On May 27, 2:27*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , Peter
wrote:

You are cherry picking the data that support your case and ignoring the data
that doesn't. *Not all private schools that accept students subsidized by
public
vouchers produce a better product. *The NEA is blocking vouchers because they
know that public school budgets are calculated on the basis of student
enrollment. *Vouchers siphon enrollment, reducing the municipality's pubic
education budget, which translates into less money to pay teacher salaries.

Actually they are protesting less money to pay UNION teacher salaries.
If you look at most of the state constitutions where there is a
requirement for public schools, it requires public FUNDING but not
necessarily public delivery of the product.



Exactly. And if most private schools were not providing a better
education, then the union teachers wouldn't have anything to protest
about, because parents wouldn't want to send their children to those
schools. The fact is, privates schools are producing a better
education and when given a choice with school vouchers, parents then
have the option of sending their kids there. That is what the unions
fear. They want tenure where it becomes virtually impossible to fire
a teacher, not matter how incompetent. I've never had that luxury at
any job I held.






In the case of public healthcare, take a look at the fraud going on in

True, but incomplete information. *There's probably an equal amount of
fraudulent claims being filed with private insurers. *When doctors are
unscrupulous, they don't care who they are bilking. *When I was in private
practice, I quickly got disgusted watching my greedy colleagues intentionally
use diagnostic and therapeutic billing codes that paid more, even if those
codes
did not accurately represent what was wrong with the patient and what was
done
to or for them.

* None of the studies I have seen indicate that, although reading
through them I think the Mcare data was better because it was less
filtered.

Of course not and for an obvious reason. Private insurance companies
have an incentive to reduce fraud as much as possible, because it
improves their bottom line. In the case of govt programs, it's just
another cost overrun that doesn't come out of their pockets, affect
their job performance review, or anything else.





Having written about coding for a few years, there is a
certain amount of subjectivity unless they are trying to bill a toe nail
removal as a transplant. I think there is also a little bit of
maximizing codes since MCare pays so little compared to private
insurance (studies show MCare pays 12 to 20% less than privates for
similar diagnosis and case mix than the Evil Insurance Companies).

Don;t believe me? * Ask Obama. *One of his most remarkable claims for
funding his new healthcare was that he was gonna recover billions in
waste and fraud from Medicare/Medicaid. * Only in America. *Anywhere
else, the logical response would be, "you idiot, if the govt can't run
those, how are you gonna run an even bigger boondoggle?

You don't like Medicare? *Please, when you turn 65, don't sign up. *

* * *Yep. We have so many alternative choices as in none.


Nothing in the above statement says anything about whether I like or
don't like Medicare. It simply points out the stupidity in using the
argument that the govt is going to eliminate massive fraud and waste
in one govt healthcare program as a means to start and pay for another
far bigger one.