Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktI saw this over at Hot Air and thought it might be an interesting topic for lawyers and laypeople alike. In a nutshell, the article claims that the individual mandate’s penalty constitutes duress and therefore negates the validity of the insurance contract. Further, since insurance companies will have to accept all comers, they are under duress as well.
The questions asked are, to me, really interesting. Whataya think?
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
I think it’s a good read of the contract law, and that the legal implications of government forcing people to purchase a service from a private, for profit company were not thought through thoroughly by the proponents of the ACA.
I’m also confident that the administration will carve out an exception for government duress, just like they carved out exceptions for bankruptcy and tax law when the government was a majority owner.
LikeLike
I will add this thought. While it is an axiom that the law cannot force you to do by indirection what it cannot force you to do directly, this mandate forces you to do by indirection what it can force you to do directly.
The validity of the individual mandate can be decided either way without setting aside a single remaining viable precedent. This amicus frames the matter as an intrusion on the right to contract based on a freely exercised meeting of minds. The counter argument will be that contract law is irrelevant to mandated coverage, because of a national policy deemed necessary by Congress, and properly within Congress’ ambit of commerce authority. If I could argue free and unfettered contract rights for management wrt labor contracts and their enforcement I would, but I cannot, so I don’t.
I think the individual mandate will be upheld. But I do not think it is a slam dunk and I do not think arguments like this one are not serious. However, arguments like this one rely upon the underlying and deadly serious major proposition that opponents raise: if there is a limit to the ambit of the Commerce Clause, this is a good place to draw the line. Don’t lose focus on that underlying argument. I think it is where the action is and I suspect QB agrees with me.
LikeLike
mark:
this mandate forces you to do by indirection what it can force you to do directly.
Can you explain this? I guess I don’t understand the indirection part. Seems to me that government is directly forcing you to sign and pay for a contract. And the question before the court is whether it can directly force you to do so. I’m sure I am missing something obvious, but its not, er, obvious to me at the moment.
LikeLike
“were not thought through thoroughly by the proponents of the ACA.”
among other aspects of the law.
LikeLike
Before participating, may I ask: does all things in moderation include moderation?
[welcome and see the rules of engagement tab above for all your ATiM questions – NoVA]
LikeLike
fdrouillard:
does all things in moderation include moderation?
Nothing beyond self-moderation.
LikeLike
fd, perhaps read the “About ATiM” and “Rules of Engagement” tabs above. All I can say is we try and then self-reflect and hash it out when we fail.
We’d love to hear from you though, whatever your position.
LikeLike
nice — cork me in front of the new guy
LikeLike
nova:
By cleverly inserting your answer into the original comment, it looks like you corked her.
Sneaky.
LikeLike
As someone who’s not that familiar with contract law all I can say is it sounds like an interesting challenge. I wasn’t all that thrilled with the mandate (still love that word) anyway so I guess we’ll see what the courts decide. We’ve already trashed real estate law and civil liberties……………………….so there’s that too.
LikeLike
Of course, Scott. The government could extend Medicare to all but let the private insurers bid on the under 65s, paying them through general revenues while taxing us [more]. It can mandate insurance directly. If it could not mandate heath care insurance directly it is clear that it could not do so indirectly, without a tax. That is why one early argument of DOJ was that the penalty was simply a tax for non-compliance.
LikeLike
Mark:
Maybe I am being obtuse (not deliberately, of course!), but it sounds to me like you are saying the opposite of what you originally said, ie that this mandate is forcing you to do something directly (“you must buy health insurance!”) that it could have forced you to do indirectly (“pay taxes, we’ll make sure you get health care”).
LikeLike
I thought the law was deliberately written to sidestep this issue by disguising it as a tax which can be avoided by buying insurance. Contrariwise, insurance companies don’t HAVE to sell anybody insurance, but they can’t discriminate based on a number of factors, or something to that effect. By offering a product for sale, they have to accept the offer of anyone who qualifies and wants to buy their product.
It is assumed that not everybody will be able to buy insurance from a private company. This is where the public health exchanges are the backstop for those uninsurable in the commercial market.
LikeLike
Well, YJ, that is how DOJ saw it, but I don’t think that the Circuits that upheld the IM bought that particular argument. Anybody have a handy summary?
LikeLike
This point is something I have thought about but not at length.
As a matter of contract law, I think that it has significant merit.
What is less clear is the constitutional implication. The argument is essentially that Congress is purporting to compel what is in reality a legal nullity: you can make us enter into a “contract,” but it is not really a contract since it is compelled. So, in theory, it is unenforceable.
But there isn’t a constitutional provision that neatly addresses this. There isn’t a clause that says Congress can’t pass stupid laws or undertake vain acts.
It does, however, underscore an aspect of the constitutional objections to the mandate, and that is that it invades a sphere of personal liberty … dare we say privacy or autonomy? It strips us of a fundamental ability to decide whether or not to enter into a commercial relationship. Justice Kennedy wrote that our autonomy as human beings includes a fundamental right to our own conception of reality and defining the meaning of life for ourselves (I don’t recall the precise words). That seems like a sphere of autonomy large enough to let me decide whether to buy medical insurance by entering into a contract with Aetna or Cigna.
LikeLike
QB, do you agree with me that this is a sub-argument to the major point of opposition, that being that there must be a limit on Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause, and this is where the line should be drawn?
LikeLike
Mark, I’m not sure it is a sub-argument as in part of that argument, but I agree that the Commerce argument is primary.
I think Wickard and its progeny are completely wrong, and that, even if they are not, this mandate to engage in “commerce” is not within the existing line of precedent.
LikeLike
QB, let’s say I am arguing FL’s case. I will definitely raise this contract-under-duress theory as a reason that this exercise of the Commerce Clause is not Proper. I will be confronted by Breyer with all sorts of fed laws regulating contracts in IC, but I will stoutly maintain that no statute or case ever compelled the entry into a contract without negotiation. I will try to distinguish NLRA by saying that it only compels bargaining in good faith. Etc.
That’s what I mean by sub-argument.
None of us like Wickard, it’s every law student’s most hated con law case. But I wouldn’t waste my minutes on oral argument there.
LikeLike
It isn’t a tax. One of Obama’s functionaries just testified to that under oath.
LikeLike
“This is where the public health exchanges are the backstop for those uninsurable in the commercial market.”
I think you’re confusing a few issues. The exchanges are available for those who for whatever reason can not obtain coverage through an employer — namely individuals and those who work for small businesses. There’s a formula to penalize larger employers (more than 50 employees — maybe 100?) who have are more than a certain amount of employees who obtain coverage on the exchanges.
As of 2014, the exchanges have to will to accept everyone, regardless of pre-existing condition. The latest on the exchanges is that HHS better get it in gear and issue the rules is they’re going to be up and running in time. See http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8213-FS.pdf
Right now, there’s a temporary high-risk pool for those “uninsurable” in the private market. but that’s scheduled to end as the exchanges come on line. it’s a bridge program.
LikeLike
In the case of government, Scott, taxing and providing a benefit is direct, but telling a citizen or employer s/he/it must buy a benefit is indirect.
But I like the way you think…
LikeLike
mark:
Can you give me an example of the government being prohibited from forcing you to do something directly, but trying to force you to do it indirectly?
LikeLike
Scott, I just returned. Before I give you an example of “direct-indirect”, I want to thank QB for commenting on the distinction between “tax” under the constitution and under the Anti-Injunction Act. And Mike, thanks for the NEJM link.
OK – try this one. Poll taxes are unconstitutional according to the 24th A.
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
**********************************************************
Congress can certainly pass a national ID law and limit voting in federal elections to persons with the ID. Can we charge for that national ID? I am guessing “not” if it is a prerequisite to voting. This is an issue that could arise. I hope it is illustrative.
LikeLike
I think you’re confusing a few issues.
No doubt I am. There have been several mutually contradictory justifications for the mandate and I am no longer sure what the current favorite is. The answer so far just seems to be “Because otherwise the system falls apart.” Which is arguable.
The closest analogy seems to be the requirement to carry insurance coverage in order to drive a car, but I can’t think of the back-end that completes the comparison. We have to carry health insurance in order to, what? Live? Avail ourselves of government services? Get health care at all? There just doesn’t seem to be any carrot attached to that stick.
As for the Commerce Clause, I thought that has been pretty well proven to be as infinitely elastic as Superman’s cape.
LikeLike
that this mandate is forcing you to do something directly (“you must buy health insurance!”) that it could have forced you to do indirectly (“pay taxes, we’ll make sure you get health care”).
I am also perplexed by this seeming paradox which you have summarized very pithily. How is the former more sound than the latter?
I would prefer the latter because I trust the government to do this better than a for-profit organization. The two sectors of the economy that should be in the public sector are health care and education because the desired outcomes are diametrically inconsistent with the profit motive.
LikeLike
yello:
I would prefer the latter because I trust the government to do this better than a for-profit organization.
What exactly do you trust the government to do better? The only thing the government does better than the private sector (not all insurance companies are for-profit, BTW) is compel people to do things they wouldn’t do voluntarily or prevent them from doing things they want to do.
The two sectors of the economy that should be in the public sector are health care and education because the desired outcomes are diametrically inconsistent with the profit motive.
What do you see as the desired outcomes?
LikeLike
Mark and QB, does the fact that Obama and other administration officials have said publicly that the mandate penalty is not a tax have any bearing on what the Justice Department is arguing to SCOTUS (that it is a tax?) Is the court allowed to take into consideration what the President and his administration say that is counter to what the administration is arguing in court?
LikeLike
George, I thought DOJ had abandoned that line of argument.
But ifBecause it has not, the Solicitor General may be asked about it. Whether or not it is a tax does not depend even on the sworn testimony of the POTUS. I don’t think this is a tax and I don’t think any Circuit bought that argument, even though most of the Circuits upheld the law. That just was not a winning point for DOJ, andI think it is GONE. Again,if it isn’t gone, it ought to be.I just checked and the “tax” argument remains one of six points in the DOJ brief.
LikeLike
In fairness, the case for the penalty being a tax:
Click to access 11-398_courtappointedamcuvacatur.authcheckdam.pdf
LikeLike
“The closest analogy seems to be the requirement to carry insurance coverage in order to drive a car, but I can’t think of the back-end that completes the comparison.”
That is one frustration with the mandate. If there were an effective way to avoid abusing the system, I’d favor the end of the individual mandate. People should be free to choose to be uninsured.
LikeLike
“The closest analogy seems to be the requirement to carry insurance coverage in order to drive a car, but I can’t think of the back-end that completes the comparison.”
I’m not sure this analogy holds. You don’t have to own a car, millions of Americans do not. However, the fact of my existence requires me, under penalty, to enter into a contract.
LikeLike
Mark:
I think the issue whether the penalty is a tax or not will be answered by SCOTUS when they rule on the applicability of the Anti-Injunction Act. The 6th (Sutton) found that it wasn’t, the 4th found that it was. So, SCOTUS asked the parties to address it.
The other three questions before SCOTUS are constitutionality of the mandate, severability, and the Medicaid expansion. It’s interesting because Vinson, and the 11th, apparently didn’t have a problem with severability and the Medicaid expansion.
LikeLike
Troll,
The statements of POTUS or his admin under oath probably are not binding admissions in the sense that they conclude the issue, and I do not know whether any of those statements have made it into the record of the case. But I suspect that they would have more practical importance than Mark appears to believe, particularly given that this is legislation crafted and shepherded by this President into law. The lawyers no doubt will be making a lawyers argument that Obama and his cabinet officials are addressing politics and not the technical legal issue before the court, or something like that. I don’t think anyone would want to have to answer the hard questions that could be posed in response. If it were in the record and before the Court, for example, it isn’t hard to imagine Justice Scalia grilling the lawyer.
I have not read the Judge Sutton’s opinion since it came out but was very unimpressed by it. I know Sutton and respect him, but I think this opinion was uncharacteristic and, frankly, trying a little too hard to come out in favor of ACA. I have a suspicion about this, but one I do not want to utter.
I think that the outcome depends entirely on the courage of Kennedy and the conservative justices. If they have the guts unflinchingly to follow principle, they will hold it unconstitutional. But I am not that confident that they will, and if they don’t then the doctrine of limited and delegated powers will almost be completely null and void.
LikeLike
I have not read the ABA brief (another reason why I find the ABA so objectionable), but it addresses a question that is different from the question of whether the penalty is a “tax” for constitutional purposes. The constitutional question is whether it is a tax within Congress’ taxing and spending power. The question addressed by the ABA is whether it is a tax within the broader meaning of the Anti-Injunction Act. It is quite possible for the penalty to be a “tax” for purposes of the latter (meaning the lawsuits would be premature) but not for purposes of the former.
LikeLike
QB:
What’s the difference between a “tax” for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act and a tax levied by Congress via their taxing power?
What do you think of the activity/inactivity distinction?
If they have the guts unflinchingly to follow principle, they will hold it unconstitutional. But I am not that confident that they will
The only vote you can count on holding the mandate unconstitutional is Thomas. Definitely Ginsburg and Breyer on the other side.
LikeLike
And just as I post, the NEJM e-TOC comes to my mailbox with the following link.
ACA at SCOTUS
LikeLike
Mike,
I would have to do some reading to address that with any reliability or precision, but I believe the AIA essentially applies to any taxes, penalties or assessments collected by the IRS. I.e., when the AIA says “tax” it explicitly includes penalties, and ACA expressly calls the mandate payment a penalty.
In general, for purposes of the consitutional question, however, I think we look at whether the primary purpose of the measure is to raise revenue or to regulate behavior. In this case, I think the primary purpose of the ACA fine is to penalize people for not buying insurance and thus to compel them to do so.
LikeLike
ylo wrote
“The two sectors of the economy that should be in the public sector are health care and education because the desired outcomes are diametrically inconsistent with the profit motive.”
troll asked
“What do you see as the desired outcomes?”
Can’t speak for him; but I suspect the desired outcomes are for a person to become educated & become/remain healthy. In a fee-for-service private enterprise model, both outcomes mean the end of the income stream for the service provider. i.e. healthy people don’t buy healthcare services & students complete school. For a company trying to maintain or grow cash flow, consumers that stop buying products are services are undesirable. For example, HP makes more on selling printer cartridges than printers. Apple has iTunes / AppStore to maintain income after selling the initial device. Even car makers are getting into it with services like OnStar.
Getting back to education & healthcare, how do you structure those businesses as mutually beneficial to both the service providers and the consumers who presumably don’t want spend their lives in school or hospital?
LikeLike
I can’t see how this distinguishes education or health care from an infinite number of other goods and services.
Mechanics, plumbers, TVs, cars, clothes, etc. Not solving the problem, selling a product that won’t last — that option is always out there.
Addendum: this was a response to bsimon.
LikeLike
qb:
Corked. Again.
You even used two of the exact examples I used. Damn you.
LikeLike
Scott:
; )
LikeLike
bsimon:
Getting back to education & healthcare, how do you structure those businesses as mutually beneficial to both the service providers and the consumers who presumably don’t want spend their lives in school or hospital?
You structure them just like the many, many other services of a similar nature that manage to provide “desired outcomes” despite being done for profit. Contrary to what you seem to imply, maintenance/growth of income streams need not depend on the same source for the same reason in perpetuity. Plenty of businesses exist and thrive on the introduction of new customers even as existing customers become ex-customers when the “desired outcome” is achieved.
Car mechanics, plumbers, pest removal services…the list of services aimed at repairing or fixing this or that problem, just like a health care provider, is endless. None of these fail to provide “desired outcomes” simply because by doing so the income stream is ended. Indeed, any future income stream (from future potential clients) is enhanced and even dependent upon producing “desired outcomes”.
Sports clinics, acting schools, singing classes, professional continuing education programs…again, the list of profit-making businesses that teach a skill or provide an education on something, just like a primary or secondary school, is endless. In none of them are “desired outcomes” inconsistent with the fact that they are motivated by making a profit.
LikeLike
whoops. scott, not troll; I misidentified the icon – it wasn’t freudian, I swear.
LikeLike
I’m not sure this analogy holds.
Precisely what I’m saying.
What do you see as the desired outcomes?
The goal of the health care system is to keep people healthy, if I can resort to a tautology. The goal of the educational system is to give people an education. These outcomes are so hard to measure and quantify that it is very tempting to cut corners to maintain profitability, especially in the cases of highest need ‘customers.’ As we all know, maintaining a a profit is the least of government’s goals even if containing costs sometimes is.
(not all insurance companies are for-profit, BTW)
Right. Many are mutual funds. I belong to USAA which is always rated as one of the best insurance companies. If they offered a health care plan which I could get at costs comparable to employer provided coverage, I would do it in a heartbeat.
The United States military enjoys a system of health care that is akin to a single payer/nationalized hybrid system. The federal employee insurance program with open enrollment periods and a wide variety of competing providers is often held as a model of efficient cost control.
I have always worked for small companies where their employer provided coverage is either bad or expensive or both. If we are to stick with private insurance, I would much prefer a system with portable coverage I could buy from an outside firm.
LikeLike
yello:
These outcomes are so hard to measure and quantify that it is very tempting to cut corners to maintain profitability, especially in the cases of highest need ‘customers.’ As we all know, maintaining a a profit is the least of government’s goals even if containing costs sometimes is.
The very fact that the outcomes are hard to measure and quantify militates against, not in favor, of making them a coercive monopoly under government control as you desire. Different people will measure the value of things differently, and therefore require the ability make a judgment about the quality of the service they are getting, and act on that judgment by moving their business to where the perceived value is more to their liking.
And I think you would be very hard pressed to make a substantive case that government actors are somehow less likely than private actors to cut corners to the detriment of their customers. The worst run schools in the nation are all public schools because private schools that do not provide real value to their customers don’t survive. Bad public schools survive all the time, because their income stream is guaranteed no matter how bad the service they provide is.
LikeLike
I was guessing at yello’s meaning.
For me, the answer for healthcare & education is that there’s a public benefit to having a minimum level of care / education. There is a direct correlation in the US between economic output & the education level of the populace. When the aggregate economy improves, we’re all better off; when the public is better educated, the aggregate economy improves. Therefore there is a public interest in educational standards. Same for healthcare; particularly for the kids. When young kids are healthy they do better in school. Kids who do better in school end up being more productive as adults. Productive adults are good for the economy. Therefore there is a public interest in ensuring that kids (in particular) have access to healthcare regardless of ability to pay.
People of lower incomes have limited ability to pay, which typically means the private sector is uninterested in providing services for them. But because the rest of us get a payback (albeit several decades in the future), it is in our interest to ensure the health and education of people (kids, particularly) who can’t provide for themselves.
LikeLike
I agree with Brian. These two items are much more like infrastructure than like “goods” and “services”. There really is a “public good” in public education and public health.
LikeLike
One of the sayings in the plumbing industry is “The plumber guards the health of the nation.” There is no reason we shouldn’t consider plumbing systems just like the health care and education systems. Most municipal sewer systems were built to get rid of the very real problems associated with raw sewage in the streets.
Perhaps we could privatize this system and sell off the city sewers to private companies. Then only the people who value sanitary water would need to pay for it. Companies could build private competing sewer systems which are cleaner and bigger for people who can afford nicer sewers. Every neighborhood could have two or three sewer systems to choose from, as long as their were enough customers who could pay.
Poor neighborhood sewer systems would eventually decay and clog. But we could give subsidies to people whose sewers have broken so they can buy chamber pots. They would then be able to take their chamber pots to special collection stations owned by the private sewers but only if it was a real emergency. Otherwise they would have to pay twice the going rate unless they bought sewage rights.
We need to put the free market to work on this idea pronto. There is gold in those sewers.
LikeLike
Public sewer and water systems are not plumbing and aren’t built and maintained by plumbers.
The guy who comes to my house to fix the kitchen faucet or drains is a plumber. If he did not fix it properly the first time, or took three times as long, he could charge me more money. The builder who built my house was not going to make more money off of me afterward; he in fact did cut corners.
Motives like these exist in all economic transactions. What fundamentally works against them is competition, which is the very thing eliminated by government monopolies. A wise seller realizes that the customer can leave and go elsewhere if they are doing a poor job, go elsewhere the next time, or tell his friends how good or bad a job the seller did. A dumb seller who does not realize this is eventually eliminated by the market.
LikeLike
bsimon::
For me, the answer for healthcare & education is that there’s a public benefit to having a minimum level of care / education.
Even if that is true, that does not necessitate a government monopoly over the industry, or really government participation as a provider at all. Presumably you think there is a public interest in having a minimum standard on the amount and type of food available. Yet, manifestly, we do not need to have government owned and operated farms, food production facilities, or grocery stores in order to provide it.
LikeLike
Yet, manifestly, we do not need to have government owned and operated farms, food production facilities, or grocery stores in order to provide it.
True. Evidence in favor of the competitive mechanism. Irrefutable.
Unfortunately, there is not historical evidence that universal literacy/numeracy basic education works through a competitive market. If there were some true models that worked I would be immediately tempted to adopt them. Private education generally works through non-profit church related institutions in the west. That won’t make for the near universal education we who think it is the basis for a productive capitalist economy desire.
Public health once actually worked through a mixed model of contagion outbreak control and sanitation as publicly funded, while everyday medical treatment was private paid. I would be tempted to ask what changed in the system to break it. I suspect that has been asked and answered. NoVAH may have the lit at his fingertips.
Confront me with a competitive model that works and I will buy into it over socialized medicine or single payer. I thought ACA was better than single payer. It just doesn’t address medical costs, except in the pilot programs Ashot mentioned. I have said here I would have favored tax subsidized increase in the volume of providers, the number of streamlined clinics, and the move away from non-exigent treatment of the poor in ERs. That move would save enough tax dollars to justify training more providers and having more clinics. But most of all, increasing the supply of providers would lower the cost of care by force of the competitive mechanism.
LikeLike
I would point out that there are several pilot programs and demonstration projects in the ACA that are attempting to work against the motives pointed out by bsimon and yello with respect to hospitals and physicians making more money for keeping people sick. To some extent ACOs would be one of those, but there are many different programs aimed at hospitals that reward them for having fewer readmissions, shorter length of stay etc. And before anyone shudders at these infant death panels, private insurers are adopting similar programs.
I have also heard a lot over the last few months about how hospitals and health systems are going to invest heavily in community health programs or health management efforts to keep people healthy.
LikeLike
“while everyday medical treatment was private paid.”
I’m not that well versed in the history, but the debate for government funded health care started in the 20s.
but this is a good look at the legislative victories and defeats for government health insurance leading up to the enactment of Medicare.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/corning.html
And from KFF … this goes beyond Medicare and into the Nixon-Kennedy push for universal coverage that ultimately failed. http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/7871.pdf
LikeLike
mark:
These two items are much more like infrastructure than like “goods” and “services”.
From an economic point of view, that isn’t true. Infrastructure projects like roads and bridges are, generally speaking, non-rivalrous, meaning that one person’s use of the good does not diminish the availability of the good to other consumers. Health care services and education services are most definitely rivalrous. The 15 minutes that the doctor spends attending to me is 15 minutes that the doctor cannot be attending to anyone else. Education services (with some exceptions) are slightly less rivalrous since a teacher can teach more than one student at a time, but it is generally recognized that the greater the class size, the less effective the teacher can be, so clearly the use of the good by one person does diminish to some degree the availability of the product to others.
To a lesser degree, there is also the issue of non-excludability, meaning the degree of difficulty in making use of the good exclusive to a particular set of people. Many infrastructure projects would never be undertaken by private actors because of the difficulty, either economically or logistically, in enforcing excludability. Hence they become public projects. This is not true of either health care or education, each of which is quite easily excludable, just like any other good or service in the economy, and is exactly why there are plenty of private actors providing the services.
In a economic sense, health care and educations services are very much unlike infrastructure, and not only are they “like” typical goods and services, they are typical goods and services.
LikeLike
From an economic point of view, that isn’t true. Infrastructure projects like roads and bridges are, generally speaking, non-rivalrous, meaning that one person’s use of the good does not diminish the availability of the good to other consumers. Health care services and education services are most definitely rivalrous
The building of roads and highways is also rivalrous. That is why contracts are bid. Then we all get to use them. The building of educated persons is rivalrous. Then we all get to use their skills.
See my 6:58am, please. I am more concerned with finding an example of the competitive mechanism actually creating near universal education.
LikeLike
mark:
Unfortunately, there is not historical evidence that universal literacy/numeracy basic education works through a competitive market.
I suspect that is because the “market” for basic education was originally created by government compulsion. If I am not mistaken, the development of the public school system was grounded upon local and state laws compelling parents to send their kids to school. In order to meet the government created demand, the government had to act as a “free” provider. Hence no competitive market was ever allowed to actually develop naturally.
LikeLike
Scott, if your quick take on history is correct for all modern states, it makes my point. When the need became obvious, the competitive market did not meet it. Seems like the citizenry hired a teacher and brought her to town and turned a building into a schoolhouse. At least in the movies.
LikeLike
” Even if that is true, that does not necessitate a government monopoly over the industry, or really government participation as a provider at all.”
The gov’t has monopolies in neither education nor healthcare.
LikeLike
mark:
The building of roads and highways is also rivalrous. That is why contracts are bid. Then we all get to use them. The building of educated persons is rivalrous. Then we all get to use their skills.
In this we seem to have a deep philosophical disagreement.
Individuals exist as an end in themselves. Unlike roads, they do not exist for my “use”. It is neither my responsibility nor, far more importantly, my right to “build” a person into something that will be of use to me.
Beyond that, if you believe that we have both an obligation and/or a right to “build” others into something so we can “use” them, then we will need to talk about just what they should be “built” into, and start passing laws to make sure their skills are put to the “best” use. We don’t, afterall, build roads and bridges just anywhere – we figure out where they will be of the best use and put them there. No more letting people just choose which direction in life they want to take. The marginal utility to me of a new engineer is far greater than than the marginal utility of a new lawyer. We will definitely have to close some law schools.
Also, of course, there are some individuals who, we will be able to know fairly quickly, will be of limited or no marginal utility at all. We will need to start limiting or perhaps even prevent any effort educating them, since the effort needed to do so will provide better “returns” if spent elsewhere.
Your thinking leads in some awfully, shall we say, uncomfortable directions.
LikeLike
Your thinking leads in some awfully, shall we say, uncomfortable directions.
If that is where you take it, I agree to the discomfort. I don’t take that direction, which is one that could equally be taken by a private for profit system, so is irrelevant to the discussion.
I take the public utility argument this far: we can have human capital, or not. We can provide education/training, or not.
We can lead the horses to water, but we cannot make them drink. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t provide water.
Western nations have all chosen to have human capital and provide education. Backward nations have not. No one has done it with the competitive mechanism, although it was available all along. The evidence favors having a public education system. But I remain open to an example of the competitive model producing near universally educated persons.
LikeLike
mark:
When the need became obvious,…
Needed by who? The fact that governments needed to compel people by law to go suggests to me that the need was far from obvious to many/most people.
There is quite an extensive private system of higher education in the US. There is no reason to think that a similarly extensive private system would not have developed in the absence of government intervening into the natural process of providing desired goods and services.
LikeLike
novahockey,
Thanks for that great relatively unbiased summary of the ahistorical trend towards universal health care.
LikeLike
The fact that governments needed to compel people by law to go suggests to me that the need was far from obvious to many/most people.
At least part of the drive towards universal education was to keep children out of the work force. Kids in school couldn’t be working in mines or factories.
LikeLike
bsimon:
The gov’t has monopolies in neither education nor healthcare.
The thread was driven by yello’s notion that it should. (Not in those exact words, of course.) I assumed that you were joining yello in arguing for government to act as a provider of health/education services for everyone. if all you were doing was pointing out that healthy and educated people tend to have ancillary benefits to other people, then yes, I agree.
BTW, I forgot to remark on this:
People of lower incomes have limited ability to pay, which typically means the private sector is uninterested in providing services for them.
I don’t think that is “typically” true at all. The private sector provides goods and services to people of lower incomes all the time.
LikeLike
@yello — no problem. If I get a chance, I’ll take a look at my bookshelf and see if there’s anything else I can recommend re: the history
LikeLike
The thread was driven by yello’s notion that it should.
Once again, words are put in my mouth. The existence of a public sector service does not preclude competition by the private sector. I would say even say that it is desirable as a check on the public sector version.
The difficulty these have is that they can rarely compete on the basis of price since most of the cost is borne by taxpayer. The private sector competitor therefore has to have some perceived superiority on the basis of quality.
The existence of Medicare has created an entire industry of Medicare wrap-around coverages. In the South, segregation academies emerged in parallel with the public school system, many of which are still in existence.
One place where the private sector competes very well is at the collegiate level where the cost advantage is not nearly as great, particularly since taxpayer funding at many ‘state’ colleges is rapidly eroding.
In the interest of full disclosure, my wife is a public school teacher, so I have some very firm opinions on whether private schools actually deliver a superior product.
LikeLike
yello:
Once again, words are put in my mouth.
I explicitly noted that you did not say those words, so no, words were not put in your mouth. But my words are clearly the implication of what you said, which, to remind you, was this:
The two sectors of the economy that should be in the public sector are health care and education…
Your confusing double use of the word “sector” notwithstanding, it seems plain that you are saying that the health care and education industries should reside in the public, not the private, sector. When that happens, it is, by definition, a government monopoly.
In the interest of full disclosure, my wife is a public school teacher, so I have some very firm opinions on whether private schools actually deliver a superior product.
Mine too. (Actually, she used to be a teacher, in both public and private schools. After taking some time off after having kids, she is back working in a local public school as an aide for special ed kids.) I don’t think one can generalize in any meaningful way about the relative quality of public and private schools. There are good and bad schools that are both public and private. But certainly I think one can say that the worst public schools are far more likely to remain both in existence and of poor quality than the worst private schools, precisely because of what makes them public or private.
LikeLike
“The difficulty these have is that they can rarely compete on the basis of price since most of the cost is borne by taxpayer. ”
This can be addressed through a change in the funding stream. Instead of funding the school, fund the student and allow the family the spend where they see fit.
You get X to pay for this year of school. you can spending it at the local government run school, a private school or the tutors/materials you need to be home-schooled. we leave the details to the individual.
LikeLike
” I don’t think that is “typically” true at all. The private sector provides goods and services to people of lower incomes all the time.”
Sure it does. Are you arguing that the poor have enough disposable income that absent public schools they’d be a target market for privately run schools?
LikeLike
bsimon:
Are you arguing that the poor have enough disposable income that absent public schools they’d be a target market for privately run schools?
No, I was observing that it was not at all atypical for services to be offered to low income people by the private sector. Both for-profit and not-for-profit entities service low income areas in all kinds of ways.
But with regard specifically to schooling, the inability to pay for a private school does not imply the need for a public school. It just implies the need for funds.
LikeLike
“You get X to pay for this year of school. you can spending it at the local government run school, a private school or the tutors/materials you need to be home-schooled. we leave the details to the individual.”
I agree completely with you. But this concept seems to disturb a great many people for reasons that are not entirely clear to me.
If someone wishes to educate their child in a tradition proscribed by, say, a turn of the century KKK guideline, I would find it personally repellent. It is however their child and they should educate their child as they see fit. Yes, I’m contributing to it but I’d rather leave the actual education decision, through the funding mechanism of my taxes, to the parent.
LikeLike
“I assumed that you were joining yello in arguing for government to act as a provider of health/education services for everyone.”
You know what they say about assumptions.
I think a base level of education & access to healtthcare is necessary to facilitate people beecoming productive members of society. But I do not think gov’t should be the only provider. Choice is good.
LikeLike
bsimon:
You know what they say about assumptions.
You mean that assumptions are unavoidable and we all make them quite often? I don’t know if they say that, but they should.
LikeLike
“You get X to pay for this year of school. you can spending it at the local government run school, a private school or the tutors/materials you need to be home-schooled. we leave the details to the individual.”
I think any school that gets public money should have to follow the same rules as public schools; like accepting special needs kids, etc.
LikeLike
bsimon:
I think any school that gets public money should have to follow the same rules as public schools; like accepting special needs kids, etc.
So, to be clear: If I am a poor parent and I get public money to send my kid to school, I shouldn’t be allowed to send him the the school I thought was most suitable for him simply because that school wasn’t suitable for some other kid?
LikeLike
Do we know how universal vouchers have worked? In testing the experiment, would it make a difference whether the school district: 1] has no schools of any kind at the inception, or 2] has a public school but no private schools at the inception, or 3] has both kinds of schools at the inception of the experiment?
I am guessing that some existing school districts with “bad” public and “better” private schools would vote for universal vouchers. I am guessing a school district with good public and no private schools would not consider it.
I am thinking that where it does not conflict with constitutional issues like resegregating the schools, these local experiments would be worth trying.
School law experts here, anyone? What would keep a school district from trying this?
Could a school district try a mixed system, wherein it continues to fund its good schools but gives the kids at the worse schools vouchers for transfer or private school use? I think AISD is toying with this idea, btw, limiting the vouchers to kids in “under-performing” schools for use at any public or charter school.
LikeLike
When that happens, it is, by definition, a government monopoly.
And yet I gave multiple examples where it is not. It just has an enormous cost advantage because the general taxpayer is paying for it and not just the customers/clients/students/patients.
LikeLike
yello:
And yet I gave multiple examples where it is not.
I’m not sure what examples you are talking about, but if you gave us multiple examples of private entities providing a service, that service is not in the public sector. Being in the public sector means not private.
What we have now is a mixture in which education is provided by both the public and private sectors. With regard to health care, it is provided almost exclusively in the private sector, although lots of public sector money helps to pay for it.
LikeLike
Scott, why shouldn’t that other kid have access to the same publicly funded schools? Does he not deserve the same freedom of choice as you, or your hypothetical kid?
LikeLike
bsimon:
Scott, why shouldn’t that other kid have access to the same publicly funded schools?
In such a situation, it’s not the schools that are publicly funded, but rather the kid that is publicly funded. That was the point of my question to you. You frame the issue in such a way so as to make it appear that you are withholding something from the school because it doesn’t provide a service you think it should. But in fact what you are doing is withholding something from the person you are ostensibly helping simply because the service he wants is not coupled with a different service that you want it to be coupled with.
It’s like giving a poor person food stamps and telling him he can’t use them in the grocery store in his neighborhood because it doesn’t cater to Jewish people by selling Kosher food.
Does he not deserve the same freedom of choice as you, or your hypothetical kid?
Sure. He deserves precisely the same freedom of choice, namely the choice to spend the money on any school willing to provide him with the service he is looking for.
LikeLike
“I am guessing a school district with good public and no private schools would not consider it.”
locally, the push for charter schools in Fairfax County was met with a “whatever for … these are good schools attitude.” neither side was concerned about quality. just control. parents wanted more and the system saw it as a threat.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-schools-insider/post/fairfax-charter-school-seeks-approval-from-state-board-of-education/2012/02/22/gIQAvnm2TR_blog.html
The “siphoning of good” students really galls me.
Somewhat related, the state legislature was kicking around a bill that would allow home schooled kids participate in school-sponsored sports teams. pretty sure it lost. what was interesting was one of the local columnists objecting to people who wanted to treat the education system like a buffet — take what you want, leave the rest. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-home-schoolers-cant-have-their-cake-and-eat-it-too/2012/02/06/gIQAv9QAuQ_story.html
i actually think such a system makes a lot of sense.
LikeLike
Jnc, I agree, for extra-curriculars. Some schools even do the buffet this.g for classes; but more for kids that have advanced to college level material than, say, kids who don’t have a chemistry lab at homeschool.
LikeLike
“Willing to provide”
That may be where we disagree. If a school is going to accept our tax dollars as income it is reasonable for us to expect a standard of service from them. If that is too onerous perhaps they would choose not to sick on the gov’t teat.
LikeLike
bsimon:
If a school is going to accept our tax dollars…
I think this is where we disagree. It is not the school, but the poor person, who is accepting our tax dollars. Again, when you give food stamps to a person to buy food, do you really consider the store from which he buys the food to be sucking on the government teat?
LikeLike
It’s like giving a poor person food stamps and telling him he can’t use them in the grocery store in his neighborhood because it doesn’t cater to Jewish people by selling Kosher food.
I really love your analogies. They truly are the best part of your posts.
Public schools are currently the schools of last resort in that they cannot turn away any kid regardless of need, financial or educational. I know more than one family who home school or parochial school all their kids but the one with special needs. That one they send to the public schools to get the special services which are either unavailable or unaffordable at their preferred school. They do this because the local school district has to supply it by law.
Or to use your grocery store analogy, these parents use their food stamps for their other kids at the local Winn Dixie but send the kid who is lactose intolerant to the Trader Joe’s and demand they be given free soy milk.
LikeLike
yello:
Or to use your grocery store analogy, these parents use their food stamps for their other kids at the local Winn Dixie but send the kid who is lactose intolerant to the Trader Joe’s and demand they be given free soy milk.
Nope, that is not an appropriate use of my analogy. In fact my analogy does not work for your example because there are no government owned and operated grocery stores into which taxpayers are forced to pay even if they don’t shop there. Certainly, in any event, Trader Joe’s is not one. But using my analogy, we can describe what should happen. The family is given food stamps for each kid, and for three of them they shop at the neighborhood Piggly Wiggly. But the fourth one needs special food which the local one does not provide, so they take their food stamps to Trader Joe’s which does provide the special food. All’s good.
But, according to bsimon’s logic, they should not be allowed to shop for the first three kids in the Piggly Wiggly simply because it doesn’t provide the food that can be found at Trader Joe’s.
LikeLike
But, according to bsimon’s logic, they should not be allowed to shop for the first three kids in the Piggly Wiggly simply because it doesn’t provide the food that can be found at Trader Joe’s.
My understanding of bsimon’s logic is that if Piggly Wiggly is going to accept food stamps they should be required to provide the special food. Not saying I agree with that and the impact is the same, but I think you twisted the logic a bit.
LikeLike
ashot:
My understanding of bsimon’s logic is that if Piggly Wiggly is going to accept food stamps they should be required to provide the special food.
Yes, that is his claim. Therefore, logically, if the Piggly Wiggly does not provide that special food, food stamp recipients will not be allowed to use their food stamps there. Which is what I said. No twisting.
LikeLike
Scott-
No twisting.
Yeah…you’re right. Torres and Chelsea are stil crap.
LikeLike
“That one they send to the public schools to get the special services which are either unavailable or unaffordable at their preferred school.”
that seems to be similar to the “high risk pools” for the uninsurables.
LikeLike
Why wouldn’t schools that cater to special needs open on their own? With a voucher, they’d be able to make money, no? Just because a public school system says it costs X to educate that student doesn’t mean a private school couldn’t do it for less.
LikeLike
” in fact what you are doing is withholding something from the person you are ostensibly helping simply because the service he wants is not coupled with a different service that you want it to be coupled with.”
Not at all. Instead I am protecting the value of what is called a public education. If the student is using public money to buy an education, he deserves to have a reasonable level of confidence in what he will receive for that money. If he has special needs, those should be met. If the school cannot meet those standards, perhaps they should not receive public funds. Private schools certainly seem to do well enough now without them.
LikeLike
bsimon:
If the student is using public money to buy an education, he deserves to have a reasonable level of confidence in what he will receive for that money.
That’s a judgment he can and should be allowed to make on his own. That is the whole point of giving him a voucher rather than forcing him to take the product the government would otherwise produce – he is the best judge of what is best for his kids.
Again, the situation is this…Bill wants to send his kid to private school X because he understands it is a very good academic school. bsimon tells him he can’t because the school does not have a special needs program. But, says Bill, my kid doesn’t have special needs and this school suits him just fine. Too bad, says bsimon, I’m just protecting you.
You really think you are doing him a favor?
If he has special needs, those should be met.
No one is saying otherwise. I just don’t know why you would hold non-special needs kids hostage to the special needs kids.
Private schools certainly seem to do well enough now without them.
The issue is not whether private schools are helped or hurt, but rather whether the students are helped or hurt. Again, the condition you would place on them clearly can only hurt students by restricting their choices.
LikeLike
Troll, nothing is stopping them from trying that now. Here in MN we have charter schools that are publicly funded, but privately run. So far as I’m aware none have chosen to specialize in special needs kids. Why don’t you put together a business plan, come out here & give it a shot?
LikeLike
looks like charters for special needs do exist.
http://www.charterschoolsearch.com/specialtyprofile.cfm?spec_id=4&start=1&groupsize=all
LikeLike
Bsimon, I’m not getting your meaning.
LikeLike
Bsimon, I’m not getting your meaning.
Anyone company or individual is free to start a private school exclusively for special needs kids. I think Bsimon is saying that since such schools don’t exist are rare or, as yello pointed out, only exist with state funding it shows that the private sector is not sufficient and a public sector is needed. Again, not saying I agree, but I think that’s what bsimon is getting at.
LikeLike
I’ve posted this before:
PJ O’Rouke End Them Don’t Mend Them
LikeLike
nova-
Thanks for the numbers and the link. Clever title for the article, too.
LikeLike
that seems to be similar to the “high risk pools” for the uninsurables.
That is the much better analogy. Special needs students invariably cost much more than a ‘standard’ student to educate, often requiring a dedicated teaching assistant assigned just to them.
Why wouldn’t schools that cater to special needs open on their own? With a voucher, they’d be able to make money, no?
There are private schools which specialize in children with special needs. They are typically paid for by the local school board after parents have proven that the local school system’s programs cannot meet the needs of their child. Here is one in Baltimore.
Parents who want admission typically enroll their child in a public school knowing full well the school cannot meet their kid’s need and then begin the administrative process required to be transferred.
LikeLike
But, according to bsimon’s logic, they should not be allowed to shop for the first three kids in the Piggly Wiggly simply because it doesn’t provide the food that can be found at Trader Joe’s.
Yes, a much better analogy, but what happens when the food stamps given don’t cover the cost of the soy milk at Trader Joe’s? Or if the Trader Joe’s refuses to accept food stamps? Or they live in a town without a Trader Joe’s and the Winn Dixie (and the neighboring Piggly Wiggly) doesn’t stock soy milk?
LikeLike
Yello,
Plenty of schools consolidate special Ed now, and kids go there. Why wouldn’t a special needs school open up to serve multiple communities?
LikeLike
Mark:
IN passed a universal school voucher last year. I don’t know how it is doing currently but I remember that it was pretty well subscribed in the first few months.
LikeLike
ashot, the meaning I was getting at, and should have been clearer on, was whether bsimon is being sarcastic. If sarcasm, I think it is unwarranted but I didn’t want to assume that, hence my request for clarification. I think selling donuts can be a lucarative business doesn’t mean i’m the person that can make it viable. Further, parents of special needs kids spend currently spend a lot of money subsidizing the education they are receiving from a public school, so there is money being made in the private sector already, again, making the point moot.
LikeLike
If sarcasm, I think it is unwarranted but I didn’t want to assume that, hence my request for clarification.
Ahhh..yeah, I definitely think there was some sarcasm there.
Further, parents of special needs kids spend currently spend a lot of money subsidizing the education they are receiving from a public school, so there is money being made in the private sector already, again, making the point moot.
I don’t think I understand this. They subsidize teh education they are receiving from a public school with taxes right? How does that end up in the private sector? Or do you mean they spend a lot of money supplementing what the kids receive from a public school?
LikeLike
” bsimon tells him he can’t because the school does not have a special needs program.”
I don’t tell him he can’t go, I tell him to pay for himself. Public money serves the public good. If a school cannot follow some basic criteria of doing so, they shouldn’t get public money. The problem with Scott’s refraining of the argument is that he ignores the public good that comes from a properly functioning public education system. If people wish to pursue private education, homeschooling, etc, they should absolutely be free to do so. But they should not get to divert public dollars to a private good. We don’t allocate road maintenance funds to individuals for the same reason.
LikeLike
bsimon:
Public money serves the public good. If a school cannot follow some basic criteria of doing so, they shouldn’t get public money.
OK Let’s assume person X has no special needs. In terms of service provided, school A and school B are identical in every way except one, namely school
AB has a special needs program and schoolBA does not. School A is one block from person X’s home, while school B is a 45 minute bus ride away.What “public good” is served by allowing person X to use public funds to go to school B that is not served by allowing person X to use public funds to go to school A?
[edited for stupid reversal of terms error.]
LikeLike
Actually, some municipalities contract out road maintenance, just like they do garbage collection and emergency services. Scottsdale AZ does via Rural Metro and it functions well.
LikeLike
By your reasoning, people should be prevented from living in Scottsdale because basic emergency services are not staffed and run by public employees.
LikeLike
A great way to resolve the differences in what you and I decide a basic education should consist of is to let me use my voucher to send my kid to a school that I think meets my needs and you could use yours for your kids needs. What’s the problem with that?
LikeLike
Ashot, I meant this part ” they spend a lot of money supplementing what the kids receive from a public school?”
LikeLike
Ashot, I meant this part ” they spend a lot of money supplementing what the kids receive from a public school?”
That’s what I thought. I don’t know that there is enough supplementing occuring that it makes the point moot, but it ceratinly weakens the argument in my opinion. I think the real reason private schools for special needs children don’t exist is because public schools are required to provide a whole host of services that ends up being pretty comprehensive. I looked into this issue back in my medical malprctice days because we used to make that argument as a way to reduce damages. Between arguing that special needs kids didn’t need anything other than public school services and that many of them would die at a young age, I was one evil lawyer.
LikeLike
“What’s the problem with that?”
Education ceases to be a political weapon.
LikeLike
” My understanding of bsimon’s logic is that if Piggly Wiggly is going to accept food stamps they should be required to provide the special food.”
So food stamp recipients should be able to buy booze & cigarettes? The argument is about what they are buying; not where they are buying it.
LikeLike
bsimon:
The argument is about what they are buying; not where they are buying it.
Where they are buying it is precisely what the argument is about. You have said that they should not be able to use the voucher at a place that does not meet certain criteria, not that they should be able to use the voucher for certain services. We agree (I hope) that the voucher can only be used to purchase an education, not, say, a membership in a golf club. The issue is at which schools the voucher can be used. I say it should be up to the voucher recipient…that’s the whole point of the voucher, to give the power of choice back to the parent/student. You want to restrict that choice and limit it only to certain schools of your choice.
LikeLike
“The argument is about what they are buying; not where they are buying it.”
I think it’s the mandated buying that is the problem.
Public School: Here’s what we offer.
Me: This won’t meet my needs, because my child is [special needs/a super genius/ has hockey practice/is religious/none of your business], I’d like to take my money elsewhere.
Public School: Tough shit.
LikeLike
“and that many of them would die at a young age”
Dude.
The League of Evil meets Wednesday nights. Scott can send you the details.
LikeLike
Dude.
The League of Evil meets Wednesday nights. Scott can send you the details.
Hilarious…I’ll bring the baby seals, you bring the clubs.
LikeLike
Dude.
The League of Evil meets Wednesday nights. Scott can send you the details.
Well played, sir.
LikeLike
Nova, it’s not your money, it is money allocated to a public good. You can take your money & spend it as you please. You cannot take the public’s money – including from people without children, for example – to spend as you see fit.
LikeLike
“it is money allocated to a public good.”
I think that’s the rub. I don’t see education as a public good.
LikeLike
School A is one block from person X’s home, while school B is a 45 minute bus ride away.
What time did the train leave Chicago? I was told there wouldn’t be any math on the exam. Can we go back to grocery stores?
What “public good” is served by allowing person X to use public funds to go to school B that is not served by allowing person X to use public funds to go to school A?
Why would X want to go to School B which is both farther away and doesn’t have special programs?And what about person Y who does have special needs but lives one block from SchoolBA? Why should they have to travel farther just because SchoolBA wants to save money by not offering special programs?[edited to keep up with Scott’s edits]
LikeLike
yello:
I was told there wouldn’t be any math on the exam. Can we go back to grocery stores?
I’m not sure you understood that one, either.
And what about person Y who does have special needs but lives one block from School A?
Person Y’s situation is irrelevant to the question at hand, which was how the public good was or was not served depending upon which school X is allowed to attend using public funds.
Why should they have to travel farther just because School A wants to save money by not offering special programs?
This is like demanding to know why you should have to travel farther to get a burger for dinner just because the ice cream store next door to you wants to save money by not offering hot food. Answer: It’s a free country, that’s why.
And how does School B account for the cost structuring of having a special needs program when School A doesn’t?
School B has an anonymous benefactor who specifically covers the extra costs of the special needs program.
Feel free now to answer my original question?
LikeLike
And how does School B account for the cost structuring of having a special needs program when School A doesn’t? Do they charge more for Student Y? What if Student Y’s voucher doesn’t cover the additional cost? Or does School B spread the cost of the special needs program across all their students and put them at a price disadvantage to School A?
LikeLike
I don’t see education as a public good.
What is it then?
LikeLike
yello:
What is it then?
An individual good.
LikeLike
Yello,
Not every public school currently has a special needs program, for example, so perhaps a parent of a special needs child with a voucher has to put them on a bus, just like what happens now in many public school systems. Why is it burdensome in a voucher system but acceptable in a public system?
LikeLike
Why can’t the recipient of the taxpayers education funding spend it on the kind of education they want? Doesn’t that maximize liberty? There are parents now who could care less about their children’s education. That unfortunate truth will not change with a voucher system.
LikeLike
Mike, I would like to know how IN’s voucher system is working out. If a state or a school board tries this and it works, for the benefit of the kids, and thus for the ultimate benefit of the community, I would approve.
LikeLike
“Where they are buying it is precisely what the argument is about.”
In your opinion, perhaps. What they are buying – or more precisely what is being paid for on their behalf – is a public education. It seems to me the people paying the bills ought to have some say in how the money is spent. If the student or his/her parents have their hearts set on a school that does not meet the relevant criteria, they are more than welcome to pay out of their own pockets, or find a benefactor. But when the education is paid for by public dollars, it is reasonable to hold the public’s interest in mind – which may mean that private schools need to meet certain criteria in order to receive public funds. Why is this so difficult to understand? When speaking of food stamps and other welfare, some people have no problem setting criteria for receipt – like peeing in cups, and similar. How is setting criteria for a publicly funded education any different?
LikeLike
Feel free now to answer my original question?
It doesn’t matter for Student X, but it’s the wrong question. The correct question is ‘Why should School A be allowed to not admit Student Y just because he or she has special needs?’
LikeLike
bsimon:
It seems to me the people paying the bills ought to have some say in how the money is spent.
I generally agree, except that in this situation the whole purpose in providing money (vouchers) is to make other options apart from the public school available to him, and to increase his own ability to make choices. So to then limit his choices seems to defeat the very point of the program.
And, BTW, since most people who are sending their kids to school are also taxpayers, they are the ones paying the bill. So, in a very real sense, it is you, not me, who wants to prevent the ones paying the bill from having a say, by limiting their ability to pick the school of their choice.
But when the education is paid for by public dollars, it is reasonable to hold the public’s interest in mind …
That’s fine, but the question I have asked, and which still remains unanswered, is how in the world it is in the public’s interest to, say, allow someone to use public funds to purchase a non-special needs education from a school that also provides special needs education, but it is not in the public’s interest to allow that same someone to use those same public funds to purchase that same non-special needs education from a school that does not also provide a special needs
vacationeducation.You keep saying that the public’s interest is of such import, but you never explain how the limits you want are in the public’s interest.
How is setting criteria for a publicly funded education any different?
I have no problem with setting criteria, but that doesn’t make any criteria that can possibly be thought of sensible. And yours doesn’t seem sensible to me. Hence my question.
LikeLike
yello:
It doesn’t matter for Student X,
So, just to be clear, and so that I am not accused of putting words in your mouth, you agree that no public good is served by preventing X from using public funds to go school A?
…but it’s the wrong question.
It is precisely the question raised by bsimon’s position.
The correct question is ‘Why should School A be allowed to not admit Student Y just because he or she has special needs?’
For the same reason that an electrician should be “allowed” to refuse customers who want a new toilet installed in their house. Special needs is not the business it is in nor the service it wants to provide. And this is a free country.
LikeLike
…special needs vacation.
Is that a typo or a Freudian slip?
LikeLike
yello:
Is that a typo or a Freudian slip?
Must have been some kind of auto-correct. “Correct” being used very loosely.
LikeLike
For the same reason that an electrician should be “allowed” to refuse customers who want a new toilet installed in their house.
But if you hired an electrician and he refused to install a new outlet because all he does is change light bulbs, he’s not much of an electrician and probably should have his license yanked.
Must have been some kind of auto-correct.
FUAC! and this commentary.
LikeLike
yello:
But if you hired an electrician and he refused to install a new outlet because all he does is change light bulbs…
This is not analogous to anything we have been talking about. No one has suggested that a school has been hired but then refused to provide them with the service they were hired for.
In the context of the analogy, we have two customers, one who needs his light bulbs changed, and one who needs a new outlet. I think the former should be able to hire someone who only changes light bulbs, because that is all he needs. You, it seems, think the former should not be allowed to hire someone who only changes light bulbs, and should have to hire someone who both changes bulbs and installs new outlets, simply because a new outlet is needed by someone else.
LikeLike
A couple of thoughts:
(A) Why can’t special needs be provided for by publicly run institutions, and everybody else, who make up the vast majority of students, get to participate in some sort of voucher system, or free market education? I’m not clear on why the existence of special needs students requires public funding for everybody.
I say this as a supporter of publicly funded universal education, BTW. I just don’t follow the argument.
(B) Implementation of any changes is going to have to be as slow as mud, and will be more expensive at the outset, unless you’re willing to shortchange students, possibly a great deal of them, in the current school system. I’m witnessing something that is relatively minor, by comparison, in the merging of two school systems, and even that is disruptive and problematic and is going to end up with students being tossed from here to there, being forced to other schools, having access to certain classes or core focus areas taken away, moved from familiar (and perhaps superior) curriculums or course recovery options to others, etc., etc.
(C) We will always have publicly funded schools. Even if we get the federal government out of it (not necessarily a bad idea), the majority of states and cities will continue to provide publicly funded schools (and demand compulsory attendance). Any place that doesn’t will be at a disadvantage in attracting people with children to live and work, and likely to lose them.
(D) Vouchers are one way to do this, but optional programs aren’t a bad idea, either. Just letting parents and students choose which school in a system they wish to attend introduces competitive choice (into the admittedly small pond of the existing school system). If you had charter schools, so that there is more choice within the system, it might work even better.
LikeLike