LaxPower Back-Up Stick

HooDat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:32 pm Do you actually think that the party that has fought charter schools and school choice tooth and nail, is going to allow true choice on healthcare? I don't.

This is like the "death panel" complaint, isn't it? Where insurance companies ALREADY function as a death panel. Right now. Today. And Republican politicians hope that voters don't notice that?


In other words: can you currently go to ANY doctor you choose, and your insurer will pick up the bill? No. Not even close, right?


So why are you sweating it?

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:46 pm

HooDat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:32 pm Do you actually think that the party that has fought charter schools and school choice tooth and nail, is going to allow true choice on healthcare? I don't.

This is like the "death panel" complaint, isn't it? Where insurance companies ALREADY function as a death panel. Right now. Today. And Republican politicians hope that voters don't notice that?


In other words: can you currently go to ANY doctor you choose, and your insurer will pick up the bill? No. Not even close, right?


So why are you sweating it?

Charter schools. You mean redistribution of tax dollars to Betsy Devos and her ilk. Make Charter Schools compete with Private Schools.

Those would be them, yes!

I got sloppy in my word choice. Vouchers are what I believe should be used for education. Private schools face plenty of competition from each other, which is why you see a variety of them (in terms of costs and target market) and they all seem to deliver results. Let's give the private school kids (and parents) come competition from poor kids who otherwise can't think about attending a private school. In the interest of maintaining some kind of safety net for those who get stuck in "bad schools" - you could make a voucher worth more at the schools that are stuck dealing with the most challenging children, so that the folks who can least afford it don't get left behind.

On the health care side - I never said I think the current system works. If I thought the current system worked I would not be criticizing it. All I said was who ever controls the money, controls the choices. Under the current system it is the insurance companies - they suck too. One would hope that market forces would drive down costs, but the pricing and billing mechanics are so convoluted that no one even understands the choices they are making. Without transparency, it is hard to drive toward efficiency.

HooDat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:05 pm I got sloppy in my word choice. Vouchers are what I believe should be used for education. Private schools face plenty of competition from each other, which is why you see a variety of them (in terms of costs and target market) and they all seem to deliver results.

Of course they do. They're all rich kids from relatively stable families. These schools get to choose their students. Surely you understand what a massive advantage this is?

Let a public school do this, and you'll have the same outcome....but they have to be able to choose any students they wish.

HooDat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:05 pm Let's give the private school kids (and parents) come competition from poor kids who otherwise can't think about attending a private school.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul. THAT is why people don't like vouchers.

What you want to do is say "look at how great Paul is doing". And you and DeVos want to avoid, at all costs, taking a good look at what you did to the far more numerous Peter.

HooDat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:05 pm On the health care side - I never said I think the current system works. If I thought the current system worked I would not be criticizing it. All I said was who ever controls the money, controls the choices. Under the current system it is the insurance companies - they suck too. One would hope that market forces would drive down costs, but the pricing and billing mechanics are so convoluted that no one even understands the choices they are making. Without transparency, it is hard to drive toward efficiency.

Transparency is only part of the issue. The other is: your daughter is sick, and will die if you don't blow every penny you have. What would you, and every other parent do in this situation?

Free market doesn't work for health care, unless you're filthy rich. Then it works flawlessly. And the next tier of earners, a little less flawlessly. And so on...until you get to the bottom half of American earners, where it doesn't function at all.

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:26 pm

HooDat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:05 pm I got sloppy in my word choice. Vouchers are what I believe should be used for education. Private schools face plenty of competition from each other, which is why you see a variety of them (in terms of costs and target market) and they all seem to deliver results.

Of course they do. They're all rich kids from relatively stable families. These schools get to choose their students. Surely you understand what a massive advantage this is?

Let a public school do this, and you'll have the same outcome....but they have to be able to choose any students they wish.

HooDat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:05 pm Let's give the private school kids (and parents) come competition from poor kids who otherwise can't think about attending a private school.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul. THAT is why people don't like vouchers.

What you want to do is say "look at how great Paul is doing". And you and DeVos want to avoid, at all costs, taking a good look at what you did to the far more numerous Peter.

HooDat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:05 pm On the health care side - I never said I think the current system works. If I thought the current system worked I would not be criticizing it. All I said was who ever controls the money, controls the choices. Under the current system it is the insurance companies - they suck too. One would hope that market forces would drive down costs, but the pricing and billing mechanics are so convoluted that no one even understands the choices they are making. Without transparency, it is hard to drive toward efficiency.

Transparency is only part of the issue. The other is: your daughter is sick, and will die if you don't blow every penny you have. What would you, and every other parent do in this situation?

Free market doesn't work for health care, unless you're filthy rich. Then it works flawlessly. And the next tier of earners, a little less flawlessly. And so on...until you get to the bottom half of American earners, where it doesn't function at all.

Can anyone give me the name of the Charter School in Chevy Chase, Md or Darien, CT or Garden City, LI? Asking for a friend....

Vultures:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/petergreen ... ey-do/amp/

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:26 pm Of course they do. They're all rich kids from relatively stable families. These schools get to choose their students. Surely you understand what a massive advantage this is?

you need to check these folks out: https://cristoreyjesuit.org/ These people are getting tremendous results.

And to a lesser degree, the catholic schools do not cherry pick like the protestant and secular schools. The tuition is much, much lower and scholarships seem relatively plentiful. Those schools do a great job as well. (ftr I don't measure success by Ivy admissions).

The common denominator of ALL successful schools .... parents who give a crap. Otherwise, it takes a very, very special kid to overcome their circumstances.

HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:12 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:26 pm Of course they do. They're all rich kids from relatively stable families. These schools get to choose their students. Surely you understand what a massive advantage this is?

you need to check these folks out: https://cristoreyjesuit.org/ These people are getting tremendous results.

And to a lesser degree, the catholic schools do not cherry pick like the protestant and secular schools. The tuition is much, much lower and scholarships seem relatively plentiful. Those schools do a great job as well. (ftr I don't measure success by Ivy admissions).

The common denominator of ALL successful schools .... parents who give a dump. Otherwise, it takes a very, very special kid to overcome their circumstances.

Parents that have enough sense to know to care/be involved. Unfortunately it’s not the case for many.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:16 pm

HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:12 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:26 pm Of course they do. They're all rich kids from relatively stable families. These schools get to choose their students. Surely you understand what a massive advantage this is?

you need to check these folks out: https://cristoreyjesuit.org/ These people are getting tremendous results.

And to a lesser degree, the catholic schools do not cherry pick like the protestant and secular schools. The tuition is much, much lower and scholarships seem relatively plentiful. Those schools do a great job as well. (ftr I don't measure success by Ivy admissions).

The common denominator of ALL successful schools .... parents who give a dump. Otherwise, it takes a very, very special kid to overcome their circumstances.

Parents that have enough sense to know to care/be involved. Unfortunately it’s not the case for many.

That's hard when you are a single mother working two or three jobs. It takes more than just saying "sweetie go do your homework".

HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:12 pm And to a lesser degree, the catholic schools do not cherry pick

Yes, they do. You have to apply.

HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:12 pm The common denominator of ALL successful schools .... parents who give a dump. Otherwise, it takes a very, very special kid to overcome their circumstances.

Agree 100%. This is why I despise charter schools. If you are one of the millions of unlucky kids without a parent or guardian who cares, you're left in a school with fewer resources that are being taken by the charter schools.

As I said--robbing Peter to pay Paul. I have NO interest in my tax dollars further screwing children who, through no fault of their own, have lousy parents.

Btw, this gets at the REAL problem. The problem isn't the schools, and it's laughable to think it's the schools. Yep, you have a few bad teachers, but that's not the global problem.

The problem, obviously, is the parents. And I have NO clue how to fix that.

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:59 pm The problem, obviously, is the parents. And I have NO clue how to fix that.

most studies, going back to Moynihan at a minimum, will tell you that the key is the plural in your statement - parentS. Encouraging marriage and two-parent family structures would go a long way to solving the issue.

HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:18 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:59 pm The problem, obviously, is the parents. And I have NO clue how to fix that.

most studies, going back to Moynihan at a minimum, will tell you that the key is the plural in your statement - parentS. Encouraging marriage and two-parent family structures would go a long way to solving the issue.

Yes but that is a lot easier said than done. How are you going to enforce this? People aren't going to stay married just for kids, if they were this solution would already be in place. You are immediately faced with enforcement by means that either don't work or are repugnant to civil society. This is the conundrum we find with so many problems.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:42 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:16 pm

HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:12 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:26 pm Of course they do. They're all rich kids from relatively stable families. These schools get to choose their students. Surely you understand what a massive advantage this is?

you need to check these folks out: https://cristoreyjesuit.org/ These people are getting tremendous results.

And to a lesser degree, the catholic schools do not cherry pick like the protestant and secular schools. The tuition is much, much lower and scholarships seem relatively plentiful. Those schools do a great job as well. (ftr I don't measure success by Ivy admissions).

The common denominator of ALL successful schools .... parents who give a dump. Otherwise, it takes a very, very special kid to overcome their circumstances.

Parents that have enough sense to know to care/be involved. Unfortunately it’s not the case for many.

That's hard when you are a single mother working two or three jobs. It takes more than just saying "sweetie go do your homework".

Yep. A good friend of mine had that kind of upbringing. He never stood much of a chance. Best thing to ever happen to him was that he lived down the street for 3 years until we moved. We met when I was 4. We are still friends to this day. Most people have no idea what the average person is faced with. No idea. My parents took an interest in him. His siblings had no such luck. His mother had 0 education and was working like a dog.....I actually would walk to his house to wake him up for school. We were in the 1st grade.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:41 pm

HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:18 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:59 pm The problem, obviously, is the parents. And I have NO clue how to fix that.

most studies, going back to Moynihan at a minimum, will tell you that the key is the plural in your statement - parentS. Encouraging marriage and two-parent family structures would go a long way to solving the issue.

Yes but that is a lot easier said than done. How are you going to enforce this? People aren't going to stay married just for kids, if they were this solution would already be in place. You are immediately faced with enforcement by means that either don't work or are repugnant to civil society. This is the conundrum we find with so many problems.

You can't enforce it at all. It has to be cultural phenomenon - which is being undermined by most of popular culture

HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:53 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:41 pm

HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:18 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:59 pm The problem, obviously, is the parents. And I have NO clue how to fix that.

most studies, going back to Moynihan at a minimum, will tell you that the key is the plural in your statement - parentS. Encouraging marriage and two-parent family structures would go a long way to solving the issue.

Yes but that is a lot easier said than done. How are you going to enforce this? People aren't going to stay married just for kids, if they were this solution would already be in place. You are immediately faced with enforcement by means that either don't work or are repugnant to civil society. This is the conundrum we find with so many problems.

You can't enforce it at all. It has to be cultural phenomenon - which is being undermined by most of popular culture

That’s the problem?

you need to check these folks out: https://cristoreyjesuit.org/ These people are getting tremendous results.

I have a friend who taught for several years at Cristo Rey in Baltimore. They do good work and have an important mission, I've contributed to them. However, they do have issues at the school at all levels. To say they get tremendous results is something I wish was true, but not exactly accurate.

My experience is with the Houston school. I get the impression results may vary. But your point on the mission versus the outcomes is well taken.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 8:04 pm That’s the problem?

...I don't understand the question.

Frank Bruni's advice column for debate-observers:

At the Democratic debates tonight and tomorrow night, you will no doubt hear candidates tussle over policy details, such as whether the country should try to achieve universal health insurance by essentially eliminating private plans or whether those plans should coexist with a public option.

Remember this: The most progressive proposals have little chance of being enacted anytime soon. Even if a blue wave led not just to a Democratic president but also to Democratic control of both chambers of Congress, many Democrats in the House and Senate would be representing purple or even reddish states and districts that would most likely punish them if they drifted significantly to the left. So they won’t. And that’s an enormous obstacle to the agendas of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and others.

Each candidate’s prescriptions, then, are as much windows into his or her values and sensibility as they are maps to the future. Keep that in mind, and weigh the importance of the details in those plans accordingly.

Hear the bits of biography that each candidate trots out for what they are — painstakingly rehearsed anecdotes that by the end of a general election would probably be repeated so often that they’d be musty and maybe cloying.

But do pay heed to the way those stories are told, and to the passion, crispness and economy with which a candidate discusses all else. These debates are auditions for leadership, and an effective leader must be able first and foremost to persuade. That’s how support is cultivated and votes are wrangled. Beyond the discrete details of what the candidates onstage are saying, who’s the most persuasive? Who best combines firmness, empathy and good old-fashioned charisma?

Who inspires confidence — and quells anxiety — about the future? We in the media have frequently cried foul at the shamelessness with which Donald Trump stirred voters’ fears, but that wouldn’t have worked if voters hadn’t been frightened to begin with. Americans have stumbled from a trademark optimism to a newfound pessimism. We see change, especially in the workforce, happening at an incomprehensible pace. In light of that, we’re not looking for gauzy banalities; we want concrete reassurance or at least something in the vicinity of that. Trump’s reductive, backward-looking fixes — tariffs, a wall — masqueraded as such. Which Democratic presidential candidate projects the kind of certainty that he did? Who summons authority without authoritarianism?

Much of what I’m stressing and advising concerns who’d be the toughest adversary for Trump. I’m firmly in the camp of voters who believe that in 2020, no issue eclipses the importance of defeating a president who has routinely acted without dignity, decency and sufficient regard for democratic norms. And while it’s impossible to predict accurately the fiercest kind of foe for him, it’s not at all foolish to take an informed, reasonable guess.

To that end: Ask yourself not how each candidate sounds vis-à-vis his or her Democratic peers onstage. Ask yourself how that candidate would sound in October 2020, in general election debates with our peevish and perilous president."

HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:12 pmAnd to a lesser degree, the catholic schools do not cherry pick like the protestant and secular schools.

Having sent my daughter to a Catholic junior high, and carefully investigated several Catholic high schools for her (before settling on a local public), the degree of choosiness is only slightly less. The key point is this: kids at Catholic schools all have involved parents. If they didn't, those kids wouldn't be there! (Even if they're on full scholarship, the parents had to know enough and care enough to apply for the scholarship.) This is a HUGE advantage for the private schools. Force any private school, I don't care how good it is or who runs it, to take EVERY KID in an across-all-incomes, across all levels of parent caring, slice of the population, and they will do no better than the publics.