote:
I love that in all the anecdotal examples in that article, they don't mention what the specific coverages are for these new more expensive plans or what the coverage was under the current plan these people have. That comparison would seem to be necessary, especially if you're going to use terms like "with coverage that’s more or less the same as far as he’s concerned". |
All three of those people are trying to replace their individual plans with new individual plans from their current insurer, as opposed to shopping the marketplace for a new plan. So what they're seeing is their current insurer's non-Exchange plan that their current insurer would like to keep them on (as the premiums are higher).
|
I'll probably regret chiming in here - but
you can't compare Medicare and Medicaid costs to employer sponsored premiums. Hospitals and providers lose money on Medicare reimbursements - the costs are artificially low because they are subsidized by employers and insurers. If you tried to apply Medicare reimbursements across the board, 90% of providers would be bankrupt by March. There is huge debt and consolidation across the hospital industry for a reason. |
Quote:
anybody who bought that line, well ... |
Quote:
You realize that it's PRIVATE COMPANIES that are CHOOSING not to offer these plans anymore BASED ON THEIR CAPITALIST MOTIVES right? Or are you saying you want the government in the business of compelling these private companies to lose money by offering these plans that they don't want to offer anymore?? This is the same thing that's been going on for years - the insurance company decides to discontinue a plan - sometimes because it's not profitable, sometimes because they can make more money by getting those customers to switch to a new plan and start a new round of raising rates on it, or for any of a number of other reasons. It's not like this just started happening this year because of ACA. |
Quote:
More market interference from an unconscionable piece of garbage legislation. There's not a pit in hell warm enough for any SOB who voted for it afaic. |
Quote:
I pay 300 a month for a good, not great plan. That is increasing 10% due to Obamacare. Although we now also have a high deductible option @200/month + hsa that I will be switching to. |
Quote:
It feel like we've had this debate here a lot and people have gotten really mad at me for making this point, but I still don't understand why people think government-implemented policy is supposed to just assume that everyone in America will act in policy's best interest at all times. Did nobody know that private companies and capitalism would exist after the ACA? Isn't that something that should have been accounted for when selling the policy to the public? Maybe ACA is still worthwhile even if a few people have to pay a little more, but in general, I think policy should be judged on how well it actually works, not how well it theoretically works if everyone acted in the way we wish they would. I mean, I could come up with some great plans to make inner-cities safer, as long as I can assume that nobody will commit crimes to screw up my great policy. |
Quote:
Medicare is a major problem...For every $1 that a person pays in, it will cost $3 per person in spending. |
Quote:
Well it is an important distinction in the context of Obama's "lie" about being able to keep your plan. And whether you consider it beforehand or not, it is important to draw that distinction so people know why the change is taking place. |
Quote:
And if the Republicans really managed to prevent the debt limit deal, any consequences wouldn't really be their fault, because it would be the credit agencies and the debt holders who would be directly responsible. And it was really the Iraqi insurgents that dragged out the Iraq war, not the U.S. military. If the insurgents didn't shoot at the military and stuff, then the job would have been done a lot faster. This mindset kind of fills me with pessimism, the idea that the ACA will be great, as long as everyone, including its opponents, cooperate with it fully and always act in the policy's best interest. I'm actually going to just decide to assume that the brains behind the ACA don't share that mindset and actually did think it was worthwhile to consider concepts like capitalism and private industry, and possibly even the impact of entities that might not act so friendly to the plan. |
The behavior of the private companies in a capitalistic system should have been at least somewhat predictable. It comes across as more of a complete failure of the President and his advisors in creating the policy to take into account market reaction than anything else. I find it hard to believe that they thought that big bidness would just set aside its attempts to maximize profits to help make this thing work. But I find it even harder to believe that they accounted for it and just wanted to be branded as either incompetent or liars. The whole thing has me just....puzzled.
|
Quote:
Based on the way you put it in quotes, it sounds like you don't really think it's a lie. |
But insurance companies just can't take certain steps arbitrarily. There are numerous investigations going on by state insurance regulatory agencies into the practices of the insurance companies with regards to how they've been handling the switch in the individual plans.
edit: to clarify, even with the PPACA, the burden of monitoring insurance company behavior is a state level function, there is not much federal oversight. |
Quote:
If it helps, the implementation of the policy in 2014 seems to indicate that it may have been as the greater good to be seen as incompetent if they could just get the bill passed. |
Quote:
It however, fits if you assume that passing a bill (winning you re-election points) was the goal, not necessarily making it work. If Obama didn't get ANYTHING passed, he'd come off as weak & unable to get his agenda moved, making him vulnerable for re-election. |
Quote:
Don't get me wrong. I think they did predict it, and I think they (correctly) thought it was a good thing that these substandard plans would get cancelled. My point is that it's important for them to point out the difference between what the ACA is mandating to be done and what the insurance companies are deciding to do as a reaction to the ACA. |
Quote:
:+1: |
Quote:
Why substandard? My plan did what I wanted it to do. There's no evidence BCBS would simply fail to honor it. Nor is there evidence that it will fail to honor it next year under similar circumstances. I was also free to simply pay for the health care I consumed - no insurance at all. Let's not pretend that Obamacare does anything for healthy self-employed people other than force us to pay more - some for services we should have the ability to opt out of, and some so that the same offer can be extended to older and/or sicker people. And complaining about that point seems kind of weird - it's like complaining that it's unfair for McDonald's to charge more for six Big Macs, five large orders of fries and a smoothie than it charges for a side salad and a coffee. Those who are working for companies with more than 50 people and have insurance through these companies are largely insulated from this extra taxation - and let's not pretend, as well, that this isn't a form of taxation. I realize there are a lot of proponents of Obamacare out there. It's hard to turn down something that's essentially free. It's also hard to feel negatively toward something that could benefit the poor when it doesn't impact you at all (those who already have insurance through an employer). But when the entire burden is placed on a smaller group, it's not too pleasant. This was cleverly implemented for those of you who wanted it politically. Very few pieces of the law were brought in at first - so that only people with this "substandard" insurance were affected. Then in late 2013 - after Obama was safely re-elected, the bigger stuff hit. And, finally, after the midterms next year, at the start of 2015, the adjustments will hit and many of the grandfathered plans will be eliminated. I would not want to be a Democrat running in 2016. |
Quote:
Considering that the Supreme Court's argument - who is denying that it isn't taxation? |
Quote:
I see it now: "How were we supposed to know that employers weren't going to give $20 an hour factory workers a $9K per year raise to cover their $700 a month portion. I mean, that's just unfair that these people go from paying $300 a month out of pocket to now facing a $900 a month bill for similar coverage through the exchanges. But, no one could see this coming..." |
Quote:
You are aware then that the company would be missing out on a big tax break. The per-employee fine for not providing insurance is not tax deductible, but any employer contributions to an insurance premium are deductible. Insurance companies don't want to lose clients either, so they will have more of an incentive to work with larger employers to keep them as clients. |
Stop deflecting knee jerk talking points with facts!! :mad:
|
Quote:
You might be right, but these predictions don't carry a lot of weight because if they're wrong, capitalism was to blame, not the ACA. |
Quote:
Obama Officials In 2010: 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare - Forbes Quote:
Companies sweating Obamacare tax—and acting on it: Study Quote:
Employees (esp middle class) are going to be moving from their nice $300-$400 a month out-of-pocket plans they have now to exchanges that will cost around $800-$1200 a month for the same coverage. This is going to be devastating for many middle income families when it happens. |
Sorry, I don't buy it. Most companies started offering health insurance, even though it cost them money to entice better employees. They may bluster about dropping employees to the exchanges, but they realize they'll have a competitive disadvantage to hiring workers.
And Employer Sponsored Plans have been losing their grandfathered status for 2 years now. This isn't something that just happened. |
Quote:
However, esp on the lower skilled jobs, it would be very attractive to pull coverage as it would save companies a ton of money and if enough companies did this they would still have access to a strong labor pull. I think higher paid jobs will keep coverage for a bit, but even those could eventually lose it. Remember, it's not just the cost - it's the cost of insuring with a plan that the ACA deems sufficient. I don't think people really understand the "unforseen consequences" that could be down the road because of this. |
Quote:
One more key point often missed is that this is exactly what the ACA proponents want. The only way for this system to survive over time is if enough healthy people between the ages of 25 and 45 join up in these exchanges to defray the cost. If it's just people with pre-existing conditions, high risk applicants and lower income - the costs will be enormous. If the ACA proponents were honest, they would say that they hope all employee-provided coverage would go away to help lower the cost on the exchanges. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see legislation down the road to reduce the tax benefits companies get for covering employees. |
Quote:
And on the other hand, you are making up unforseen consequences. |
I guess we will see what happens going up to 2015. We have a few years before anything substantial happens either way.
|
Uh, the elimination of the pre-existing condition problem, and the ability to cover your kids up to age 26 were pretty substantial for a lot of people.
|
Typical result in last night's election for a marginally Blue state. With a Democratic legislature and governor, the Dems crafted a very bad bill to fund education within an increase in income taxes. It wasn't so much how they proposed funding but the details of the bill were scary. Fortunately, the voters of the state overwhelmingly voted against it. In very blue Denver and Bounder counties, it was nearly split 50/50 (and trounced everywhere else). So most people saw through the Dems' charade of "it's for the kids". The Republicans are rightly seen as obstructionist do-nothings but it is much better to do nothing than to put a bad legislation into law.
|
What was bad about the bill Bucc?
//genuinely curious - don't follow local ballot initiatives that closely |
This is what I found:
Colorado bill vows education overhaul, but will voters raise taxes to fund it? - CSMonitor.com Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It does seem to be complex, but I don't see anything in it that is really all that objectionable. |
Quote:
How about you you do that FIRST, and see where the current tax dollars are going, before you try and get more out of people? |
Funding equity to charter schools sounds objectionable to me. Especially in a state like CO - I can see wacky cultish charter schools and shit popping up. Or Pentacostalist or stuff.
|
Pentecostalism is a perfectly legitimate church, FWIW.
Also, charter schools are created by the state - no religious charter schools could exist, IIRC. |
Quote:
Isn't it pentecostalism where they do the whole "speaking in tongues" rapture thing? If so, I stand by my characterization. There have definitely been problems in other states with charter schools veering towards religious education - not sure if CO law protects better on that. Above and beyond that though - charter schools are sketchy to me. I think there are good ones with altruistic motives, and then there others which are ways for the heads to line their own pockets. I don't think they should be funded by my tax dollars unless they're held to the same accountability standards (education & transparency wise) as public schools (which I think should be held to a higher standard than they are in this regard too by the way). |
Quote:
Which millions and millions of adherents in the US and around the globe. Your ignorance is showing. Quote:
There is a reason why Democratic mayors like Cory Booker have been such avid supporters of charter schools. Its because they have revitalized education in inner cities when the public schools had been failing for so long. |
Quote:
I'm not ignorant. Far from it. Just because there are millions of adherents doesn't mean it's not on the fringe. You know there's millions of Moonies too right? Doesn't make them less weird. I know you've become pretty religious since your conversion, but it's okay to admit that there are "fringier" groups under your religious umbrella. Quote:
I'm not saying I'm against all charter schools. I said there are good ones and there are bad ones, but the lack of accountability and some of the higher-profile cases of charter schools skimping on educational funds while administrators line their own pockets worries me, and I want there to be more stringent oversight and accountability for my tax dollars (in both public and charter schools I said). OMG...I'm a Democrat arguing for more stringent oversight - yes I am. |
Quote:
270+ million worldwide. One of the fastest growing denominations in the world. 13 million in the US - second largest Protestant denomination in the country after Baptists. Like I said, it is speaking from ignorance if you consider a denomination that is so large and influential to be a "fringe" faith. FTR, I don't consider speaking in tongues to be strange and I engage in the practice myself. It not exactly a surprising thing down in these red states (or even religious folk in your blue state). |
Quote:
I consider it strange. I didn't realize you were a Pentacostalist though and it would hit so close to home for you. I'm sorry if I offended you. Obviously we feel differently about it, let's just leave it at that and save the "religion talk" for one of the periodic "religion" threads that pops up. |
Quote:
Come up with a plan and explain why you need the money. Heck, come up with the plan, pass it and then try to get incremental funding as you work through the steps in it. A lot of the initial reforms most states need don't cost a dime. |
Quote:
WTF?! The main problem it seems with the bill is that the PLAN is complex. |
Quote:
I consider myself Charismatic. However, it isn't due to my status that I was taken aback, it was the suggestion that something is a fringe belief when it is so prevalent. One of the things that tends to bother me is that sometimes atheists or mainline Protestants (of which I am one) don't seem to realize that some of the stuff they call 'fringe' has more adherents or people believing it than some of the stuff they consider mainstream. |
Quote:
Maybe after you see how money is spent, the solution might not be to just bump up the spending - it could be to completely change the spending paradigm altogether. It's like a business going to a bank and saying "Well, I'm not sure what product I will make, how I will make it or how much I will sell it for. But can I have a low interest loan for $1 million to see if I can do it?" I don't fault the Colorado voters at all for voting that down. It's the job of the bill to convince people as to why they need $1 billion - not to just demand and say we are all anti-education if we don't agree. |
Quote:
Care to back this spending claim up? I can't find any references to private schools spending half the per-student amount of public schools. Here's some figures I saw (this report seems to be widely referenced): http://www.greatlakescenter.org/docs...PvtFinance.pdf Quote:
|
Quote:
This is a discussion for another thread, so I'll not address it here. |
Arles: I'm sorry, you said:
Quote:
There is a Plan. Now you are shifting goalposts and saying it isn't a "good plan". I'm not sure you know what the exact plan is. From the CS Monitor article: Quote:
That seems like a good outline of a plan to me. I'm sure the pages and pages of the bill go into more detail about it. |
Quote:
I think by half he meant "nearly double." It's Arles-math again. |
Quote:
Its also worth looking above just raw 'spending' and looking at the quality of education provided etc. - I know some 'private' schools in Florida which don't have many particularly qualified teachers at all and I'm sure their spending is 'cheap' in comparison to the public schools ... but I wouldn't send my kids there. (as with Healthcare I think education is something its vital to invest money into for the good of society as a whole, it shouldn't be driven by a 'profit motive' in my opinion - not least because the entire concept of 'money' and 'profit' is a human created illusion .... yeah I know I'm a socialist hippy ;) ) |
Quote:
Quote:
The Real Cost Of Public Schools - Washington Post Here's another well-written breakdown of the real costs: Quote:
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.or.../pdf/pa662.pdf There was an actual study done here in Phoenix on this. They looked at three different districts (city, high and low income) and compared the actual costs for both public and private with the stated costs. Here's what they found: Paradise Valley (City district): Actual Public - $12,312; Stated Public - $9,883; Actual Private - $6,770 Cave Creek (high income): Actual Public - $13,929; Stated Public - $9,024; Actual Private - $6,770 Deer Valley (City district): Actual Public - $9,365; Stated Public - $8,323; Actual Private - $6,770 So, on average, the cost to educate a child in the public school is about double what it costs for a private school. Also, Charter schools tend to be much better than public schools - I want to make that distinction clear as well. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:19 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.