USA Politics

I think in the US the problem goes beyond be knowledgeable or practical knowledge (though that is a very valid point) it also creeps into seniority and the massive push back to implement a system where teachers are paid/retained/let go based on merit. Short of a felony or some sex scandal it is almost impossible to remove ineffective teachers and administrators.

Over my entire educational career (from Kindergarten to some limited post grad work), I have has some outstanding teachers. I had a science teacher in 7th grade that I remember some of his lessons 30+ years later and some University professors who to this day I credit with helping me with life in general, beyond anything academic. I have also had my share of bad ones that have no business being employed in the field. I suspect it is like any field where you have 20% outstanding, 20% poor and the other 60% as varying degrees of "acceptable". For something so important rooting out the bottom 20% should be a goal as well as paying the top 20% more and finding more like them.
 
mckindog said:
Wait until you get into the age when your body starts breaking down, or you are forced to take care of your aging parents.
How about when your wife gets cancer or your kid gets a brain injury?
The smartest doctors in the world aren't going to matter if you can't afford them or they don't have the proper equipment or drugs to treat you with.
I have found one of the problems tied with the education world (here anyway) - and this feeds into some of Bearfan's points - is that it believes it should be rewarded simply for being knowledgeable, rather than for the practical application of that knowledge. For example, it rewards teachers on how much they know, not on how well they teach.
Public education is hugely important, but it should for the betterment of society, not self-improvement projects for the academic elite.
And the same philosophy should hold true for pretty well anything that is publicly funded.
That's why in my book health care is clearly number one.
Click to expand...


Perun's answer is still valid. Without properly educated health providers you won't receive proper care. You need lots of money to be drug dependent, but only a decent amount to have proper health and exercise. By drugs I don't mean Xanax, Percocet or Ativan, though those too. It is insane how many people call us at the pharmacy for cholesterol medication, high blood pressure, sugar level medication like Metformin and Glyburide, etc. What is known as "maintenance" medications. Maintenance? Really? how about if you knew how to eat properly you wouldn't have half those problems. Yes I know SOME of them are genetic, degenerative, progressive and what not, but trust me, eating broccoli and carrots once in a while is not impossible, just poor choices by people who are misimformed by ads and doctors who themselves are misinformed by their curriculums in med schools which are funded by drug companies... how convinient.

Say what you will about China politically, but if a person gets sick they can sue their doctor for not doing their job, they practice *gasp* preventative care. They go to the doctor so you DON'T get sick to begin with, while here in the U.S we go once we've gotten sick.

I hate to disagree with Maiden on this one, but Education is the Key :p
 
bearfan said:
I thought I did, clearly government needs to run schools, but (at least in the political arena), the debate always comes down to "if you spend more money you care more" Government (in the case of the US, state government) needs to handle this. We should expect them to do better and be good stewards of the money they take from citizens. Right now, we spend a ton of money for some fairly poor results, throwing more money into the same system that has become bogged down with union rules, federal mandates, and various social experimnets really does us no good.
Click to expand...

You want the government to do better. How then? And how do you want them to do that without trying new things? Apparently people want change, but I reckon that the community should have a say in that as well. Bring on ideas (analyze what's going wrong; consult experts), don't sit back and let the government find it out for themselves; won't work and it will be more difficult to accept their measurements. Money is needed to improve things. Naturally people need to behave or work differently, but in order to do research and organize things money is needed.

Wasted, you say I presented this as a black and white thing but when I say "Does one also care about other people, or does one only care about one's own wallet", then I mean that you yourself are also included in "others", since others also pay tax for your sake. I mean, that would be logical, wouldn't it?

And I wasn't talking about charity. I meant tax. If everybody would pay their fair share of tax, you'd see improvement. Buffett is advocating this. The rich need to pay more. It should be more fair.

Now I wonder on which point any of you disagrees with Obama here
(from 17.00- )

 
(sorry, this was in response to Mckindog, I didn't look farther yet)

I get what you are saying, really I do, however, I still feel that health care should be in private hands. I do wish there was a more 'capitalist' version of the whole system, where price fixing and unclear pricing structures weren't so abundant.

But, that's my personal feeling. I know others that know more than I have a far different opinion.
 
Onhell said:
Say what you will about China politically, but if a person gets sick they can sue their doctor for not doing their job, they practice *gasp* preventative care. They go to the doctor so you DON'T get sick to begin with, while here in the U.S we go once we've gotten sick.
Click to expand...

Not sure how sick you mean with sick here but going to a doctor when nothing is the matter, now that costs a lot of time and money.

In Poland health care is imo over the top. It's free and when people have something minor, they can get an ambulance (in my country, an ambulance only comes when something really serious has happened and you can pay lots of money for it). Also, doctors in Poland do not earn the good money as their collegues in western countries. In my country doctors earn well and patience pay more.

Also in Poland people use lots of medicins and antibiotics. Too much imo, because the eventual resistance gets worse. People depend more on medicins in Poland than in my country, while I think it's better to work on your own health and don't run to the drugstore immediately when you have a cold.
 
Forostar said:
Not sure how sick you mean with sick here but going to a doctor when nothing is the matter, now that costs a lot of time and money.
Click to expand...

I wonder if you'd say the same thing if it turns out you've had an undetected tumor in your bowel for several years that could have been removed without much effort had you gone to routine checkups. People die from this sort of thing.
 
With education, the majority of funding comes from state and local governments. That has always been true in the US.

This is a pretty handy site to see what the US spends on various items and at what levels of government.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com

Focusing mainly on K-12, what would I change (I am assuming this is a "king for a day" scenario
1) Eliminate the Dept of Education as a cabinet level position. I think it has value as an infomation clearing house, providing help with international information and student exchanges, provide online resources into federal government and historical documents for open use (ie digitize university collections or provide funds to have Universities accomplish this).

2) Eliminate the public unions from the hiring/firing process beyond being a representative at arbitration hearings.

3) De-politize education. Obviously a tough one, but as two examples ..w e do not need to be teaching "Intelligent Design" in science classes and we do not need half of World War II to be spent on the Tuskeegee airmen (because it happens to be taught in February -- Black History Month) ... I think the Tuskeegee Airmen should be taught, but there is no way anyone can say that that should be a full half of the time spent on what was the most siginificant period in 20th Century history. There is a giant shit storm every time large states try to order new text books about what should be in them and what should not (these text books end up being used by smaller states). So you end you with a history book written by the Texas education dept, one by the CA education department and everyone else picks. Neither is right, both has blatant factual errors, and out of whack priorities.

4) Have a set of standards and expect them to be followed. Teachers/Unions complain they are forced to teach to tests, but how else do you really measure what students have learned if not for tests and papers. Design tests that determine if students have learned what they should over the course of the year. This should be large part of teachers pay and determine if they keep their jobs (see #2)

5) Recognize some students are not in school to learn, not every kid can be saved, some kids are just bad kids (perhaps bad parents, perhaps something in born), in any case for schools where gangs and bullies run rampant, those "bad" students should undergo the following a) separation from kids who actually want to learn b) realize they are probably not going to college and put them in trade schools to learn some skills where they have a change to at least have a job skill c) at the same time invite members of the community into the schools to try to mentor them.

6) Do not allow parents to treat schools as baby sitting services, expect them to help their kids do homework and allow schools top reasonably discipline out of control kids without fear of lawsuits. Parents and teachers should meet monthly (obviously cannot enforce this, but it should be a goal). There is the cartoon (cannot find it) where in 1980 a parent is yelling at their kid for getting an F then the next panel, the parent (in 2005) is yelling at the teacher because their kid got an F. Schools should not be afraid to hold kids back if need be.

7) Allow/encourage some self directed (possibly online learning). Let kids pick topics of interest (even if it is hockey or Star Wars) and write papers/reasearch it. Grade not so much on content, but on reasearch and analytical skills.

8) Beyond "bad" kids, some just are not college material and have interests in mechanical, construction, etc fields. At the latter HS grades, establish trade programs and end the "no going to college shame"

9) More at the college level, but some HS as well. Expand the "non for majors" programs. Teach science and math for people that will not be science or math majors, but geared towards practical uses (like Health Science and diet, math on computers, etc). Things people will use in every day life. The same with history, it is nice to have a basic chain of events in World/US history, but having a student to be able to reasonably compare events or string together some logical courses of events is more useful.

10) Bring back a version of Home Economics, Economics, and Civics as required classes in HS. Students should understand how the government works (in design and practice), at least some basics of supply and demand and basic economic theories, and some practical infomation on things like 401Ks, medical insurance, writing resumes, going on interviews, balancing a checkbook, buying a home versus renting, how doing stupid stuff on Facebook/Social media can come back to haunt you, etc. I am shocked this is not mandatory everywhere. School needs to have some basis in the real world.

11) If schools keep failing, give vouchers and let kids move to private or public schools that are not failing. It does not do a Freshman any good if a school is on a 5 year plan to fix itself

That is 11 I can think of quickly, I guess someone can feel free to explain why the current system is good and why we should spend more money on it.
 
Perun said:
I wonder if you'd say the same thing if it turns out you've had an undetected tumor in your bowel for several years that could have been removed without much effort had you gone to routine checkups. People die from this sort of thing.
Click to expand...


Most medical plans allow for an annual physical (some even pay you to go, mine gives me a 3% discount on my annual insurance if I do a physical every year). I think the point was made is using an ambulance when you can drive or if you have a headache, try an aspirin first, then go to the doctor.
 
Forostar said:
And I wasn't talking about charity. I meant tax. If everybody would pay their fair share of tax, you'd see improvement. Buffett is advocating this. The rich need to pay more. It should be more fair. Now I wonder on which point any of you disagrees with Obama here
Click to expand...

When politicians speak of raising taxes, I am always reminded of this cogent point, which was raised yet again recently by Atlantic Monthly and ESPN commentator Gregg Easterbrook:
{I have} noted before that if Obama believes, as he said in last week's State of the Union address, that the wealthy including "people like me" should pay higher taxes, nothing stops him from taxing himself, by the simple expedient of not claiming deductions. (Claiming deductions is an option, not a requirement.) Or Obama could tax himself by donating more to charity. Obama earned $1.7 million in 2010, and his living costs were covered by U.S. taxpayers. Yet he gave away only $245,000. The exemplar of hypocrisy is the public figure who hectors others about how they should be more generous, then doesn't give himself.
Click to expand...

In truly non partisan fashion, he also rips Romney in the same article, as Romney earned $22M yet paid "only" $3M in charity. (Though I think giving away $3M is still pretty generous.)

What's wrong with a flat X% tax on every person (including corporations) and no deductions? Yes, the very rich would pay the same rate as the very poor, but they still would pay a lot more in absolute dollars. And, a flat tax may turn out to be more equitable than the current system -- recently, it's been reported that Warren Buffett pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary, due to deductions. That's a problem. Plus, taxes would be a lot easier and we wouldn't have to pay accountants and bureaucrats to double-check and audit people who truly attempt to lawfully pay their taxes (though we'd still need the IRS to chase the true tax cheats and regulate what "income" is -- not always a straightforward proposition).
 
That is really why I prefer a consumption tax (with no tax on the necessities of life and no more "sin taxes"). Beyond allowing people to essentially select their tax exposure based on spending, it would capture taxes from everyone (people paid under the table, criminals, money laundering, you name it). Obviously there would need to be enforcement that stores collect the tax, but that is pretty much already in place now in most states.
 
I'm with Bearfan on the sense in a consumptive tax.
Bu in my province the voters disagreed.
The government brought one in only to have it pushed out again when the voters used some awkward legislation to force a referendum.
Despite the fact the switch was going to eliminate layers of bureaucracy and effectively lower the tax burden slightly on the average individual, people were up in arms because it increased everyday tax on things like restaurant bills and haircuts. Everyman was outraged because it replaced hidden taxes with something that could be easily seen.
 
@ Onhell,
Your answer presupposes a health care system that relies on drug addiction and ignores preventative health measures
(conditions ironically fostered by a for-profit health system :p).
To be clear, I buy into the idea that education is a salve to a broken health care system. Health promotion is a wonderful concept and I subscribe to the idea that better education for health providers and the general public will result in a healthier public.
But for the purposes of my point, I would look at that as an investment into health care.
I was referring to investment into public education outside the realm of health, and there is a whole spectrum.
Everything in that spectrum has value, but in my view little of it approaches the value of easy access to proper health care.
That's something that everyone benefits from and public resources should be allocated in a manner that reflects that.
 
mckindog said:
@ Onhell,
Your answer presupposes a health care system that relies on drug addiction and ignores preventative health measures
(conditions ironically fostered by a for-profit health system :p).
Click to expand...

I don't presuppose it, that IS the health care system in the U.S, for better or worse.
 
Yeah, Rick missed the mark on this one. Do not care for him very much ... I'd take him over Obama, but it would certainly be a lesser of two evils kind of vote.
 
Ok, saw the video aaaand, I'm not happy. To disprove Santorum she brought on a token "Dutch Person," she asked if x or y was true and he just said, "No," but he didn't say WHY. He said Santorum was "distorting" Holland's euthanasia policies, but didn't state what they actually were. Way to inform the public.
 
Yeah, I thought the video was pandering.
Doesn't change the fact that there were gross distortions in what Santorum said.
Fearmongering or ignorance, neither is preferable to good intent because good intent will eventually get it right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top