Universal health care is something that will face this nation probably sooner rather than later. I am not a supporter of universal health care, and strongly believe that health care is a privilege, and not a right.
Lawmakers in Connecticut are proposing an additional 3% tax to physician’s revenue in order to fund universal health care. Needless to say, these doctors aren’t happy.
“I am willing to stay … but this bill and unrelenting overhead costs are putting me out of business. My electrical rates have doubled, my liability insurance has tripled … even after 23 years in practice, I struggle every week to make my employees’ payroll.”
This is a sad fact that is plaguing more and more practices today as costs continue to increase and insurance reimbursements continue to fall. Dr. Gourlie goes on to say:
“Taxing doctors to fund health care for the underserved is not the solution, and it will result in less care for everybody.”
I completely agree with the above statement. Why should physicians, who are already suffering from decreased insurance payouts and higher overhead, be forced to fund something that shouldn’t happen in the first place?
Proponents state that the tax will generate $600 million for the state and be offset by $300 million in federal reimbursement. The plan also calls to increase Medicaid reimbursement by up to 30%.
But, for physicians whose Medicaid reimbursements are a small fraction of their total revenues, this offset might not equilibrate earnings. Furthermore, the increased Medicaid reimbursement doesn’t cover overhead expenses such as storage or breakage for drugs.
It makes me angry when my hard-earned money (some of which I use to pay for my own health care through insurance) goes towards paying for people who are too lazy or don’t have enough drive to either get health insurance, make enough money to pay cash for health care, or find a job that offers a decent health package.
I pay for my health insurance, just like I pay for my car. We’re not giving out cars to those who can’t afford them, and we shouldn’t be giving out health care to those people either. It taxes the system as a whole, and those people who can afford health care are ultimately left with fewer resources at their disposal. In the end, it is the people like Dr. Gourlie who work hard for what they have, being faced with funding the whole shebang.
For all of those people who want universal health care, how do you expect to fund it? Would an additional 3% tax to your gross earnings be something you’d be excited about? Think about that before talking about the benefits of universal coverage. The money has got to come from somewhere.
“Think about that before talking about the benefits of universal coverage. The money has got to come from somewhere.”
Man, I hate it when I have to argue this exact point to kids in my class everyday b/c they are too naive to figure it out themselves. You’d figure med students would want to protect their future earnings as much as possible, but it always amazes me that 75% of them want a single payer system. The trends in CA, CT, and elsewhere show that the gpoliticians just see doctors as ATMs for their pet projects and I just cannot believe that future doctors arew illing to go along with it. It makes me want to pull my hair out.
In a UTOPIA, there should be universal healthcare. When you live in a system where there is cost involved (significant cost), it just doesn’t work. The system breaks down.
And making physicians partially foot the bill vis-a-vis another tax? That’s insane. Tax all the lawyers who love suing doctors.
The Buff – It is funny that medical students don’t think more of what they’re doing to their own future earning potential. Just like you said, you’d think they would know better.
Exactly Cherokee. That’s like taxing teachers to foot the bill for under served students, taxing the ambulance driver for the increased costs associated with universal emergency response, and taxing the policeman so that everybody can have the same level of public safety. It just doesn’t work.
I agree with you in that its foolish to fund a more egalitarian health care system by further taxing the small sect of society who provide the health care.
It would be a better idea to shift a tiny fraction of the Gross Domestic Product which mostly goes to the Pentagon towards creating such a system. If this sounds absurd think about this:
1. Americans are already paying de-facto for health care for those without insurance. When an uninsured individual comes into the ER the hospital is required to provide the care and the costs of this large number of individuals falls upon the hospital which mind you is shifted towards increasing costs for other insured patients and decreasing pay to hospital employees.
2. THE UNITED STATES HAS A DEFACTO PUBLIC HEALTH CARE SYSTEM were just too scared to admit it because (::say this in a whisper because its a dirty phrase:: ) we dont like thinking that we have anything “socialized” i.e. socialized medicine. Think about how much money goes to fund
a. A public safety net system of charity hospitals, medical offices, and other health care facilities.. Which includes the tax write offs and subsidies provided nationwide.
b. Employer provided insurance: The government gives HUGE tax breaks to corporations on the condition that these companies provide health insurance. Thats hundreds of millions if not several billion $$ in taxes that could have been collected but were not because the government tries to coercively provide insurance.
C. How much money does the government spend on Medicare?(I wonder how costs are going to skyrocket!) Medicaid? Childrens insurance programs which continue to expand?
Thus we have all these programs which in essence are fragmented attempts at providing health insurance to the people of this nation, we spend exorbitant sums of money, and still dont get the desired outcome, which is the provision of adequate health care.
YAN SAID: “It would be a better idea to shift a tiny fraction of the Gross Domestic Product which mostly goes to the Pentagon towards creating such a system.”
Hey Yan, get your facts straight. The US spends 4.6% of its GDP on the military. That leaves 95.6% to blow on other programs…
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
Bob said:Hey Yan, get your facts straight. The US spends 4.6% of its GDP on the military. That leaves 95.6% to blow on other programs…
Look at the very large percentage of the budget that military spending occupies during both war time and peace time, then come back to me with a relavent argument about the comparisons between government spending the military versus healthcare.
And I would enjoy debating the other crucial points of my arguement as well lest we become myopic and only focus on 1 point.
Yan, very interesting and well though-out comment. You bring up some good points.
Absolutely, and this is one of the things that I’m displeased with. I don’t like paying for others, but there’s nothing I can do about it.
I’m all for moving to GDP based on your argument. But, I don’t feel that health care should be provided to all members of society equally to begin with.
My opinion is that medical care is something you earn, something you pay for. Providing the same level of care regardless of someone’s ability to pay, while ethically sound, doesn’t make sense financial sense in the long run.
But, you do make some interesting suggestions on how to fund universal health care. Like I said, I believe that it’s going to happen sooner or later anyway. I would rather it happen in some form of pulling funds from the GDP versus taxing physicians or the general public to pay for it.
YAN: “Look at the very large percentage of the budget that military spending occupies during both war time and peace time, then come back to me with a relavent argument about the comparisons between government spending the military versus healthcare.”
Of course costs go up during wartime – but here is the key – even during the Clinton years of relative peace, we still could not afford to provide everyone free health care. Regardless, the claim that the US spends “most” of its GDP on the Pentagon is completely false. We do not.
YAN “And I would enjoy debating the other crucial points of my arguement as well lest we become myopic and only focus on 1 point.”
Sorry about that, Yan. I don’t want to hijack Hoover’s boards. Also, I am well aware that I cannot change your mind when we have such different values, which are the premises of our opinions and arguments. But I did want to highlight the factual error that you presented and I commented on because a little research will show that it is incorrect. The rest of what you say would take much more than a little research to “correct” (i.e. to convert you to the darkside of individualism and the rejection of need-based “rights”).
By all means, debate it out. That’s what the comments are for. =) I love reading the different viewpoints on this topic.
You’re surprised that 75% of med students want socialized health care? You’d probably be less surprised if you considered that many are right out of college, and are just now discovering that health care actually costs money, since, well, their parents have been taking care of it up until now. Just wait until they have kids and start demanding free childcare.
I. Thank you for the opportunity to engage in this debate. I enjoy contemplating other viewpoints because I am not firmly set in my own and love to hear what people other than the multiple voices in my head have to say.
II. I would like to hear more on Hoovers reasoning as to why health care is supposed to be “earned”.
In my mind the government provides many programs that theoretically could be “earned” such as: Education. Millions are spent each day to maintain the public school system in the United States.
Thus one could question why the government provides education to all (in fact requires it by law) and why it does not provide health care to all.
What is the logical difference between the government funding one and not the other? Education is shown to be related to increased lifespan and increased income. Access to health care is associated with longer life span and gives people the ability to earn income while in good health. So why hoover…. Why….one and not the other ?
btw: it is not in my personal capital interest/debt load to work in a universal health system which pays me a lower salary, however, I cannot morally defend a system such as the one in the USA.
The US lags behind many Western nations(read: nationalized health systems) in terms of several health indicators such as life expectancy and infant mortality rates. In fact the outcomes we get considering we outspend virtually every other nation per capita are pretty terrible. Our spending efficiency is akin to a nation trying to cook a 3 egg omelet while dropping 2 of the 3 eggs on the floor.
Good points Yan, and you do bring up an interesting thought on why education should be given out freely and not health care.
First, there are two kinds of education: Public education and private education. I don’t want to debate that one form is better than another, but they are not equal. You can see this just by looking at differences in costs.
If you look at it this way, there isn’t equality in education. Parents who earn a lot of money can afford to send their kids to private schools. My parent’s couldn’t do this for me. But, everyone has equal access to public education. Public education is supported through taxes and the lottery in a lot of states. Just like we pay taxes to have public safety, or safe roads to drive on, we pay taxes to support public education.
Currently, health care is not supported through taxation. When a non-paying patient presents to the emergency department, that emergency department is required by law to treat any life-threatening illnesses. Where does this money come from? As you stated earlier, it comes from increased costs in health care and/or increased insurance premiums.
Hospitals take a huge loss every year due to nonpayment. This is factored in, and in order to make up for that loss, the hospitals have to charge more for services rendered to those people who are going to pay.
Could this be viewed as some form of pseudo-tax? Probably so. But, I don’t feel that it’s right when skid-row alcoholics who made poor life-changing choices at some point during their lives, naturally increase the costs to those people who work hard to be able to pay for medical care.
In the current system, what you have is the health care of those who can’t or aren’t willing to pay for coverage being supported by those people who are willing to pay. That’s not right in my opinion.
What is the solution? Just like with public education, if equal access to health care is the desired end point, perhaps consider a lottery-funded system. Thus, people have a choice whether they want to contribute to the funding or not by choosing to play the lottery. I think the lottery was a very good thing for public education in states that have adopted it.
In the end, I don’t feel that it’s fair to force people to contribute. Forcing those people who work hard and have the resources to make up for the losses incurred by those who aren’t driven enough to find proper health coverage isn’t the solution.
Another point that just popped into my mind is kids. Kids can’t help it if their parents are deadbeats. They can’t help it if they need medical care and their parents can’t afford to pay. I would NOT be against some form of tax or equal access to health care to support these patients. I think education falls into this category as well. I’m all for helping kids get equal access to education.
It’s the equal access to health care for the deadbeats of society that I don’t agree with.
Yes, I realize my opinions are situational and I should have probably made that clear in my post. That’s just how I feel, though. There is no easy solution.
OldMDGirl – Yes, medical students have all too often been given everything handed to them on a silver platter. Free childcare is where I draw the line with my kids statement above, though. Parents should work and be able to provide this for their kids. I don’t think this should be handed out. This brings to mind the movie ‘The Pursuit of Happyness.’ Chris Gardner didn’t have much, but he worked his ass off to provide the basic necessities for his son. It’s a great movie and true story if you haven’t seen it. Chris Gardner was homeless at one point during his life. He wasn’t a deadbeat, though, by any stretch of the imagination. He saw a goal and went for it, providing the basics for his family every step of the way. Not once did he ever ask for handouts. He was too proud, and I have the utmost respect for that guy even if he didn’t go on to make millions.
The government doesn’t do much very well…education, healthcare, whatever. I guess I’m a traditionalist. The government needs to defend and protect us, and past that I don’t know what the government has a mandate to do for us.
Well, at least in the beginning. Now it’s too mucked up to know what they should and should not be doing.
With respect to the pursuit of happiness:
I have not seen the movie but the sort of plot line where the poor man rises up in society sounds very familiar. In fact its been circulating through books and magazines since the time of Andrew Carnegie if not before. The “Barrons of Industry” during the Industrial Revolution propagated such stories to their workers where the poor slovenly prole rose to achieve wealth in the “land of the free”.
I tend to think that life and society are far more complicated and restrictive than many of us are led to believe. There is a reason why the wealthy industrialists spread such stories and it is quite simple. When you give everyone of your poor workers the idea that they can “make it” , then they have hope, and once they have hope they are happier in their everyday dealings. A hopeless worker is a “bad” worker. A rebel, someone with nothing to lose who is willing to try to change the present system. Obviously white collars dont like these types of workers. So how does this translate to today?
Most Americans still believe in the American Dream but the fact is : the dream wont come true for most people whether they want to hear it or not (and these people will still need health care which is increasingly becoming UNAFFORDABLE). These people will still need to have some sort of safety net provided so that they too can function in our society and be productive and somewhat satisfied.
With respect to the “American Dream” I tend to believe its more of an illusion despite whatever anecdotal evidence other people may muster(And I have watched my parents rise up several rungs of the economic ladder after emigrating from the Soviet Union).
In Russia they used to quote Marx who said ” Religion is the opiod for the masses”. Well I think that the American Dream is the opiod for the masses. Most poor people are locked in and only a few break out. Growing up in Brooklyn,NY and being publicly schooled I have witnessed first hand how terrible/underfunded public schools are in the “bad” neighborhoods.
How can someone rise up to reach the American Dream when their teachers have certified that they can graduate “underperforming high school A” but in reality the students wouldnt survive in a challenging college environment?
Maybe I’d feel better about nationalized health care if any of the following things were true:
1) I felt that the US government (or any other one with nationalized health care) would do an efficient job of administrating it (I don’t)
2) If I saw evidence that health care in other countries wasn’t still two tiered: Good care for people willing to pay out of pocket, and shitty care for those who are not.
3) If I wasn’t secretly afraid that my ability to get timely effective care for myself from a doctor I choose would not be eliminated.
4) That the government wasn’t going to decide that my kidney transplant (and thus my life) should be sacrificed so that 100 poor women could get free pre-natal care.
5) That my taxes wouldn’t increase to 75% of my income.
To a certain degree we shoot ourselves in the foot because we don’t provide preventive care to people.
On the other hand, free preventive care would not be a panacea to the health system because
1) there’s no guarantee that people will use it — in fact those most likely to use it are currently paying for it themselves, and those least likely to use it are likely not to be as motivated by a freebe as you think.
And 2) preventive care is not cost-saving — it is cost effective, which means it still costs money, but it is “worth it”. Under nationalized health care, I guarantee we’ll see an increase in the threshold at which procedures are deemed “worth it” for the sake of saving money/keeping the program solvent. You see that all the time in countries with nationalized health care.
One of the current arguments often used in favor of universal health care is that, as it stands now, the insurance companies call the shots and make all major decisions (this one was popular at my med school.) No one ever considered (or if they did, they didn’t mention it) that, if the FedGov were in charge of all health insurance, the same thing would happen. The only thing to change would be who calls the shots. Think about how effecient the DMV/USPS are.
Increased coverage of preventative services might lower cost, but I am skeptical. First, the beneficaries would have to visit the doctor, which anyone who has been on rotations can tell you many are not interested in doing (think of all the patients you’ve seen who have no idea of their past medical history because they’ve never been to the Dr.) Then, they’d have to follow the doctor’s advice (stop drinking, stop smoking, stop using rock, take this pill every day), which even people who do use medical care often won’t do.
I would actually be more likely to support a universal catastrophic coverage than universal basic coverage. Accidents happen, and anyone can get hit by a car or develop cancer, and big things like this are often crippingly expensive. Conversely, going to the PCP once in a while is within most people’s budget, whether they choose to admit it or not.
Just some food for thought.
Just some food for thought.
Another thing I forgot to mention is that I’m tired for being penalized for success. If you work hard, become a dr. (lawyer, buisness owner, engineer, etc.) and make money, you pay large tax rates, you have to pay your own health insurance, your own rent/property tax, and your kids college tuitions. Conversely, if you don’t succeed (through lack of effort, ability, etc.) you pay no taxes, can qualify for medical assistance, section 8 housing, and you/your kids get grants for higher education. The people paying the majority of the tax deserve to get something out of it.
I know it’s an old argument, but I’m tired of hearing patients say they work “when they can” (i.e. not at all) or that their job is “raising their kids” (single mothers with lots of bastard children.) Some people do both.
I just wanted to add that I think this blog is great. Too many people in medicine act like it’s all sunshine and rainbows, like there are no negative aspects at all (generally much more prevalent in academic medical centers, I’ve noticed.) A little honesty goes a long way.
Thanks for the compliment and great comments Cobra. I want to be real with this blog. It’s hard sometimes, but I try not to worry about who I’m going to piss off. You can’t please everybody all of time, and even pleasing some of the people half of the time is a chore.
I like to write what comes to mind, and really put my experiences out into the open for all to read. Is my cynicism overkill? Some may think so, but I don’t. It’s just the way I feel.
Too much is hidden in medicine. People hide how unhappy they are. They say that medicine is the best thing ever when they’re dying inside. It’s bad for those who want a real picture of what they’re getting into. I didn’t have a real picture, and wasted four years of my life. If I can help one person – just one – make a more informed decision about medicine, this blog has done its work.
I agree that I wouldn’t like the idea of universal health care. I know that sounds mean, but I agree with those who say that healthcare is a privledge. A few years ago when I was young and naive I would have been for universal healthcare. But since that time I’ve grown up a lot and realized what it really entails: less time per patient reducing the quality of care, less reimbursement for physicians, less people going into medicine if money reduces very quickly and at that less quality applicants going into medicine which could very much lead to an even greater shortage of physicians then there already exists, more potential for abuse of the system, etc. That’s just a few of my gripes with such a system.
Let’s see a few more problems with the idea: why take money out of physicians’ pay when we are only 5% of the healthcare expenditure. What about that remaining 95% of expenditure? Why can’t the money come from there? Oh wait most of that is probably going to the greedy bastards who are part of the problem as to why physicians are getting screwed.
Also, if it doesn’t come from physicians the sad thing is the greedy bastards will take it from the general public through tax payers.
The even sadder thing is that a lot of the people will vote for something without doing proper research into what it means for the general public, doctors, and everyone else involved. Once a long time ago I was democratic. Now I don’t like either Democratic people or Republicans.
More problems I have with American Healthcare 101:
People who refuse to take personal responsibility for their health. I.E. Exercise, eat right, etc.
People who abuse the system.
People who think that the world owes them even though they don’t necessarily want to pay for health insurance though they can pay for an expensive car or other expensive non needed items in their house.
People who proclaim that the majority of the uninsured are people who can’t afford it when in fact those people can afford it if they can afford other items of luxury that cost about the same monthly payment as some insurance payments do.
A perfect example: I had a patient once who complained about paying for his meds, but continued to support a 2-pack per day smoking habit. Man, that really irked me.
One more thing…..
Hoover,
I too would like to say that I agree with other posters and Panda Bear MD that your blog, like his, kicks ass. I actually prefer to read the more cynical blogs because they tend to give the most real picture. A lot of the happier blogs, while I respect them for being happy with what they do, I can’t help it but to question why they don’t talk about the other aspects. I think sometimes the more negative and cynical people are the ones who will let you see both the good and bad while the super positive ones while nice because they enjoy medicine don’t ever want to tell you the truth about both ends of the stick so to speak.
I find people who keep it real to be much more refreshing because you can be honest with your opinions and get a better idea what it really is like and what you have to look forward to. i still want to pursue medicine even after all these years and all the things wrong with medicine but at least I feel that I am now much more mature then I was as an incoming freshmen to college because now a days I have come to realize that there is a dark side to medicine so I won’t go in medical school with shock and blinders on. I feel like you guys have done a great job in telling how it really is and what one has to look forward to and wanted to say thank you for that.
Another personal favorite are those stories of people who come to the ER for a prescription for something as cheap as Tylenol. Hearing those kind of stories irritates me to no ends.
Guju, thanks man. That really does mean a lot. One of the visions I had for this blog was to paint a real picture of medical training for students. I realize that a lot of my very early stuff is mostly just me ranting, and isn’t very helpful at all to you guys. It is what it is, and is the foundation that MSH was founded upon.
Now, I’m trying to focus more on content that I think will actually help other students see things that I was never able to see prior to beginning medical school. Let students see what it’s like from my viewpoint, and if they’re still willing to go through it (like you are yourself), they’re more informed and have an idea of what to expect. I want to give that back to you guys.
My experiences are based on where I trained. I can’t offer any more than that, but I wish I could. Your experiences could be better or worse than mine, but based on some of the feedback I’ve gotten on this blog it seems that my experiences are somewhat typical.
Thanks again for the compliments, they are much appreciated.
Uchhh I’ve had enough ass kissing. Yes this blog is good! But kissing ass, and making ass kissing comments does anything but make it good.
::Back to Business::
Guju doc said: “But since that time I’ve grown up a lot and realized what it really entails: less time per patient reducing the quality of care, less
reimbursement for physicians, less people going into medicine if money reduces very quickly and at that less quality applicants going into medicine which could very much lead to an ehangeven greater shortage of physicians then there already exists, more potential for abuse of the system, etc. That’s just a few of my gripes with such a system.”
It sounds as if you have subsituted the ideas behind nationalized health insurance for HMO and continue to critique all the effects of HMO’s on American medicine i.e. lower reimbursements, less patient time.
However I understand that you see some of these as applying to a nationalized health care system. So lets say they do and now lets thing through this dilemma:
Currently 15 % of the US population is uninsured. Considering a large number of Americans suffer from chronic diseases (Diabetes, Heart Disease) which can be easily treated by medications along with a strong and highly funded public health infrastructure that focuses people on disease prevention.
So lets say Patient Bob comes in with a High BP and Bob like many other Americans is uninsured and cant afford to pay for meds. Bob just has yet another risk factor that will increase his likelihood of an untimely death.
Now Guju, the ultimate question is: does it matter that you have more patient time with Bob if Bob cant afford to buy the medication he needs to lower his blood pressure? Now I love chit chat as much as the next guy but last time I checked chit chit didnt prevent stroke or MI.
Does it matter if physicians get paid well if what they get paid for isnt producing the same high quality health outcomes as in other Western nations?
It seems like all the Bobs in America arent responding well to doctors orders on how to stay healthy, and perhaps such a task should not rest solely on the physician, but should also be a part of a larger societal shift in which the whole population is educated about their health in a well funded way as part of a national health system.
I learned in Preventive Medicine that 85% of cancers are PREVENTABLE. Go look that up! 35% are caused by smoking 30 % are caused by poor nutrition. The doctors arent getting the message across to the American Public on how to change their behavior.
Perhaps there needs to be a greater system wide change so that health care providers will be effective health care providers who are able to provide health care to the population and prevent people from suffering from many dreadful/painful yet preventable diseases.
Since when did physicians begin to think that the service they were providing was such a “priveledge” that even if they werent effective as their neighbors that could still scream bloody murder against any suggestion of improving the health system for the nation.
The priveledge argument is funny.Can you imagine a Marine complaining that the freedom he fights to secure is a “priveledge” and that any system which increases national security but is not appealing to marines is not worthy?
The data is in!
Fact:
National Health Care improves health outcomes on multiple measures of health in virtually all the Western Nations that have adopted it.
Fact:
The US health care system is inefficient and is bleeding dollars left and right when it comes to how much $$ we spend and the health outcomes we get.
Fact:
If you went into medicine to make sweet $$$, wake up. This is HMO land now and Oxford/Aetna… have got us by the nuts.
Fact:
National health care reform is on the tongue of every single presidential candidate for the 2008 election. Im no Miss Cleo but i think somethings on the horizon for us mon.
# of people insulted in this blog 135
YAN: “The priveledge argument is funny.Can you imagine a Marine complaining that the freedom he fights to secure is a “priveledge†and that any system which increases national security but is not appealing to marines is not worthy?”
First of all, no one has claimed that freedom is a privilege. A Marine fighting for freedom is not securing a privilege.
I know that just saying that freedom is a basic human right is meaningless because we all have wildly divergent views on what, exactly, freedom is. Personally I take a very broad view of freedom and believe it means that we should all be allowed to try and improve our lives, live where we can afford to live, pursue the things that make us happy so long as they don’t directly harm others, and so on. (Obviously, it would take a 100 page essay to fully describe what I mean by “freedom” – I’ll spare you.)
The point: freedom (in some sense) is a basic human right. Health care is NOT.
Why?
Health care costs hundreds of billions of dollars a year, requires brutal doctor training programs, necessitates vast man-hours from techs, nurses, and admin staff, requires numerous industries to produce drugs, R & D medical devices, and so on.
NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO DEMAND THAT SUCH A SYSTEM BE BUILT.
It is sinfully arrogant to claim that because you were born, millions of people must be involved in a multi-billion (trillion?) dollar industry because you have the RIGHT – and thus the authority to DEMAND – free or cheap access to health care.
That is outrageous.
No one has a right to health care.
But even more fundamentally, no one has a right to consume more than they produce, with exceptions for the mentally or physically handicapped, children, and (this is a stretch) the elderly (who ought to have already produced enough by retirement to meet their needs). People who claim that they have a RIGHT to consume MY product (my profits translated into taxes translated into their free health care) are simply looters and mooches.
As for denying that the American Dream is real, I challenge you with this: go find some poor inner city youth, say about 10 or so, and mentor him or her. Work with this child over the next 12 years. I guarantee you that you (or I) could get this kid into medical school. Do you deny that with the proper motivation and mentors that this is not possible?
As for attributing the fact that most people will NOT live the American Dream to “underfunded public schools”, I recommend:
1. Do some research into how much of our GDP is spent on public education and supporting institutions. You may be surprised by how much we spend at both the federal and state levels. Also, be SURE to look at how much is spent at your average private schools versus how much is spent at failing inner city schools.
2. Consult some teachers who have taught inner city youth (the students least likely to achieve the “American Dream”).
I have, and the results are in: All of the teachers I have spoken with (some old friends, some new acquaintances, some teaching in Chicago, some teaching in Baltimore) were (a) Liberal (often far leftist), (b) well educated at nationally recognized universities, and (c) shocked at how messed up inner city culture turned out to be. These anti-conservative teachers all wanted to level that playing field, and walked away completely hopeless.
Why?
* None of the children had stable families – they were shuffled between mom’s apartment and grandma’s house.
* None of the children had any positive role models – many of their fathers were MIA
* None of the children made any effort in school in part because of the above two reasons and in part because any such efforts would make the child an outcast for playing the Man’s game
* None of the children did homework – the teachers new not to even assign it because it would literally never get done
* Teachers had no carrot and no stick to control the children – for instance, the bureaucracy (staffed almost exclusively with liberals) prevented teachers from breaking up fights (even between 7 year olds!) because the school district didn’t want to get sued. The teachers had literally no recourse if students misbehaved, other than sending them to another room with other children where they could all misbehave together.
* Most children’s parents took no interest in the children’s progress, and were more likely to accuse the teacher of discrimination than believe that their child was disruptive in class
* 99% of the teachers’ energy was spent trying to control the children – very little teaching was done
How could a child POSSIBLY learn in this environment?
The liberal answer: SPEND MORE MONEY. I’ll tell you – new libraries and Macs are not the answer to any of the above familial and socioeconomic forces undermining these young minds.
Of course, this doesn’t stop the leftists from wanting to raise taxes and give more money to (startlingly inefficient) public school districts.
Yet I ask you:
1. IF it’s a problem of underfunding (as Yan has claimed), then how in God’s name did children learn in the past when all a school needed was a building and some books? 100 years ago the education system received very little funding yet it produced the great minds that ushered in the incredible achievements of the first 50 years of the 20th century – and they did it on the cheap!
2. IF it’s true that the problem is underfundiung (as Yan has claimed), then how do the Chinese and Indians manage to train students so well that I.T. jobs are moving from the US to those countries? You can’t POSSIBLY say it’s because China and India are spending so much more money on education than we are.
The fact is it’s an issue of culture. Where I grew up, young people had positive role models and were encouraged by family, friends, and teachers to do well in school, go to college, and get a good job.
Where I lived after high school, young people were encouraged to attend high school just often enough to not be harassed by the police, and then to get a job at a factory in town, or not work at all and live on welfare.
It’s a problem of mindset and culture, which are in part due to the de-industrialization of our cities, the inability of many people/groups to adapt to the changes (if it was even possible, which is contentious), followed by the rise of welfare that broke up the family structure in many poor communities (black, white, and others).
And you have the gall to attribute this awful mess to a lack of funding. That is such a cop out – it requires no real thought, just a reflexive “hey, they’re poor… the problem MUST be money”.
I wish it were: then we’d have a tenable solution. Sadly, it’s not, and millions of children grow up in areas without hope, as “socially conscious” liberals conspire to fix a FALSE root cause. I *almost* look forward to the day when liberals get their way and dump tons more money into public education, all to see it flushed down the drain because children without familial and communal support WILL NOT READ BOOKS, USE MACS, OR BENEFIT FROM INCREASED SPENDING.
I REALLY should be studying…
Bob, you made some excellent points. Modern infrastructure and the cost of it SHOULD preclude a “right” to healthcare.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
In a perfect world I’d support that statement from Marx. But it’s just not viable. The moment you implement socialist systems, they start to not work. Everyone ends up with less or nothing. I think there’s ample historical evidence to show that.
I think everyone deserves a nice car, a nice house, a nice computer, internet access, a decent amount of money. Why is healthcare different? Also, material things can contribute to psychological well-being, so we must provide EVERYONE with what they want or they’re not getting good healthcare.
I, for one, want a mid 90′s blue, white racing striped Dodge Viper with low miles. It’s essential for my psychological health. I want my healthcare.