Government funded Vouchers and Grants

[tradeunionsupporter]

What is the difference between Government funded Vouchers or Grants and Government funded and run Universal Healthcare or Public Education or any other Public Service I know President Bush supported giving Government Grants to Faith Based Initiatives what is the difference between this and Government Welfare Paul Ryan supports Healthcare Vouchers correct ? President Obama disagrees
Under Paul Ryan's plan for Social Security and Healthcare won't the Government still be involved in these programs why do Democrats disagree with the Republicans on this issue ?

[danyboy27]

What is the difference between Government funded Vouchers or Grants and Government funded and run Universal Healthcare or Public Education or any other Public Service I know President Bush supported giving Government Grants to Faith Based Initiatives what is the difference between this and Government Welfare Paul Ryan supports Healthcare Vouchers correct ? President Obama disagrees
Under Paul Ryan's plan for Social Security and Healthcare won't the Government still be involved in these programs why do Democrats disagree with the Republicans on this issue ?


Well, in the case of a voucher, it can be used in any private service accepting it, a voucher is basicly your taxes paying for the profit of a corporation or a private entity.

in the case of a public institution, your taxes are used to provide dirrectly with an institution that will provide you that service for the sake of it, and not for profit.

this whole voucher system is basicly a scam to engross the profits of corporation on your back.

that why so many right wing assoles have been pushing for healthcare voucher or food voucher, or school voucher, beccause it allow the governement to dirrectly pay corporation a hefty sum of money.

If you look at food voucher for the poor, there is a reason why a lot of supermarket accept them, beccause the governement will pay back the cost of the product_the profit+maybe additional profit.

But in reality, having special food distrubution network would cost less to the governement and would provide the poor with pretty much the same amount of food and necessities without wasting a hefty sum of money on profit for a corporate entity.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Vouchers outsource the govt to the private sector, and makes the people responsible for education non-elected businessmen.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Ok so the voucher system is for profit while the public institution/public service is paid for by taxes and is free to the public and is not for profit is this correct ?

[danyboy27]

Ok so the voucher system is for profit while the public institution/public service is paid for by taxes and is free to the public and is not for profit is this correct ?

Pretty much.

At the end of the day, cost wise, its always better to go toward something that is not for profit, services included.

Take a food coop for exemple. There are some town in my province that are really far far away from any kind of civilisation, and some of them decided to build a coop in order to allow everyone to get their groceries without being forced to travel 3 hours. everybody in the town is a member, and pay a certain fee 1 time a year to get their membership card.

if there would be an private establishement, the prices of the good would probably be doubled and most of the profit would go in the pocket of the buisnessman rather than being used to expand the variety of food.

[tradeunionsupporter]

What does everyone else think ?

[RGacky3]

Pretty much agreed with the rest.

[jake williams]

I've spent a lot of time listening to the benefits of direct transfers relative to in-kind goods, and there are edge cases where those arguments hold merit, but not here.

There are two main points to understand about the voucherization of healthcare and education.

One is cost control. In the US especially, it's very difficult to keep costs in the private sector anywhere near what they would be in the public sector, and so you get a lot less for your voucher dollar than you would in the public sector.

The other is content/quality control. Inexpensive private schools are fucking awful, on a most basic level, but there are even deeper questions about the use of public education to advance working class interests, which does happen - you'll see real progress on, say, anti-racism even in American public schools that you'd never see with private schools. So right-wing curriculum content is part of the story. There are analogies with healthcare.

[Napoleon Winston]

What does everyone else think ?

As usual, I disagree with this entire forum.
Vouchers create competition between schools to preform better, they also allow people going into alternative education with well needed funds.
I was homeschooled for a good chunk of my childhood, and the vouchers helped me greatly in paying for recourses.
At the same time, they make sure children are getting an education.
Although it allows corporations to make money, it also allows teachers who honestly want to teach, try alternative methods without being fired for not following X set of rules.
It allows children with autism or handicaps afford alternative programs that are better for their needs.

[jake williams]

Vouchers create competition between schools to preform better
If by "perform better" you mean "perform better as profit making companies", then yes. If by "perform better" you mean in terms of giving students an education, then no.


they also allow people going into alternative education with well needed funds.
What do you mean by "alternative education"? Religious BS we shouldn't be funding anyway? Or badly-needed special education programs for students with disabilities that we should not be downloading to the private sector?


I was homeschooled for a good chunk of my childhood
And you turned out a right-wing fuck nut. This guy is a great example of why public schools are a good thing.


At the same time, they make sure children are getting an education.
No they don't.

[Napoleon Winston]

If by "perform better" you mean "perform better as profit making companies", then yes. If by "perform better" you mean in terms of giving students an education, then no.

They make profits by getting more people to use their schools, which of course, they do by making sure their schools offer a good education.
Its not much different than how universities make money.


What do you mean by "alternative education"? Religious BS we shouldn't be funding anyway? Or badly-needed special education programs for students with disabilities that we should not be downloading to the private sector?

Why is it bad to outsource those special education programs to kids with disabilities?
The government isn't doing that great of a job at providing them, if a private corporation does, whos harmed?



And you turned out a right-wing fuck nut. This guy is a great example of why public schools are a good thing.

www[dot]youtube[dot]com/watch?v=iU-8Uz_nMaQ
I consider myself more liberal than most people on this forum.
Or does disagreeing with you make me automatically a right-wing fanatic?

And funding towards alternative education also allows for teachers to try alternative methods of teaching, without the bother of going through miles of bureaucratic red tape.

[jake williams]

They make profits by getting more people to use their schools, which of course, they do by making sure their schools offer a good education.
Right, just like how McDonalds gets more customers by offering healthy food, Monsanto makes profits in India by helping farmers, US commercial banks made lots of profits offering great discount mortgages, and so on.


Its not much different than how universities make money.
It's almost identical: the expensive ones targetted at the ruling class will be bad-fucking-ass, the cheap ones for the working class will be horrible. Even the US ruling class is nervous about private for-profit universities.


Why is it bad to outsource those special education programs to kids with disabilities?

The government isn't doing that great of a job at providing them, if a private corporation does, whos harmed?
Because the private sector fucks everything up, especially providing complex services to disadvantaged individuals with limited political or financial power (children in particular). The government is doing as bad a job as it is - and all told, it's not doing a horrible job compared to history or worse examples - because the right wing, yourself included, are actively undermining public education.


I consider myself more liberal than most people on this forum.
Or does disagreeing with you make me automatically a right-wing fanatic?
You are more liberal than the non-restricted types on this form, because liberalism is a right-wing ideology. Liberalism is the ideology of the bourgeoisie, of early capitalism, of property rights and alleged, but not actual, narrow human rights. It's not the worst or the most reactionary ideology, but it's a fundamental barrier to human progress.


And funding towards alternative education also allows for teachers to try alternative methods of teaching, without the bother of going through miles of bureaucratic red tape.
I like having public control of teachers, and I like labour protections for teachers as workers. There are cases where the administration of those controls and protections could be more efficient, but they're absolutely essential to a decent society.

At any rate, it's well known that the private sector routinely has higher administrative costs than the public sector, and again, especially for complex services.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

They make profits by getting more people to use their schools, which of course, they do by making sure their schools offer a good education.


Are you really that naïve?

In 1993 there was a school voucher reform in Sweden. It has resulted in dropping quality control, and many of the "free schools", as the private ones are ironically called in a strange newspeak-like manner, (but former municipal schools too are forced to rely on the vouchers for funding), are nothing but venture capitalist scams that tease students with easy classes, free laptop computers and similar, and then cash in on the government money. In some cases they have even organised a little bit of pressure to more or less have former municipal schools handed to them without cost apart from a small token sum for the inventory.

Apart from being a system open to such use - simply as means of channelling income - it causes problems too, because not all students have the same needs and requirements in the classroom, and therefore the arbitrary voucher system that assigns each student a specific sum, leads to dwindling resources for students with greater needs for support.

It's silly to see that there still are people who think that somehow competition will drive the capitalists to be sincere and honest about what they are doing, and that they will increase quality at the expensive of profits, even when there are much easier and successful ways to both increase revenues and avoid the increasing expenditure. Indeed a favourite way for the venture capitalist groups to make one of the "free-schools" profitable is to maximise the number of students to teachers, having almost twice as many students to teacher as in municipal schools.

[RGacky3]

I wish I could add something against the capitalist, but you guys are doing such a good job, I'm not even needed.

BUT


They make profits by getting more people to use their schools, which of course, they do by making sure their schools offer a good education.
Its not much different than how universities make money.


Why has'nt it worked that way anywhere at all?


Why is it bad to outsource those special education programs to kids with disabilities?
The government isn't doing that great of a job at providing them, if a private corporation does, whos harmed?


The kids, who will have to pay a lot more money, for a lot less, (because they are paying for profits), and guess what, the poor kids will juts be left behind, but hey, thats capitalism.


Or does disagreeing with you make me automatically a right-wing fanatic?

And funding towards alternative education also allows for teachers to try alternative methods of teaching, without the bother of going through miles of bureaucratic red tape.

No it just make syou ignorant of economics.

Theres nothing wrong with alternative education, the problem is with FOR-PROFIT education.

[Napoleon Winston]

Why has'nt it worked that way anywhere at all?

What do you mean hasn't worked?


The kids, who will have to pay a lot more money, for a lot less, (because they are paying for profits), and guess what, the poor kids will juts be left behind, but hey, thats capitalism.

But they wont, they'd be given a voucher to spend on education, not kicked out on the street.
They'll be paying about the same amount as ever, through taxes.
And if its done on a federal or state level, it could allow for working class children to get a much better education, rather than just the people living in the right areas (Upper class areas) getting the good schools.



Theres nothing wrong with alternative education, the problem is with FOR-PROFIT education.

But the voucher system makes alternative education much more affordable.

[RGacky3]

What do you mean hasn't worked?


Has'nt produced better results than public schools, or been able to cover more than just the super rich.


But they wont, they'd be given a voucher to spend on education, not kicked out on the street.
They'll be paying about the same amount as ever, through taxes.


No they would'nt because the rich would pay more and the public schools are not for profit.


And if its done on a federal or state level, it could allow for working class children to get a much better education, rather than just the people living in the right areas (Upper class areas) getting the good schools.


You could fix that by just changing the way schools are funded.


But the voucher system makes alternative education much more affordable.

So fund public schools AND have a voucher system? And no it does'nt make it more affordable because your also paying overhead and profits.

[Judicator]

Pretty much.

At the end of the day, cost wise, its always better to go toward something that is not for profit, services included.

Take a food coop for exemple. There are some town in my province that are really far far away from any kind of civilisation, and some of them decided to build a coop in order to allow everyone to get their groceries without being forced to travel 3 hours. everybody in the town is a member, and pay a certain fee 1 time a year to get their membership card.

if there would be an private establishement, the prices of the good would probably be doubled and most of the profit would go in the pocket of the buisnessman rather than being used to expand the variety of food.

Why would anyone exit the coop in favor of higher for profit prices? Similarly, if public education were as good as you people seem to think, why would anyone leave?




Right, just like how McDonalds gets more customers by offering healthy food, Monsanto makes profits in India by helping farmers, US commercial banks made lots of profits offering great discount mortgages, and so on.


Companies like McDonalds are good at giving consumers what they want. McDonalds has food that is cheap and tastes good. If people preferred some other identically priced food they would buy that instead.


the expensive ones targetted at the ruling class will be bad-fucking-ass, the cheap ones for the working class will be horrible. Even the US ruling class is nervous about private for-profit universities.

You can get a fine education at a state school. It's unclear that places like Harvard really add much value beyond what you get a state school, and the fact that Harvard puts a lot more smart people in one place.

[jake williams]

Companies like McDonalds are good at giving consumers what they want. McDonalds has food that is cheap and tastes good. If people preferred some other identically priced food they would buy that instead.
You sound like a tobacco company lawyer.


You can get a fine education at a state school. It's unclear that places like Harvard really add much value beyond what you get a state school, and the fact that Harvard puts a lot more smart people in one place.
The good state schools are increasingly marginalized and separated off. The system is a bit different in Canada - all of the universities here are public and the segregation doesn't happen along a public/private axis the way it does down south.

But the point remains - there are good schools for elites that are only very rarely made available to only very clever working class students, and then there are the schools for the reproduction of a pliant and hopefully skilled workforce, something very difficult for private industry to do.

[RGacky3]

Why would anyone exit the coop in favor of higher for profit prices? Similarly, if public education were as good as you people seem to think, why would anyone leave?


Because its underfunded becuase the government is busy people other peoples profits.


Companies like McDonalds are good at giving consumers what they want. McDonalds has food that is cheap and tastes good. If people preferred some other identically priced food they would buy that instead.


Not if they could'nt afford it, people that can afford it DO by elsewhere.


You can get a fine education at a state school. It's unclear that places like Harvard really add much value beyond what you get a state school, and the fact that Harvard puts a lot more smart people in one place.

Harvard is not a for-profit outfit, it also gets government support.

[Judicator]

You sound like a tobacco company lawyer.

You sound like a pinko commie.



The good state schools are increasingly marginalized and separated off. The system is a bit different in Canada - all of the universities here are public and the segregation doesn't happen along a public/private axis the way it does down south.

But the point remains - there are good schools for elites that are only very rarely made available to only very clever working class students, and then there are the schools for the reproduction of a pliant and hopefully skilled workforce, something very difficult for private industry to do.

Marginalized? How? In Canada or any other country, the public system still faces competition from international universities.

I don't know how much "good" schooling explains why elites remain rich. The evidence is still mixed, but if working class people generally have low IQs, it makes sense they would have a very hard time getting into Harvard.


Because its underfunded becuase the government is busy people other peoples profits.

This isn't a coherent english sentence.


Not if they could'nt afford it, people that can afford it DO by elsewhere.

Please read again. People buy fast food because it is the best alternative at that price point.


Harvard is not a for-profit outfit, it also gets government support.

Who said it was?

[RGacky3]

You sound like a pinko commie.


I think he'd agree to that.


but if working class people generally have low IQs, it makes sense they would have a very hard time getting into Harvard.


Oh you can just smell the disdain.


I don't know how much "good" schooling explains why elites remain rich.

Well, its part of it, but mainly the fact that being rich makes it really easy to stay rich.


This isn't a coherent english sentence.


The public schools get underfunded, because the government FUNDS go to the profits of private schools (through vouchers).


Please read again. People buy fast food because it is the best alternative at that price point.


Yeah, which is a nice way of saying they can't afford anything else, which is a nice way of saying that poor people are not allowed a choice.


Who said it was?

No one, but there is a big difference between a for profit and a not for profit university.