If Obama Does Not Get Office Again?

[djs]

I don't think it was their idea, but it was their demand. You want GI, we want everyone to pay for coverage. We'll give a bit on GI, you make everyone pay us.

I don't know who claims credit for the mandate idea. The democrats blame the republicans from when Clinton proposed nationalized health insurance, but it was discussed long before that.

Dan

 

[AndreaSti]

I don't think it was their idea, but it was their demand. You want GI, we want everyone to pay for coverage. We'll give a bit on GI, you make everyone pay us.

I don't know who claims credit for the mandate idea. The democrats blame the republicans from when Clinton proposed nationalized health insurance, but it was discussed long before that.

Doesn't matter does it? GI and mandates have to go together. It is part of Insurance 101, like the Law of Large Numbers, Affordable Premiums, and Future Risk. Once those principles get screwed with, it is no longer insurance. Becomes either 1) a discount plan, or 2) an entitlement that has to be paid for with something other than premiums (like someone's taxes).

It's amazing to me how many idiots (not any of us, general public idiots and govt idiots) don't get this.

 

[ijerome]

The system was broke before Obama, and it is more broke now and will continue until the there is real reform. Since no carriers, organizations, memberships etc. carried the banner for the agent/broker we have been put out to pasture. Try living on your renewals. Obama will certainly win over Trump/Palin or any other pair, and hopefully there will be a chance to recontruct something workable and much less costly. Remember the changes that have gone into effect.

And look at the reception that the Ryan plan is receiving. The lesson is: do not mess with the plan I have unless you improve it. And do not come to me for help when you cut benefits. What to do: Raise taxes, end the wars, cut the new weapons programs, cut the fraud and waste in medicare & governemnt, tax hedge funds that do not invest in new busineses but just gamble on the markets, end the costly war on drugs, legalize pot, etc. etc. Probably Obama/Hilary could do this and more.

 

[Kari]

Sure Kari: I must be a racist, thanks for race baiting me. Are you telling us something?

I didn't call you a racist. You called yourself a racist, though. All I did was call attention to the fact that you're suggesting that Obama should put undue weight on black issues because he is a black President.


You're race-baiting yourself.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This has been a problem forever (although Irish, Italians, Jews, etc. seem to have overcome this).

Maybe the easiest way is to "dumb down" all education so that the non-minorities and non-poor can fairly compete with minorities.

Government programs have not helped poverty or educational opportunities to the "downtrodden." Perhaps if we simply increased taxes and gave the money to others (as to their need) things would be better.

Socialism (and social programs) are not the answer because there is not one example of these programs work. (However, my $159 ticket for not wearing a seatbelt is going to help society).

Rick

We need to eliminate school choice, institute merit pay rules and distribute school taxes in such a way that it does not benefit the richer districts.

The "white flight" caused by forced integration has caused a large amount of the problems.

 

[djs]

Just curious, why eliminate school choice?
Also, the 'richer' districts would say to not so overly benefit the poorer districts. Seems there isn't a good sense of what really happens here, on either side.

I personally got very involved in school finances for a while. I realized that the whole thing is truly setup to hide who gets what, with different funding for various things so all schools can claim poverty when needed.

Dan

 

[somarco]

until the there is real reform

No one has a workable plan. What do you propose?

look at the reception that the Ryan plan is receiving.

It is doing well actually, especially among seniors.

 

[Kari]

Just curious, why eliminate school choice?
Also, the 'richer' districts would say to not so overly benefit the poorer districts. Seems there isn't a good sense of what really happens here, on either side.

I personally got very involved in school finances for a while. I realized that the whole thing is truly setup to hide who gets what, with different funding for various things so all schools can claim poverty when needed.

Dan

This is kind of getting off-topic, but meh. I'll respond.

School choice wouldn't be as much of a problem if we didn't link funding to standardized test scores. But we do.

Most individual students will do about as well in any school they can attend as they would in any other, given equal funding per-pupil. The students from families of larger economic means do better than students of smaller economic means, but they will still perform about the same regardless of what school they go to.

If we allow school choice, it just encourages those of higher economic means to move their children to perceived "better " schools, thereby decreasing the test score averages of the "worse" schools. The effect is that the "worse" school belief becomes self-fulfilling, because the "worse" school subsequently receives less per-pupil funding.

I seem to recall a fairly good essay on this topic in Freakanomics.

As for richer districts protesting having their taxes redistributed to support students in poorer districts, I'm sure they would protest. I honestly don't care that much as the outcome is pareto-superior and benefits them in the long run anyway.

It is doing well actually, especially among seniors.

And health care reform polls very well among people that actually know what the laws include. So if you're going to say "Well, the Ryan plan polls OK among seniors that know what it entails", make sure to acknowledge that the informed sectors of the general population also like HCR.

Otherwise, pot--kettle, black.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

This is kind of getting off-topic, but meh. I'll respond.

If we allow school choice, it just encourages those of higher economic means to move their children to perceived "better " schools, thereby decreasing the test score averages of the "worse" schools. The effect is that the "worse" school belief becomes self-fulfilling, because the "worse" school subsequently receives less per-pupil funding.

.

Not a more true post on this board and guilty as charged. And I don't care because it's about my son's education.

We lived in an "ok" community when my son was born. The specific community was nice, however, the school district was horrible. Literally the worst scores in our county. And violent.

Right before our son went into school we moved....to literally the best school district in the county. We were definitely willing to pay a lot more ($1,400 to $2,400/mo) to make sure our son had a great education and didn't have to worry about violence at school.

 

[somarco]

Kari, for what it's worth, Obamacrap was not the law that was proposed nor is it being administered the way it is written. The folks in DC, especially HHS, just make things up as they go along.

Campaign promises are just that and have no bearing on what actually happens when elected.

With Obamacrap, Pelosi was right. They had to pass the bill to learn what was in it and even now they have no clue what they have done, or how much reform will cost.

 

[djs]

We could have a good debate about school choice and school funding. There are definitely some good and bad.

But, that is probably a topic for a different board....., or else, everyone would get bored.

Dan