|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2012 8:46:49 GMT
I have been somewhat distantly following the news about the student demonstrations in Québec. I feel that I understand the basic issue -- an increase of 70% in tuition fees -- that is certainly a valid reason to demonstrate. The same thing happened in the UK (was it last year?), and I think the student protests were crushed.
However, two things leave me perplexed. I believe that one of the justifications for this increase was more or less "the universities of Québec are very poorly ranked because they are underfinanced; therefore we need more money." The rebuttal to this is something like "the comparisons used for the universities of the world are not valid -- the education provided in Québec corresponds to local needs and can't be compared with what people think is necessary in the United States or China." I completely agree with this argument, because I have never understood these world rankings based on a model (decided by whom?) of exactly how a university should be. I don't think that one education fits all and that doing things like counting the number of Nobel prizes per university is extremely ethnocentric. For example, the number of Nobel prizes given in something like nuclear physics has absolutely no validity in countries that do not need or require nuclear physics. But is there a Nobel prize for agricultural progress? I don't think so.
The other thing that perplexes me is: what the hell is this law that was voted to ban demonstrations? How can they vote such a law in a place like Québec? I can certainly understand why the demonstrations have increased since the law was voted, but who can possibly support such a law in a democratic country? I do understand that a bit of vandalism and rioting is never appreciated, but it is certainly possible to address those problems without banning demonstrations, no?
Perhaps somebody with greater knowledge of the situation can enlighten me.
|
|
|
Post by imec on May 22, 2012 11:15:53 GMT
"but who can possibly support such a law in a democratic country?"
I for one. It's a situation out of control with a group of spoiled brats trampling the rights of others - they therefore, forfeit some of there own in my view. more after my bike ride...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2012 21:09:40 GMT
Here is a Reuters Canada article that explains quite a few things about what is happening.
|
|
|
Post by imec on May 23, 2012 0:25:31 GMT
Sorry, didn't have time to get back to this this AM (and still don't have much). Thanks for posting the follow-up k. Hopefully some of you will see the picture emerging here. Yes, it started as a protest against tuition hikes - in a province where tuition fees are BY FAR the lowest in the country ( please see this). But once the government foolishly caved to their demands to some degree and offered a phased in increase of $254/yr, it rapidly devolved into Occupy 2.0 - a more disruptive and even violent version of last year's idiotic movement. When the protest began to severely impact the rights of others (preventing school attendance, restricting access to public transport etc.), the government had no choice but to introduce restrictive legislation. The authorities have begun arresting offenders and I hope they arrest (and prosecute) plenty more.
|
|
|
Post by imec on May 23, 2012 0:37:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cristina on May 23, 2012 2:51:10 GMT
Unless I am reading this wrong, $2,519 average tuition seems like a better than good deal and a <$300 annual increase is a steal. As a contrast, Arizona has historically had the lowest in-state tuition fees in the US. The State constitution mandates that upper education be free or nearly free. My oldest daughter graduated in 2010 and that year's tuition at University of Arizona was less than $5,000 (excluding books, room and board). She had an academic scholarship which helped a lot, but still, the full tuition price was a good deal, IMO. Fast forward a couple of years as youngest daughter is preparing for university (she will enter in the Fall of 2013). Tuition at Arizona is now over $10,000 for AZ residents. A greater than 50% increase in about 3 years. Add another $6-8,000 for room and board, books and fees. As much as I love this daughter, chances are a bit slim that she will get any academic scholarships. I'm on a roll as college applications are occupying this family right now. Apologies if I derailed off the Canada theme. Except those Kebeckers are getting a damn good deal! Back to topic, sort of, I really don't support banning free speech demonstrations - although I do think its fair to have a little order. The problem is, there are some causes in history that were worth disrupting everyone's lives to create attention. Maybe the tuition hikes aren't one of them, but perhaps something else is. I think its hard to make a one size fits all rule about demonstrations in a free speech society. There should probably be a whole other thread about higher education costs, if there isn't already. And free speech.
|
|
|
Post by imec on May 23, 2012 4:03:40 GMT
Couple of key points... 1. The law does NOT ban demonstrations it simply stipulates that 8 hours notice be given for demonstrations of 50 or more - no different than requiring a permit for a parade.
2. The legislation makes it illegal to prevent someone from attending school - just like we don't want the Taliban preventing Afghans from attending school.
3. The legislation expires on July 1st, 2013 - by then maybe these idiot kids will realize that THEY are the 1% that needs to clean up its act.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2012 4:53:02 GMT
One thing that makes this all very strange to me is to compare the tuition in countries like Canada and the United States to university tuition in France, which is 177 euros a year for undergraduates, 245 euros for a master's degree and 372 euros for a doctorate. Naturally there are plenty of other fees on top of this (insurance, lab fees...) but university education is still part of "free public education" to which residents of France are entitled.
Of course students in France find plenty of things to demonstrate about over the year, but fees are not one of them.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on May 23, 2012 5:00:25 GMT
If people aren't free to assemble and even cause some degree of non-violent disruption of business as usual without prior consent of the government I don't think you can claim to be society that respects free speech, assembly and minority rights- which are always under threat in an electoral democracy. There is hardly a worse insult to a pluralistic democracy than the sight of armed riot cops attacking a non-violent protest- whatever legal fig leaves are used to justify the authoritarian state violence employed against its citizens.
I find it rank and obvious hypocrisy to see our political leaders praise popular demonstrations abroad and warn those governments to respect people's right to peacefully dissent in disruptive but non-violent protest but somehow think they shouldn't be held to the same standard they preach for others.
As for the spiraling costs of post secondary education, I don't think a society can claim to be both taking the concept seriously and at the same time disincentivizing people from availing themselves of it. Public post secondary education should be free to anyone academically qualified. Onerous tuitions are blatantly discriminatory against the children of the lower classes and trying to address that unfairness through scholarships is like trying to treat a compound fracture with band-aid. If throwing up financial barriers to education is a bad and unfair idea for primary and secondary education- and it obviously is- someone please explain to me why it magically becomes a good idea after twelve or thirteen years. And perhaps the worst part of creating this artificial barrier to education is that it is inherently anti-meritocratic. Children from lower income backgrounds are put at a completely unfair disadvantage, thus letting thousands less able, deserving and qualified in by dint of their parents' wealth and robbing the whole society of the wasted human potential of not using a more merit based approach.
Even free post secondary public education would still hugely favor the children of the wealthy as those children will be far less likely to have to work as students to support themselves and can focus on academic achievement while the lower class students cannot. And of course those children of the wealthy can always pay to attend private schools if their children cannot meet the academic standard or parents don't want their children mixing with the commoners. Private schools are always happy to bend admission requirements to suit the wealthy and powerful- and sufficiently generous.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on May 23, 2012 9:25:33 GMT
I'm all for any demonstration being able to occur at any time of day or night and in any public place and for as long as they want to. I am also for completely free education up to and including University level for all of the population of any mental capacity, immigrant status, whether they are a resident or not (I'm sure no-one would say that it would be free for residents/citizens only and those from other countries would have to pay), also free for further education, night schools, the training of apprentices when they are at an educational establishment, re-training of unemployed when a school/university environment is needed rather than 'on the job'. It should all be free - as should the health service for all (including those same non-citizens), public transport if unemployed or over/under a certain age and students plus free leisure and exercise facilities for those same people.
It should all be free without discrimination, certainly, as should demonstrations be able to pop up where and when.
However, to pay for all this and the Policing and clear up operation of demonstrations I suggest all those in favour of it campaign vociferously to get the legislation in place to facilitate that society but also campaign in the same manner for the increase in taxes to pay for it all. It's not complicated no matter who might think it to be so. It's quite simple - if you want it, you pay for it and the only way to do it is to increase taxes. Where else will the money come from?
So the situation is - you go to school for free (and free school dinners for everyone, not just the poor as it would stigmatise them to be different), go to University for free, get a job and settle down. But - Whilst at University you join in with groups of the unemployed and unemployable to wreak havoc whilst protesting and don't give a toss about the damage you cause, the violence you pursue and the disruption to the economy or local businesses because you know it's for a good cause, the law allows you to demonstrate and anyway the Police are fascist pigs who have no right to bar you entry to a public street you want to demonstrate in and so what if they get injured, it's their job. You also don't give a thought to who will pay for all the damage and disruption you've been involved in.
Throughout your life you enjoy good health, your children are born for free in a hospital, you pay your taxes and then all of a sudden you realise all through your working life you've been subsidising the antics of yobs, thugs, the ones who don't want to work, the people from other countries who fly in to take advantage of your education and health service, the benefits of those deliberately abusing the system, the work shy, the spongers on society who all they contribute is/are more children of the same mind set, those that see the ability to demonstrate meaning the ability to cause damage, looting and deliberate flaring of violence for enjoyment, you are subsidising those that ignore any health warnings deliberately and then feel they have a right to medical care for the results of their problems ........................... and on and on.................................
If you want unrestricted demonstrations, free education etc then you pay for it - I'm certainly not.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2012 10:50:41 GMT
While egalitarian highly taxed societies are not entirely problem free, the Scandinavian countries are still considered to be a model to most of the world concerning what you can accomplish: decent housing for all, free health care, free care for the aged, free education, clean streets... There are still millionaires in spite of the taxes, but I think the main problem in such places is the excruciating boredom. People really do not know what they want, do they?
|
|
|
Post by bjd on May 23, 2012 11:52:05 GMT
I just read the link in #2.
A formal inquiry opened on Tuesday into possible corruption in the powerful construction industry.
Gee, what a surprise. There was talk of that when I lived in Canada donkey's years ago.
Actually, I'm not in favour of free education at university level. I'm certainly against the kind of fees students have to pay in the States, but totally free is no good either. People just don't appreciate what they don't have to pay for.
I used to volunteer teaching French to immigrants here. The cost for the year was about 10€, for 4 hours of lessons a week. On days it rained, there were more of us volunteers than "pupils" simply because not paying meant that they didn't bother and didn't feel they lost anything.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2012 13:05:57 GMT
I agree with what fumobici said. Absolutely.
I know it's an unfair world, but nothing drums that more in than what I see the richer people do, and how they flaunt their money. I think University education should be free to those who cannot afford it. For those with rich parents, no.
BUT only those students that prove they should be eligible to free education should get it. By that I mean those with high marks to begin with, those that stay in the courses and attend regularly and keep their marks up.
I know of a boy, I'll call him 'Tom' who's father has connections with the University. Tom dropped out of his Engineering degree during the 2nd year. Usually those who drop out are not allowed back in, but guess what money and connections talk. A few strings were pulled and was allowed back in, no questions asked. And then he dropped out again, and now I hear he will be going back a third time. I know for a fact that if Tom were poor and did not have the backup of wealthy parents he would not be getting this special treatment.
It does make angry to think of all the poor kids out there that are brilliant intellectually, but will never get the push to go and attend university. They won't ever have the private tutors, if they need them, they don't have the tools available to them that the richer kids do to succeed. Free University education for kids like these would be a worthwhile investment.
As for free speech, it should not be banned in any way. Whether I, you or any one else agrees with the demonstrations, they should go ahead.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2012 13:09:27 GMT
My sister's boys went to private schools and I can vouch for that. Money talks and because of that the best students are sometimes left on the back-burner.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2012 13:21:24 GMT
One good thing about countries that have the baccalaureat exam is that if you pass it, you are at least certain that you are qualified for university level studies. It is not an easy exam, it is not administered in your own school, and it is not graded by anybody who knows you. Some really motivated students who have various learning difficulties (or even worse -- excellent intelligence but severe 'testing' difficulties) will go through the last year of high school three times in France to finally pass the 'bac' so that they can go on to university.
Rich kids in France who can't pass the bac often go to study in the United States or else their parents just pay the American style tuition for the 'American University of Paris' to save face.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on May 23, 2012 14:13:38 GMT
Throughout your life you enjoy good health, your children are born for free in a hospital, you pay your taxes and then all of a sudden you realise all through your working life you've been subsidising the antics of yobs, thugs, the ones who don't want to work, the people from other countries who fly in to take advantage of your education and health service, the benefits of those deliberately abusing the system, the work shy, the spongers on society who all they contribute is/are more children of the same mind se Yes it's those dirty immigrants and lazy undeserving poor who are at the core of our society's problems isn't it? It always comes back to them. That reminds me of a joke that was making the rounds here: A billionaire sits at a table with a Tea Partier and a poor person. There are ten cookies on the table; the billionaire takes 9 then says to the Tea Partier, "Watch that guy -- he's after your cookie!"
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on May 23, 2012 14:36:56 GMT
Actually, I'm not in favour of free education at university level. I'm certainly against the kind of fees students have to pay in the States, but totally free is no good either. People just don't appreciate what they don't have to pay for. Do you think primary and secondary education would work better for the same reasons if it was non universal and done on a user fee basis?
|
|
|
Post by mich64 on May 23, 2012 16:12:06 GMT
I believed in the right to protest and to hold demonstrations. That was when people did it to bring awareness and hopefully change to their cause or issue peacefully.
Whenever I see protests these days there is violence, eventually. I have not heard or seen one recently that has not included protesters eventually throwing things, taunting innocent people or destroying property. They start off innocently and when they are not getting results a small group will start with these behaviors and it escalates, and yes, ruins it for the innocent lawful protesters. It is unfair for the public who are not involved in their demonstrations that get hurt, harassed, bullied or have their life disrupted by others. Where are their rights to peace and safety?
Because of this our Police Departments are obligated to act to protect the citizens and when they do they are viewed as being against the reasons of the protest and that is not the case, they are having to be put into position to protect citizens and businesses only because protesters begin to break laws.
|
|
|
Post by imec on May 23, 2012 16:30:03 GMT
Unless I am reading this wrong, $2,519 average tuition seems like a better than good deal and a <$300 annual increase is a steal. No cristina, you are not reading it wrong - it is a GREAT deal (for the students that is - not for the taxpayers who have to pay the difference) and hardly something that warrants protests of the scale we are discussing here.. One thing that makes this all very strange to me is to compare the tuition in countries like Canada and the United States to university tuition in France, which is 177 euros a year for undergraduates, 245 euros for a master's degree and 372 euros for a doctorate. Naturally there are plenty of other fees on top of this (insurance, lab fees...) but university education is still part of "free public education" to which residents of France are entitled.
Of course students in France find plenty of things to demonstrate about over the year, but fees are not one of them. Education is FREE in your country kerouac??? Then I applaud the benevolence of the teachers, professors, administrators and so on who so generously donate their time and skills to the citizens of France! In my country the greedy pigs expect to be paid for those services so we have to collect taxes to pay for a system to ensure everyone has access to what we consider a basic education - higher learning institutions have to collect tuition for those so inclined to attend them (those who have good enough marks to ensure they are not wasting the time of the professors and the other students that is). As for the "entitlements" of the residents of France, you may want to check with the folks several countries to the east of you to see how that thinking worked out for them. You're only entitled to what you pay for - either as an individual or as a society. Nothing is free - SOMEONE eventually has to pay. If people aren't free to assemble and even cause some degree of non-violent disruption of business as usual without prior consent of the government I don't think you can claim to be society that respects free speech, assembly and minority rights- which are always under threat in an electoral democracy. There is hardly a worse insult to a pluralistic democracy than the sight of armed riot cops attacking a non-violent protest- whatever legal fig leaves are used to justify the authoritarian state violence employed against its citizens.
I find it rank and obvious hypocrisy to see our political leaders praise popular demonstrations abroad and warn those governments to respect people's right to peacefully dissent in disruptive but non-violent protest but somehow think they shouldn't be held to the same standard they preach for others.
As for the spiraling costs of post secondary education, I don't think a society can claim to be both taking the concept seriously and at the same time disincentivizing people from availing themselves of it. Public post secondary education should be free to anyone academically qualified. Onerous tuitions are blatantly discriminatory against the children of the lower classes and trying to address that unfairness through scholarships is like trying to treat a compound fracture with band-aid. If throwing up financial barriers to education is a bad and unfair idea for primary and secondary education- and it obviously is- someone please explain to me why it magically becomes a good idea after twelve or thirteen years. And perhaps the worst part of creating this artificial barrier to education is that it is inherently anti-meritocratic. Children from lower income backgrounds are put at a completely unfair disadvantage, thus letting thousands less able, deserving and qualified in by dint of their parents' wealth and robbing the whole society of the wasted human potential of not using a more merit based approach.
Even free post secondary public education would still hugely favor the children of the wealthy as those children will be far less likely to have to work as students to support themselves and can focus on academic achievement while the lower class students cannot. And of course those children of the wealthy can always pay to attend private schools if their children cannot meet the academic standard or parents don't want their children mixing with the commoners. Private schools are always happy to bend admission requirements to suit the wealthy and powerful- and sufficiently generous. fumobici, upon first glance, I was delighted to see you contributed several paragraphs - I always enjoy your eloquent style of writing. I was disappointed however, that you did not respond to the actual subject of this thread - the style of protest you defend in no way resembles what has been taking place in Quebec. You refer to "some degree of non-violent disruption of business as usual without prior consent of the government". First of all, what degree? A few hours? A few days, weeks? This protest has now lasted more than ONE HUNDRED DAYS. And what degree of impact do you support? Snarling traffic? Slowing down the subway system? In fact, the subway system was COMPLETELY SHUT DOWN. You also suggest "non-violent... ". Sorry, but I consider smoke bombs, tear gas and molotov cocktails to be particularly violent - I'm also not too keen on vandalizing offices, roughing up media and disruption of classes and intimidation of non-protesting students by masked protestors. And finally, you refer to "prior consent of the government". In fact the legislation does not seek to deny permission to protest but rather introduces a process which allows time for safety measures to be effected - to protect the public as well as the protestors themselves. AND, again, note that it is a temporary, emergency measure - just like the War Measure's Act had to be temporarily implemented when separatist elements started killing people in 1970. I'm ALL FOR the right to non-violent demonstration - the hooligans in this case though disrespected and abused their own rights and completely trampled the rights of others and therefore forfeited their right to protest without some prior notice. What about the rights of those who DON'T want to protest but want to teach and learn? What about the rights of those who need to go to work or conduct business to feed their family and pay the rent? What about the right of ALL citizens to safety??? The rights of all of these people are taken away by a relatively small bunch of very selfish students and misguided sympathizers. With regard to your suggestion that it's hypocritical of our leaders to support unrest abroad while imposing sanctions at home, once again you refer to peaceful protests - PLEASE stop calling what is happening in Quebec peaceful! It may, just may have started that way but it has quickly devolved into hooliganism (some have even suggested terrorism) with a complete disregard for the rights of others. And PLEASE let's not compare protesting against tuition hikes or reasonable measures to ensure demonstrations remain peaceful with neither the causes of nor the response to public uprisings in pursuit of basic human rights and freedoms in nations ruled by truly oppressive, dictatorial regimes. As for the issue of free secondary education - well, as I pointed out to kerouac above, NOTHING is free. And while the present systems in North America may not be the best answer, I'm not sure the Europeans and others who offer PS education without charging tuition have got it right either. In that model there has to be a limit placed on how much governments are able to allocate to public education and with that comes an arbitrary limit to the number of students accepted into the system, likely based on a high school GPA or some form of entrance testing - a GPA of 3.7 may be good one year and then it may have to be raised to 3.9 next year depending on the fullness of the coffers - is this fair? And as bjd points out, do people really value what they don't have to pay for? How about parallel public and private systems? This would likely result in a two tier system with the private one paying for and attracting the stronger teachers and students - far from ideal either. In Canada, the provinces make some contribution to the secondary system to maintain a higher degree of accessibility - Quebec has taken that almost to an extreme, with the rest of the country effectively subsidizing the ensuing benefit to Quebec students. mark - thanks for pointing out the folly of the "Lets make everything free! Lets let everyone (except the rich) do as they please!" attitude.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on May 23, 2012 16:39:14 GMT
Of course not, fumobici. I think education should be free and accessible to everyone at primary and secondary levels. Nursery school too, the way it is in France.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2012 16:42:04 GMT
I am very happy to pay taxes for education, and I would be even happier if they doubled the taxes for education and lowered the taxes for defense. I am also happy to pay taxes for well trained and qualified police.
A well educated population is much less likely to go wild out of despair in a fair society. In an unfair society (now known as the 9 cookies society), all bets are off.
|
|
|
Post by imec on May 23, 2012 16:49:40 GMT
A well educated population is much less likely to go wild out of despair in a fair society. In an unfair society (now known as the 9 cookies society), all bets are off. The actions of the well educated students in Quebec would seem to contradict this assertion.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on May 23, 2012 17:02:23 GMT
I was just talking to my sister in Ontario and she talks like Imec. These are not peaceful protests any more.
As for "free" or nearly free post secondary education in France -- that is a myth. Of course, anyone who passes the baccalauréat has a theoretical right to go to university, which is non-selective by law. The universities have a huge dropout rate: 50% in the first two years. Perhaps these are linked? Of course, there are kids who really don't know what they want to do, or are late-bloomers, so it would be unfair to prevent them from getting an education, but there is constant hand-wringing in France about how to make the system work better.
However, kids who want to study engineering, medicine, political science, any paramedical studies, business and many technical fields do not go to university. They go to various institutions that are selective, have tuition (often low by US standards for the technical 2-year programmes). But engineering or business require a 2 year prep, plus competitive exams, then high fees. I consider a business school that charges 8000€ tuition a year expensive.
This is not to mention living costs.
And furthermore, even those low fee rates quoted by Kerouac are the basic tuition at university. He didn't include the obligatory library fees, social security payments (obligatory starting at age 18), various other costs that are added to the bill. So poorer kids can indeed get bursaries, although they are often not paid until about January. Others, whose parents earn just over the cut-off, have to pay full fees, plus living costs. There is little student housing in France, and not everybody is allowed to apply for the subsidized ones.
Every couple of years there are student protests in France, but only at the universities. Here too the radical kids prevent the others from going to school. The arts university here in Toulouse is one of the more radical ones in France. 3 years ago, there were no classes for over 2 months at the end of the year. Exams were postponed until September instead of May/June. A group of loud strikers prevented votes about ending the strike being taken, so eventually those who wanted to return to class just stopped going to the meetings. When the university eventually re-opened, there were trashed classrooms and a lot of damage.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2012 17:06:49 GMT
I am talking about people who have reached adulthood. Students are always passionate about what a lot of us consider to be minor issues (although in this case, it is not a minor issue).
As an aside, I am in front of the early evening news, so it is always interesting to see the analysis of other countries regarding a situation like this. The news here is saying that it is beginning to look like the first stage of a Québecois "May 68" as the protests spread beyond the student population to make it the whole issue of a choice of society. In France, this is considered a good thing, because May 68 changed so many things that needed to be changed (for example schools were still unisex back then and a married woman could not open a bank account without her husband's permission). At the same time, when many people in the UK or Germany look at what happened in France back then, there is much fear and loathing of the concept of the government having lost control.
So far in Québec, only the Minister of Education has resigned, but if anything else begins to crumble, there could really be a major upheaval.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on May 23, 2012 17:32:06 GMT
Yes it's those dirty immigrants and lazy undeserving poor who are at the core of our society's problems isn't it? It always comes back to them. I think you'll find that they are a small part of the problem, as you realise, but since I included them in the list it seems to carry more weight and be focussed on more than the rest of the categories of people - though it shouldn't as they are all equal. I'm sure that being altruistic you'd have no objection to funding the medical care of any nationality who come to your country for that specific purpose. I'm sure that you'd also do the same for any person who, despite common sense and warnings, continues to drink so much they need new liver/kidneys - would you actually donate one to such a person, knowing they will continue to drink further, by the way? Also those who seek refuge in drugs or non-medical obesity though they are fully aware of the dangers and have been warned time and time again by health professionals, you have no second thoughts about paying for their medical care even though you know they will do the same thing over and over again? In essence then, you feel that it is a person's right to abuse their body without a thought for the consequences or their own responsibility - and then get someone else to pay for their treatment? An open door (actually open hospital) policy for every single person in the world without restriction? Or, the point is, do you draw the line somewhere? And actually the core of society's problems are politicians, usually with their own agenda (i.e. want to get in power, want to stay in power and get re-elected into power - name me a politician who doesn't but does their job solely to represent and benefit the people) - who should all be taken out into the desert and shot.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2012 17:41:24 GMT
Prevention is a large part of the utility of taxes, not just treatment.
That was my whole point of the utility of having a well educated population compared to one that was deprived of the opportunity.
Some people always seem to just see "what happened" without ever understanding how it could have been prevented.
And that contradicts folk wisdom ("An apple a day...." and all such sayings.) Folk wisdom is not as naive as a lot of people seem to think it is.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on May 23, 2012 18:47:59 GMT
Yes it's those dirty immigrants and lazy undeserving poor who are at the core of our society's problems isn't it? It always comes back to them. I think you'll find that they are a small part of the problem, as you realise, but since I included them in the list it seems to carry more weight and be focussed on more than the rest of the categories of people - though it shouldn't as they are all equal. I'm sure that being altruistic you'd have no objection to funding the medical care of any nationality who come to your country for that specific purpose. I'm sure that you'd also do the same for any person who, despite common sense and warnings, continues to drink so much they need new liver/kidneys - would you actually donate one to such a person, knowing they will continue to drink further, by the way? Also those who seek refuge in drugs or non-medical obesity though they are fully aware of the dangers and have been warned time and time again by health professionals, you have no second thoughts about paying for their medical care even though you know they will do the same thing over and over again? In essence then, you feel that it is a person's right to abuse their body without a thought for the consequences or their own responsibility - and then get someone else to pay for their treatment? An open door (actually open hospital) policy for every single person in the world without restriction? Or, the point is, do you draw the line somewhere? And actually the core of society's problems are politicians, usually with their own agenda (i.e. want to get in power, want to stay in power and get re-elected into power - name me a politician who doesn't but does their job solely to represent and benefit the people) - who should all be taken out into the desert and shot. You've certainly managed to infer a great deal of things I never said from the things I did say. I don't blame you, I'd rather argue against strawmen like, than have a real discussion based on what I actually did say. I didn't even raise the subject of health care although that's a discussion I'll be more than happy to have in another more appropriate thread. There are obviously no easy answers in a free society to self destructive behaviors like substance abuse, poor diet and obesity that have serious health consequences.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on May 23, 2012 19:52:13 GMT
So when I say - Throughout your life you enjoy good health, your children are born for free in a hospital, you pay your taxes and then all of a sudden you realise all through your working life you've been subsidising the antics of yobs, thugs, the ones who don't want to work, the people from other countries who fly in to take advantage of your education and health service, the benefits of those deliberately abusing the system, the work shy, the spongers on society who all they contribute is/are more children of the same mind set....You reply - Yes it's those dirty immigrants and lazy undeserving poor who are at the core of our society's problems isn't it? It always comes back to them. And then later you say - You've certainly managed to infer a great deal of things I never said from the things I did say. Isn't it a bit like the pot calling the kettle black? "Dirty immigrants and lazy undeserving poor...." That seems to be your interpretation of what I actually did say - which was nothing like that. It appears you've managed to infer a great deal of things I never said from the things I did say. Touché?
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on May 23, 2012 20:02:52 GMT
I didn't even raise the subject of health care .... No, I did, as it seems to tie in nicely with the discussion on education which was brought up as regards the demonstrations. The two previous points developed about the ability to demonstrate without restrictions and then the actual point as regards the increase in educational fees. I merely added a third complication.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2012 20:06:22 GMT
Health care is one of the best subjects in the world. The more you spend on it (properly), the less you have to spend. Guess what? Properly cared for people don't get sick very much.
|
|