johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in
news:jhachmann-A69B6D.23151021072006@news.giganews.com:

There are good private schools out there but they tend to be
price, probably too much for many parents even with the vouchers.

That is my biggest worry too. name the industries most heavily
subsidized by free government money; health care and education.
Name the industries that *always* have cost rising faster that
inflation; health care and education.

The cost of healthcare is so out of control that I think that
government intervention is the only way out. For schools, however, I
would give more power to the local school boards including the power
to hire and fire teachers. The teachers' unions wouldn't like it but
too bad.

I don't know about that when you consider the history of medical
payment in America. Prior to the New Deal, those who wanted (and could
afford) insurance had it, but unlike today's full coverage, it was
only catastrophic coverage, hospital and emergencies. Regular office
visits weren't covered, so doctor shopping was a means to control
costs for routine visits and you took out a loan if you we uninsured
and needed you gall bladder removed. No system is perfect.

The New Deal totally screwed that up. Roosevelt imposed wage and price
controls to try to stabilize the economy. This provided a disincentive
to business in that they could not get the best and brightest by
offering a better wage. Business complained to Congress, which jerked
a knee, the wrong one. Instead of disbanding the wage and price
controls, Congress allowed business to provide perks to employees and
still stay within wage and price controls. The perk of choice was to
provide catastrophic insurance coverage. The upside, workers got
something for "free". Insurance companies made larger profits by
firing employees since you needed less agents to sell to businesses
instead of individuals. Hospitals made larger profits because they
could set a uniformly high price for procedures, they might take a
discount when dealing with a poor individual but the deep pocket
insurance company pays full. The downside, workers often got to choose
between *one* plan offered and now they lost their coverage when they
left their job. Ironic that that issue is a major complaint of the
Democrats today!

The issue of losing you coverage when you left your job also meant it
was lost when you retire, when you needed it most. So, instead of
taxing the "free" benefits and allowing the worker the choice between
paying for coverage out of pocket and getting back the power of
insurance shopping or continuing with the employer provided system,
Congress gave us Medicare. Medicare law is one of the most convoluted
pieces of legislation I have ever seen. (I write medical billing
software, so I get to be really intimate with Medicare law). Two
aspects of that are killing us today. First was Medicare Part "B"
which covered routine visits. Medicare was not catastrophic coverage,
it was full coverage. Second,in a attempt to control fraud and
overpayment the law says that a doctor cannot bill Medicare any rate
higher that he bills a non Medicare patient, (with controlled
exceptions for pro bono, etc). A physician could lose his medical
license for violating this part of the law. And since part "B"
controlled routine visits, routine visits now are paid at the Medicare
rate. So now, when widow Jones brings in her son to have his broken
arm set, the physician can charge widow Jones what she can afford and
gain a bunch of goodwill and lose a bunch in Medicare receipts for
broken arms, or he tell Widow Jones to cough up full fare. Also note
that this now essentially forced all commercial insurance companies to
provide full coverage to pay for the Part "B" fees. Insurance premiums
are adjusted to reflect that. And before anybody screams, yes, I have
simplified this a bit, but it is still essentially correct.

So now we have the problem of widow Jones? How does her son get his
arm set? Once again, Congress to the rescue. This time it's Medicaid.
Essentially, Medicaid makes up the difference between what you can
afford and the Medicare rate the physician will charge. Congress
wisely dumped the whole problem in the laps of the states as a
mandate. How it would be paid is left to the states. In other words,
we get taxpayer subsidized, artificially priced controlled medicine.

Oh yeah, as the population ages and the life expectancy rises, costs
for life preservation also rise, bummer.

So John, I see the government's interaction with the economic process
as one knee jerk to the next. Each phase was not thought out well and
unfortunately, each phase is almost irreversible. I think they've done
enough damage as it is.

"Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1153489693.398697.264330@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in
news:jhachmann-276339.22101320072006@news.giganews.com:

In article <Xns980627EE6AC91cipciphc1@199.45.49.11>,
Hotel Charlie One <hotel_charlie_one@yahoo.com> wrote:

johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in
news:jhachmann-177AE7.23075919072006@news.giganews.com:

"They are calling this a scholarship. A voucher is a voucher.
Where I come from, it's called perfuming a pig," said Reg
Weaver, president of the National Education Association, the
teachers union. "Anything that takes away from our ability to
better our schools is wrong."

This is the only justification for vouchers. For my entire
lifetime Education Inc, a.k.a. the teacher's unions and the
bureaucracy have been crying poor mouth saying just a bit more
money, okay, a lot more and we will do better.

DC leads the nation in per capita spending and still isn't
graduating all geniuses.

Of course, once the voucher money is accepted, then the school
becomes under the glove of our compassionate bureaucracy, and the
net effect will be one more "public" school. Damn....

My worry is that if vouchers pass, how can we ensure that the
private schools will be any better than the public schools? There
are good private schools out there but they tend to be pricey,
probably too much for many parents even with the vouchers. I'm
worried about scam artists setting up 'schools' in storefronts with
a few orange crates for desks and chairs and one text book for all
of the kids to share.

As a believer in separation of church and state, I would hate to
see taxpayer dollars go to fundy schools which would do nothing but
fill the poor kids heads with superstition and creationism.

Why should "we" ensure anything? Isn't that the parents'
responsibility? Let *them* decide if their kids are getting the
education that they want them to be getting. That's the whole point
of school choice.

Any parent interested enough to go after the vouchers in the first
place will be interested enough to watch out for the orange crates.

We need to get you guys a time machine to pre New Deal America.

My, what a cogent argument.