there is an inherent basis for providing vouchers for care from other non-VA practitioners to veterans with inadequate access. We have a cruel history of fraud in the VA in which veterans were represented as having proximal access to services through the use of falsified service waiting lists. People on those lists would be better served using vouchers for care from other non-VA practitioners
Short of the provision of national security name a service provided by the government to which this statement generally does not apply. Private health care is better than Medicare and Medicaid.
Private education is better public education. Down the line, to private garbage collection, which is better than municipal sanitation services. And if you think of one consider how long it took you to think of it and how few and far between. It's like RR said: the nine most terrifying words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
Excluding inner city public schools, this is just not true.
Excluding poor people because presumably screw the poor people: the US public education system is the most expensive bureaucratic boondoggle in the history of the universe and produces results that are at best mediocre and behind nearly every country in the first world by every metric imaginable.
Question: who given the choice would send their kids to public school rather than private school if there were no other associated costs? Answer: almost no one. Question: if public schools are so great why are progressives and their teachers union so terrified of school choice? Answer: [strike]think of the children[/strike]. Because without compulsory education enforced at gunpoint enrollment would plummet, meaning democrats would lose their cash cow and their propaganda platform and teachers would lose their tenure and their pensions and their summers off. Question: given the choice would you send your kid to SUNY Purchase or Iona? That one's rhetorical, because if you say Purchase I'll have to call CPS.
Fun.....public education has clearly struck a cord with you. Although you have likely made your final decisions, a few points of consideration should include the following:
The likely reason why teachers unions are concerned about school choice is that both current and proposed school choice reflects unequal standards of accountability when it comes to student achievement and special education regulations. Why not have school's of choice on a level playing field? Betsy Devos would not commit to this.
When analyzing United States public schools' performance on the PISA or NAEP, it makes sense to consider compulsory education laws in the various countries. I will take Singapore as an example, since they kick arse. In Singapore compulsory education is in effect only up until what they call Primary 6. This is ages 11-12, meaning students begin to exit before they take the PISA at age 15. Also, certain categories of children, e.g. those with special needs are exempted from compulsory education. That can make a difference in the test results. I am not saying public education in the U.S. doesn't need improvement, but it is hardly the train wreck it is made out to be.
Lastly, superintendent, principal and teachers haven't made a decision on curriculum and instruction in at least a decade. During that time, politicians and big business (i.e. publishers) have cost taxpayers millions and have negatively impacted public education in the name of saving it.
I CBA (that's can't be arsed for those of you scoring at home) to do the usual slice and dice. I might be coming down with something or I might be too drinking, hiccup. Anyway
"principal and teachers haven't made a decision on curriculum and instruction in at least a decade."
Meaning there should be decentralization of education control. No argument. Return control of public education policies and curriculum to local school boards. In other words: let there be choice. If that happened there would be no need for vouchers or anything resembling them. We agree.
" In Singapore compulsory education is in effect only up until what they call Primary 6."
We agree again, let's get rid of compulsory education. I'd say after Primary none, but you have to start somewhere.
" those with special needs are exempted from compulsory education"
Specious. In the first place mainstreaming is a progressive idea. I would much prefer allowing parents of special needs children to choose whatever educational opportunities they think best fits their particular situation. And in the second, special needs kids - real special needs kids, kids with real disabilities, not fake ADD and Asperger's diagnoses that are intended to make parents feel better about themselves and their failings- are statistically negligible.
"The likely reason why teachers unions are concerned about school choice is that both current and proposed school choice reflects unequal standards of accountability"
Sorry, this is nonsense. I come from a long line of academics. To the extent that teachers consider their students they consider them a necessary nuisance. If teachers didn't have pensions and tenure and summers off half of them would quit.
"politicians and big business (i.e. publishers) have cost taxpayers millions and have negatively impacted public education in the name of saving it."
Publishers? Really? Good grief. What costs more, books or administrative salaries? (Careful, this is one of my trick questions.)
Not trick question: if "politicians ... have cost taxpayers millions and negatively impacted public education" why do public educators overwhelmingly support both financially and at the ballot box those politicians who unquestionably support public education? Okay, that was a trick question too. Because if I were going to vote and one of the choices was someone who championed positions that "negatively impacted" my role in life, I'd vote for the other guy.
