[HM2Viking]

This is educational management data. I think that the lesson to be drawn from this article is that private management and market based solutions are not in and of themselves more efficient or effective. Market strategies and privatization are often held up as the cure for what ails health care. I think NCLB experiences really call into question that assumption as it has been a case of spending more and getting less.
http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/amer...apr07/nclb.htm

Independent researchers from the nonprofit RAND Corporation and Research for Action, a Philadelphia nonprofit research group, conducted an evaluation in Philadelphia. They examined performance at the 45 city schools that had been turned over to six different private managers, ranging from local nonprofits and universities to Edison Schools, the nation’s largest for-profit manager of public schools. (A seventh manager, Chancellor Beacon Academies, was fired for poor performance four years ago.) These groups receive additional per-pupil funding to run schools—this year the school district will spend $18.1 million on the private managers, bringing the total in extra funding spent on them in five years to $107.1 million. Yet their student achievement scores in the four years ending with the 2005-06 school year were no better than struggling public schools that have worked through the district to boost student achievement, the researchers conclude in their report, “State Takeover, School Restructuring, Private Management, and Student Achievement in Philadelphia.” These traditional schools also received extra funding, though not as much as the privately managed schools.

[sanctuary]

Take the insurance companies out of the equation and there would be sufficient funding to maintain our present standards and indeed, expand them. We pay more per capita than anybody else, but most of it goes to fund the bloated insurance companies. Take the "for profit" factor out of healthcare, then we'll talk.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by sanctuary

Take the insurance companies out of the equation and there would be sufficient funding to maintain our present standards and indeed, expand them. We pay more per capita than anybody else, but most of it goes to fund the bloated insurance companies. Take the "for profit" factor out of healthcare, then we'll talk.

It's a fantasy that you can trade the administration by private concerns for the administration by gov't and get any 'savings'.

If you want to take the gross profits out of the system, I agree that we need to take the '3rd party payor' out of the system. I see no particular benefit in handing it off to gov't.

The only way to benefit is to put the policing of prices directly in the hands of the consumer. Healthcare needs more free market reforms, not more of the same.

On the one hand, you decry what amounts to removal of free market processes from the current system, on the other, you advocate even further removal in the hands of gov't. Instead of addressing such problems, you aim to permanently entrench them.

The result you will get is more of the same. Much more.

Only, once you destroy the market basis of the system, those that advocate gov't control of healthcare will just advocate more and more control. It's a never-ending process. Yes, healthcare is worse now (under universal care) than it was before, but with even MORE control, we can make it better. That is a utopian fantasy with no basis in reality.

That's the nature of socialism and it's the danger of socialism. Fortunately, we have ample evidence of such failures. Unfortunately, too few people learn the lessons of history until they are long down the road of repeating them.

The lessons of history, lest you forget, is that socialism is NOT compassionate. You trade opportunity for a fair share in a dismal outcome. Given the alternatives available, that's neither compassionate nor fair. It's just cruel.

~faith,
Timothy.

[HM2Viking]

The aims of Social Democracy:

http://www.answers.com/topic/social-democracy-1

<H2>Views of social democrats today

In general, contemporary social democrats support:

• Regulatory systems over private enterprise in the interests of workers, consumers and fair competition.
• A mixed economy over a free market or planned economy
• Advocacy of fair trade over free trade.
• An extensive system of social security (though usually not to the extent advocated by democratic socialists or other socialist groups), notably to counteract the effects of poverty and to insure the citizens against loss of income following illness or unemployment. (see welfare state)
• Government-owned or subsidised programs of education, healthcare, child care, etc. for all citizens.
• Moderate to high levels of taxation to fund government expenditure and a progressive taxation system.
• Environmental protection laws (although not always to the extent advocated by Greens).

</H2>Highly Successful Social Democracies include:

<H2>Examples of social democracy

The prime example of social democracy is Sweden, which prospered considerably during the reign of Olof Palme. [1]. Sweden has produced a strong economy from sole proprietorships up through to multinationals (e.g., Saab, Ikea, and Ericsson), while maintaining one of the longest life expectancies in the world, low unemployment, inflation, infant mortality, national debt, and cost of living, all while registering sizable economic growth.[2]
Others also point to Norway as an example of a social democratic nation[3], where the Norwegian Labour Party played a critical role in Norway's recent political history by making social democratic reforms after WWII. In Norway, progressive taxation was introduced and the public sector greatly increased in size. Recently, Norway's economy has experienced an acceleration in economic growth (believed to be caused by oil deposits in the country).

</H2>

Canada is also referenced as a highly successful social democracy.

In the US there are several states that are arguably successful examples of an American version of social democracy. (For example, Mn and WI). Equality of result is not the goal of social democracy but rather the removal of social and economic barriers to the achievement of individual potential. Establishing a healthy and well educated citizenry should be the ultimate goal of society. (Human capital is our greatest resource.) I think that the proof is in the pudding just by contrasting health outcomes. Citizens of social democracies with strong safety nets tend to be healthier and live longer more satisfying and productive lives.

[HM2Viking]

http://www.nasi.org/usr_doc/Tom_Rice...n_02_02_07.pdf
Tentative "Lessons" for Health Care Reform

1. •Coverage should be universal, and financed primarily from public sources or government-ensured social insurance using progressive revenue sources
2. •Delivery of services can be carried out privately under the oversight of government, which acts as a purchaser of services
3. •Emphasis should be placed on containing costs through supply-side rather than demand-side methods
   "Lessons" Continued
   1. •Patient cost-sharing requirements should be reasonably low
   2. •Payments to providers should be coordinated among payers
   3. •Government should proceed with caution in providing consumers a choice of insurer
   4. •Fee-for-service payment should be re-evaluated

[HM2Viking]

The largest study of health insurance ever conducted, done over 15 years by the RAND corporation, randomly sorted individuals into different insurance plans with varying levels of generosity. Those in the most expansive plans received 40 percent more care than those in the least -- and their health outcomes were no better. The only exception was for the poor, whose health outcomes were hurt by cost-sharing and improved by more generous plans. The Dartmouth Atlas studies showed that regional variations in medical culture and doctor density led to, among other odd effects, 30 percent of seniors in Miami seeing more than 10 specialists in their last six months of life, compared to just seven percent of those in Oregon. Even with this huge variation in care, outcomes among the two populations were no different. The research is clear: Not only is more care not always better, it is sometimes worse -- and it is always more expensive.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?...rticleId=12635