American Healthcare Post-Covid

[vector2]

Lemme try to get the train back on the tracks a bit in regard to American Healthcare Post-COVID

---------
Trump rejects Obamacare special enrollment period amid pandemic

President Donald Trump and administration officials recently said they were considering relaunching HealthCare.gov, the federal enrollment site, and insurers said they privately received assurances from health officials overseeing the law's marketplace. However, a White House official on Tuesday evening told POLITICO the administration will not reopen the site for a special enrollment period, and that the administration is "exploring other options."

....

Insurers said they had expected Trump to announce a special enrollment period last Friday based on conversations they had with officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which runs HealthCare.gov enrollment. It wasn’t immediately clear why the Trump administration decided against the special enrollment period. CMS deferred comment to the White House.

Trump confirmed last week he was seriously considering a special enrollment period, but he also doubled down on his support of a lawsuit by Republican states that could destroy the entire Affordable Care Act, along with coverage for the 20 million people insured through the law.

Trump rejects Obamacare special enrollment period amid pandemic

President Donald Trump and administration officials recently said they were considering relaunching HealthCare.gov.

www.politico.com

--------------


Good luck if you get COVID and you're in the too poor for insurance, too rich for medicaid bubble. And even if you have insurance:

----
He Got Tested for Coronavirus. Then Came the Flood of Medical Bills.

...
By Monday, March 9, he reported to his doctor that he was feeling better but still had some cough and low-grade fever. Within minutes, he got a call from the heads of a hospital emergency room and infectious-disease department where he lives in upstate New York: He should come right away to the E.R. for newly available coronavirus testing. Though they offered to send an ambulance, he felt fine and drove the hour.

In an isolation room, the doctors put him on an IV drip, did a chest X-ray and took the swabs.

Now back at work remotely, he faces a mounting array of bills. His patient responsibility, according to his insurer, is now close to $2,000, and he fears there may be more bills to come.

“I was under the assumption that all that would be covered,” said Mr. Cencini, who makes $54,000 a year. “I could have chosen not to do all this, and put countless others at risk,” he added. “But I was trying to do the right thing.”

...

While insurers had indeed agreed to cover the full cost of diagnostic coronavirus tests, that may well prove illusory: Mr. Cencini’s test was free but his visit to the E.R. to get it was not.
----

Opinion | He Got Tested for Coronavirus. Then Came the Flood of Medical Bills. (Published 2020)

Hidden costs for E.R. visits and other fees could cost people thousands of dollars.

www.nytimes.com

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Monty Python]

... Once again, I will reiterate that the OP actually said ....

Ahem, as the actual OP what I solicited is others' opinions of what American healthcare might look like post-Covid.

While I (and presumably others) have enjoyed the non-topic debates over POTUS, the Electoral College, the Federalist Papers, and why the umbilicus gathers lint, may I ask that we return to the original question?

I invite those interested in continuing the non-topical debates to register here: Political Science Rumors - Forum for Political Scientists

Thank you.

 

[radsisrad]

But yet we have poorer health outcomes than they. We must be doing such a marvelous job.

You missed my point.

America has a ceiling with respect to how much social capital it can possibly enjoy.

 

[BLADEMDA]

As a black person in this country, this is relevant to me because one of the reasons the electoral college was enacted was to keep the slave owners of the South wealthy as their slaves were counted as less than a whole person, therefore ensuring that their vote was less than a White man's vote. I have a problem with this on principle alone, and I don't necessarily expect you to understand. Even in modern times, it's not like black folks in this country have equal footing from day one, but that's a debate for another day.

As an intelligent person, I have a problem with the fact that this whole thing was enacted because the people who wanted to run this country didn't trust that good old, mom and pop country folk, weren't intelligent enough to listen to the candidates, UNDERSTAND what they were running for, and make up their own minds about who was the best candidate that fit with their belief system and would lead the country in the direction that they believed in and agreed with. It was basically elitist, in essence letting the "common" folk know that they were not intelligent enough to make those decisions for themselves, and someone more intelligent and more in the upper crust of politics would make those decisions for them.

Since most states but two have rules about winner takes all, it creates a lack of incentive for many people to vote because they feel like their vote doesn't count. In my state, a Red state, where all of the cities vote majority liberal but most of the population lives outside of the major urban areas and vote majority conservative, going to the voting polls is almost useless because the liberals are always outnumbered. The opposite may be true in the Blue states. I don't know. But some of us keep voting anyway.

I don't need electors to vote on my behalf as I am fully capable of making that vote for myself. Mom and pop out in the country don't need anyone to make that decision for them either because they are fully capable as well. Their vote (most likely Republican here in the South) should count just as equally as my suburbian progressive liberal vote and vise versa. They shouldn't get all the pie, because they outnumber the city liberals.

So yeah, it's still very relevant because the electoral college is based on ancient times, and outdated principles. An update/amendment is long overdue. Just like the Amendment to let women and blacks vote.

The nation is shifting left so as long as you live another 20 years many of those RED states will turn purple or blue. You don't need an amendment to accomplish your goal just time. Time is on your side. Also, the 2 party system in the USA needs to become a 3 or 4 party system and then that too would make your vote in every state count a great deal.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Because this is exactly what's happening in Europe right? Lots and lots of White males are unemployed over there.

But hey, if that's what the ultimate outcome of this is, universal healthcare for all and not just the employed or wealthy or dirt poor, then I am glad this whole thing is happening.

And those dirt poor people who get Medicaid are still denied very basic healthcare so there is still going to be work to be done in the Universal Healthcare should it come to that.

I know you know who ultimately pays all these exorbitant bills that go unpaid by uninsured people.

The entire "woke" movement in the USA is much farther to the left than the typical European Democracy. I want to stress that many European countries have tried their hands at much more socialism than capitalism with the results showing the limits of socialism. We can learn from their mistakes rather than repeat them.

As for Medicaid Insurance the reimbursement is so low many physicians don't accept it. I personally get around $70 for a typical Medicaid case in my state.
That is lower than my plumber, electrician, roofer, etc. Almost any "trade" with certification pays more than Medicaid per hour. Medicare isn't that much better so the basic healthcare people seek will certainly be rationed in one way or the other.

The USA needs to be about finding the best person for the position regardless of race, gender, religion, etc. That is the type of society envisioned by Martin Luther King and the one we should strive to become. The idea we replace one or two historically disenfranchised groups with another is not the answer. Quotas are inherently prejudicial and unconstitutional regardless of which group benefits or suffers from it. Let each person be judged by his/her merits. I realize that such a society may be decades away but we all should be working towards that goal. In the mean time I certainly understand the need to consider race as a factor in many decisions/admissions but it shouldn't be the main factor.

A Timeline of Key Supreme Court Cases on Affirmative Action (Published 2019)

The Supreme Court has weighed in on affirmative action several times. Here are some key cases through the decades.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Arch Guillotti]

IMHO, the medical system will be a clear 2 tiered system within 8 years or Medicare 4 all. With Trump spending 4-7 Trillion on Covid 19 it will be hard to convince most people we can't spend 3 trillion more every year for universal healthcare. Sadly, this Covid 19 is exactly what Vector2 and his friends needed to push through an extreme left-wing agenda. One where illegals get free health care, white males can't find jobs or get admitted to med school, and midlevel providers practice independently at the top of their license. This will be a hard turn left and the economy will suffer greatly from it. The destruction of the USA was always going to be internal rather than external. Forget the GDP of the past as we embrace socialism those days will be over.

Blade. Lay off FOX news. And the trolling.

 

[deleted500612]

The sentence bolded above is where your logic break downs. You are continuing to make a tremendous error by lazily generalizing that because an entire, overarching democratic system was founded in an era of systemic discrimination, then therefore all aspects, sub-aspects (i.e. the EC), or variations of that system past or present must necessarily suffer from the fruit of the poisonous tree, and thus must also be similarly unjust.

Well, now you can read my direct response after staying away from this place all morning. So you can direct your arguments directly to the OP. And yea, your analogy was reaching and indeed throwing the baby out with the bathwater as @Vector repeatedly tried to explain.
Never did I say anything about the entire democracy, just the electoral college.

The logic of the original premise doesn't break down, but rather fails to ever establish itself by insisting something previously unjust but that does not exist any more and hasn't for a long time is a justification to change the current electoral system. It is not a "lazy generalization" to state plainly that it is absolutely no different than claiming a popular vote system or other iterations of democracy are unjust because they were originally designed to inherently oppress women, so therefore it must also be a broken system that we can't use today even though that unjust element was eliminated long ago, as was racial discrimination in the EC. The analogy is not reaching, multiple posters seem to have agreed that it was a perfectly valid analogy. I'm open to hear either of you try to differentiate the comparison and justify why the EC is bad and must go because of inherent racism 100 years ago meanwhile PV is good and should be used despite inherent sexism 100 years ago.

This was the original point that was made, and neither you or chocomorsel have yet addressed or established a discrepancy between the analogous comparisons but instead offered plenty of distracting commentary on just about everything but the original point... I won't hold my breath.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Blade. Lay off FOX news. And the trolling.

Trolling? I call it my opinion that in 4-8 years we will have Medicare 4 all. This is based on recent polling where Democrats and Independents are agreeing with the concept every American should have some form of Healthcare either from the free market or provided by the government. Every single Democrat for President raised their hand in response to the question of "whether illegal aliens should be able to get free healthcare" from the USA. I watched that debate and it wasn't on Fox. I consider that response "extreme left wing" as do the vast majority of Americans. I am willing to discuss every single one of my statements and provide proof of such an agenda (irrefutable proof).

All Democrats At Main Debate Agree Illegal Immigrants Should Get Health Care Coverage

MSNBC Democratic presidential primary debate co-moderator Savannah Guthrie asked the candidates to raise their hand if their healthcare plan would cover undocumented immigrants. "This is a show of hands question and hold them up so people can see. Raise your hand if your government plan would...

www.realclearpolitics.com

 

[BLADEMDA]

Poll: Narrow majority favors ‘Medicare for All’

A narrow majority of Americans favors a national “Medicare for All” health plan, according to a new poll, but even more like a public option.The poll, released Thursday by the Kaiser Fami…

thehill.com

 

[BLADEMDA]

Investors Business Daily (not FOX)

https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/socialism-ruin-nations/

"Don't think that the American Democratic Party's attachment to socialism is only at the extreme fringe. A recent Gallup Poll found that 57% of Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents hold a positive view of socialism, while just 47% favorably view capitalism. It seems impossible that America could ever become one of the countries that has been ruined by socialism. But these numbers don't inspire confidence. "

 

[BLADEMDA]

I fully understand the country is moving LEFT without me. I get it. Vector2 is correct in that the majority of Americans want a younger, more polished version of Bernie Sanders as President. I know that my views are likely to be in the minority ( if not already in the minority) in just 4-6 years. The speed of the movement to the left has been incredible. In some ways, Bernie has accomplished his goal of a "revolution" but it will just take some time. There are no new ideas here just the same fairy-tale belief that this time it will be different. This time socialism will work. All I know is that the transition to socialism will come at a great price to this nation. A price the youngest among us will likely pay.

 

[radsisrad]

Trolling? I call it my opinion that in 4-8 years we will have Medicare 4 all. This is based on recent polling where Democrats and Independents are agreeing with the concept every American should have some form of Healthcare either from the free market or provided by the government. Every single Democrat for President raised their hand in response to the question of "whether illegal aliens should be able to get free healthcare" from the USA. I watched that debate and it wasn't on Fox. I consider that response "extreme left wing" as do the vast majority of Americans. I am willing to discuss every single one of my statements and provide proof of such an agenda (irrefutable proof).

All Democrats At Main Debate Agree Illegal Immigrants Should Get Health Care Coverage

MSNBC Democratic presidential primary debate co-moderator Savannah Guthrie asked the candidates to raise their hand if their healthcare plan would cover undocumented immigrants. "This is a show of hands question and hold them up so people can see. Raise your hand if your government plan would...

www.realclearpolitics.com

You know how the game works.

They call you a conspiracy theorist or paranoid when you call out their long-term plan, and by the time the next stage arrives, it's too late to take back the steps that laid the foundation.

E.g., the push for "marriage equality" has eventuated in drag queen story hour. Religious conservatives called this stuff a decade ago, and nobody (including me) took them seriously.

 

[BLADEMDA]

You know how the game works.

They call you a conspiracy theorist or paranoid when you call out their long-term plan, and by the time the next stage arrives, it's too late to take back the steps that laid the foundation.

E.g., the push for "marriage equality" has eventuated in drag queen story hour. Religious conservatives called this stuff a decade ago, and nobody (including me) took them seriously.

I think after this Covid 19 outbreak/pandemic subsides the cry for single payer will intensify. Despite the FACT that private companies did an outstanding job at solving the problem the left will use this crisis as proof we need a single payer system. Now, I don't see proof here just failure on the part of 3 administrations to prepare for a pandemic. I see failure to provide funding over the past 10 years or longer for vaccines against Coronavirus. Both our political parties failed to prepare us for this Pandemic and not the private sector. It will be companies like Regeneron, J and J or Moderna which provides us with a vaccine. Retrovirals will likely be invented by free market Biotech companies.

I see all the problems/issues with our free market healthcare system. But, single payer will come at a huge price and that price will be innovation as these companies get crushed under single payer. I understand that many don't agree with me here but Capitalism/profit is what drives innovation. The USA is the innovator of drugs/medical equipment/biopharm for the entire world. Our "capitalism" in healthcare has saved millions of lives. I truly believe innovation will be reduced dramatically under single payer system and as the budget for healthcare explodes into the trillions the nation will have to make huge cuts.

So, my answer to the OP is a definitive yes to single payer healthcare in the USA as Covid 19 just accelerates the movement to the Left.

 

[nimbus]

COVID is showing us that community health affects individual health. Everybody matters. If a prisoner, a homeless person, a poor person, or undocumented worker cannot get healthcare, if will affect the health of everybody else. If we don’t take care of everybody, we are all screwed.

 

[BLADEMDA]

COVID is showing us that community health affects individual health. Everybody matters. If a prisoner, a homeless person, a poor person, or undocumented worker cannot get healthcare, if will affect the health of everybody else. If we don’t take care of everybody, we are all screwed.

We didn't need the ACA. We just needed to expand basic healthcare for the poorest among us. We already have a 2 tiered health system. Instead of the ACA we should have used the money for basic healthcare clinics (Medicaid plus). Insure every American with some type of insurance. The clinics should be free and accessible to every U.S. Citizen. You don't get a Mercedes/BMW from the government. You get a 12 year old Hyundai that runs.

This would have solved the issue without running up the cost to trillions per year. It also would have created an incentive to get a good job and better health insurance. Again, Basic care for free but if you want the Gold or platinum package you need to pay for that plan without government assistance.

Soon, we all will end up with that 12 year old Hyundai because the only alternative available will be a Rolls Royce which most of us can't afford. Single Payer will promise you a new BMW but deliver a 12 year old Hyundai (for everyone of course). One last thing is I'm not sure just how long that Hyundai will actually run before breaking down.

 

[dannyboy1]

COVID is showing us that community health affects individual health. Everybody matters. If a prisoner, a homeless person, a poor person, or undocumented worker cannot get healthcare, if will affect the health of everybody else. If we don’t take care of everybody, we are all screwed.

Access? Patients are coming in with great commercial insurance and dying just the same. This has nothing to do with socioeconomic status or “access” to care. COVID is unique and humbling. Nobody ever thought that with modern medicine we would ever encounter something so contagious and deadly.

 

[vector2]

The logic of the original premise doesn't break down, but rather fails to ever establish itself by insisting something previously unjust but that does not exist any more and hasn't for a long time is a justification to change the current electoral system.

What you're missing is that the EC system was designed specifically with racist intent in mind, and the repercussions of its design are still felt today even though slavery and the 3/5th compromise do not exist. The EC was designed not to balance between simply populous and non-populous states, but more accurately to balance power between the South and the North. . You are simply incorrect when you imply that the EC is totally separable from the circumstances under which it was founded. And there absolutely is a justification to change the current electoral system because it's been distorted by rules and laws which no longer exist.

It is not a "lazy generalization" to state plainly that it is absolutely no different than claiming a popular vote system or other iterations of democracy are unjust because they were originally designed to inherently oppress women, so therefore it must also be a broken system that we can't use today even though that unjust element was eliminated long ago, as was racial discrimination in the EC. The analogy is not reaching, multiple posters seem to have agreed that it was a perfectly valid analogy. I'm open to hear either of you try to differentiate the comparison and justify why the EC is bad and must go because of inherent racism 100 years ago meanwhile PV is good and should be used despite inherent sexism 100 years ago.

It is absolutely quite different. The distinction you're unable to get is that the EC was and is broken because the very machinery under which it was designed was broken. It has an intrinsic issue with its apportionment mechanism as a consequence of slavery and the 3/5thsC, and that can't be fixed just because slavery and the 3/5thsC don't exist anymore. OTOH, there is nothing wrong with the intrinsic machinery of the popular vote. A PV in and of itself is just a mathematical show of hands. A popular vote had to be modified to make it discriminatory. The EC had to be modified to make it less discriminatory. Are you able to see why that distinction matters and why the idea of a novel, presidential national PV is in a different category? If not, I won't be holding my breath either.

 

[radsisrad]

COVID is showing us that community health affects individual health. Everybody matters. If a prisoner, a homeless person, a poor person, or undocumented worker cannot get healthcare, if will affect the health of everybody else. If we don’t take care of everybody, we are all screwed.

This is why "undocumented" people need to be sent back home.

Undue burden on the rest of us.

 

[vector2]

I think after this Covid 19 outbreak/pandemic subsides the cry for single payer will intensify. Despite the FACT that private companies did an outstanding job at solving the problem the left will use this crisis as proof we need a single payer system. Now, I don't see proof here just failure on the part of 3 administrations to prepare for a pandemic. I see failure to provide funding over the past 10 years or longer for vaccines against Coronavirus. Both our political parties failed to prepare us for this Pandemic and not the private sector. It will be companies like Regeneron, J and J or Moderna which provides us with a vaccine. Retrovirals will likely be invented by free market Biotech companies.

I see all the problems/issues with our free market healthcare system. But, single payer will come at a huge price and that price will be innovation as these companies get crushed under single payer. I understand that many don't agree with me here but Capitalism/profit is what drives innovation. The USA is the innovator of drugs/medical equipment/biopharm for the entire world. Our "capitalism" in healthcare has saved millions of lives. I truly believe innovation will be reduced dramatically under single payer system and as the budget for healthcare explodes into the trillions the nation will have to make huge cuts.

So, my answer to the OP is a definitive yes to single payer healthcare in the USA as Covid 19 just accelerates the movement to the Left.

No doubt, more socialized healthcare systems don't come up with any innovation or R&D. I mean, I can't even think of a single euro pharma company other than

Bayer
Roche
Novartis
Sanofi
GlaxoSmithKline
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
AstraZeneca
Boehringer Ingelheim
Novo Nordisk



Furthermore, I never, ever, ever heard of US biopharma using billions of dollars of taxpayer funded NIH or other university research and then capitalizing that for profit once they had a winner.

-------------


"Three" administrations being at fault for the pandemic is a joke too:

Top White House official in charge of pandemic response exits abruptly

May 10, 2018 at 3:32 p.m. CDT

The top White House official responsible for leading the U.S. response in the event of a deadly pandemic has left the administration, and the global health security team he oversaw has been disbanded under a reorganization by national security adviser John Bolton.

The abrupt departure of Rear Adm. Timothy Ziemer from the National Security Council means no senior administration official is now focused solely on global health security. Ziemer’s departure, along with the breakup of his team, comes at a time when many experts say the country is already underprepared for the increasing risks of a pandemic or bioterrorism attack.

Ziemer’s last day was Tuesday, the same day a new Ebola outbreak was declared in Congo. He is not being replaced.

Pandemic preparedness and global health security are issues that require government-wide responses, experts say, as well as the leadership of a high-ranking official within the White House who is assigned only this role.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/05/10/top-white-house-official-in-charge-of-pandemic-response-exits-abruptly/

 

[nimbus]

Access? Patients are coming in with great commercial insurance and dying just the same. This has nothing to do with socioeconomic status or “access” to care. COVID is unique and humbling. Nobody ever thought that with modern medicine we would ever encounter something so contagious and deadly.

Bill Gates did.

 

[radsisrad]

- I pointed out that all other forms of democracy, and indeed the entire institution of democracy itself, are ubiquitously rooted in the same systemic discrimination by providing the very obvious example of women's suffrage. If it's problematic in the EC, it's equally problematic in the other forms of democracy.

This is an aside, but you seem pretty open-minded. You should consider giving some thought to the question of why voting rights were restricted to men. Political swings have tended to have disproportionate effects on males (employment, being drafted to war, etc.).

 

[nimbus]

This is why "undocumented" people need to be sent back home.

Undue burden on the rest of us.

Not for me. It really depends on your attitude.

 

[nimbus]

This is an aside, but you seem pretty open-minded. You should consider giving some thought to the question of why voting rights were restricted to men. Political swings have tended to have disproportionate effects on males (employment, being drafted to war, etc.).

And women...abortion

 

[MirrorTodd]

Access? Patients are coming in with great commercial insurance and dying just the same. This has nothing to do with socioeconomic status or “access” to care. COVID is unique and humbling. Nobody ever thought that with modern medicine we would ever encounter something so contagious and deadly.

Admittedly, a fair amount of people in the scientific realm have been trying to warn us about this situation for years.

 

[chocomorsel]

The logic of the original premise doesn't break down, but rather fails to ever establish itself by insisting something previously unjust but that does not exist any more and hasn't for a long time is a justification to change the current electoral system. It is not a "lazy generalization" to state plainly that it is absolutely no different than claiming a popular vote system or other iterations of democracy are unjust because they were originally designed to inherently oppress women, so therefore it must also be a broken system that we can't use today even though that unjust element was eliminated long ago, as was racial discrimination in the EC. The analogy is not reaching, multiple posters seem to have agreed that it was a perfectly valid analogy. I'm open to hear either of you try to differentiate the comparison and justify why the EC is bad and must go because of inherent racism 100 years ago meanwhile PV is good and should be used despite inherent sexism 100 years ago.

This was the original point that was made, and neither you or chocomorsel have yet addressed or established a discrepancy between the analogous comparisons but instead offered plenty of distracting commentary on just about everything but the original point... I won't hold my breath.

Right.
Like I said, you wouldn't understand.
Because you clearly think that racism, the premise of which led to slavery and the forefathers counting slaves at 3/5ths of a person so that the Southern slave owners could continue benefiting from their unjust treatment doesn't "exist anymore and hasn't for a long time."
Keep living in your world, as I and other black people, who continue to experience racism will keep living in our reality, where it is still alive and well.
And by the way, I am @chocomorsel.
What was the original point of this post again? I forget because often times these things derail.
I was talking about the ancient electoral college system which as my buddy @vector2 stated, hasn't changed in over a century.

 

[chocomorsel]

The entire "woke" movement in the USA is much farther to the left than the typical European Democracy. I want to stress that many European countries have tried their hands at much more socialism than capitalism with the results showing the limits of socialism. We can learn from their mistakes rather than repeat them.

As for Medicaid Insurance the reimbursement is so low many physicians don't accept it. I personally get around $70 for a typical Medicaid case in my state.
That is lower than my plumber, electrician, roofer, etc. Almost any "trade" with certification pays more than Medicaid per hour. Medicare isn't that much better so the basic healthcare people seek will certainly be rationed in one way or the other.

The USA needs to be about finding the best person for the position regardless of race, gender, religion, etc. That is the type of society envisioned by Martin Luther King and the one we should strive to become. The idea we replace one or two historically disenfranchised groups with another is not the answer. Quotas are inherently prejudicial and unconstitutional regardless of which group benefits or suffers from it. Let each person be judged by his/her merits. I realize that such a society may be decades away but we all should be working towards that goal. In the mean time I certainly understand the need to consider race as a factor in many decisions/admissions but it shouldn't be the main factor.

A Timeline of Key Supreme Court Cases on Affirmative Action (Published 2019)

The Supreme Court has weighed in on affirmative action several times. Here are some key cases through the decades.

www.nytimes.com

Once you give everyone, an equal education, then we can talk about the elimination of Affirmative Action and quotas.
Last time I checked, the education system in this country is very disjointed. When the poor kids in this country,, who are mostly minorities, are getting the exact same education that the suburbian/upper class kids in fought for, highly taxed school systems that poor people can't afford are getting, then we can talk about getting everyone on the same playing field.
You can't sit there and put the poor people on first base, the middle/upper class kids in third base and then expect them to score a home run in the same amount of time.
So the best person for the position is most always gonna come from that school system with a teacher to child ratio of 1:20 versus 1:40; enough books for each kid, and all kind of tutoring and after school activities that the poor kids can't afford.

When we become like the Scandinavian countries with equal schooling since day one, then we can talk about "best person for the position".

 

[chocomorsel]

The nation is shifting left so as long as you live another 20 years many of those RED states will turn purple or blue. You don't need an amendment to accomplish your goal just time. Time is on your side. Also, the 2 party system in the USA needs to become a 3 or 4 party system and then that too would make your vote in every state count a great deal.

Who's to stay you or I will be alive in twenty years or where we will be? And in twenty years, a lot of bad things can happen to disadvantaged people when we have elitist people like Trump who've got no clue what it's like to be working class continue to be in charge of this country. We have poor people who are scared to go to the ER in case they get sick because they can't afford it. How can you be OK with that? What if that was your family member?

We are supposed to be a superpower. The world's strongest economy but yet we have huge health disparities and poor outcomes compared to the rest of the first world when we spend the most money on Healthcare?

We have an elitist president, elected by the all or none Electoral College, who was initially denying what Governor Cuomo was saying about the lack of ventilators. In his world, nothing ever runs low or is difficult to obtain because money is an unlimited supply and he's got no clue what it's like to go without.

Whatever the case, the EC it's an old outdated system based on racism, distrust and elitisism that needs to go.

 

[deleted500612]

Right.
Like I said, you wouldn't understand.
Because you clearly think that racism, the premise of which led to slavery and the forefathers counting slaves at 3/5ths of a person so that the Southern slave owners could continue benefiting from their unjust treatment doesn't "exist anymore and hasn't for a long time."
Keep living in your world, as I and other black people, who continue to experience racism will keep living in our reality, where it is still alive and well.
And by the way, I am @chocomorsel.
What was the original point of this post again? I forget because often times these things derail.
I was talking about the ancient electoral college system which as my buddy @vector2 stated, hasn't changed in over a century.

Uhhhh... that's not even close to what I said. I was saying racism hasn't existed in the electoral college in a very long time; the context of the conversation we were just having.

 

[radsisrad]

Once you give everyone, an equal education, then we can talk about the elimination of Affirmative Action and quotas.
Last time I checked, the education system in this country is very disjointed. When the poor kids in this country,, who are mostly minorities, are getting the exact same education that the suburbian/upper class kids in fought for, highly taxed school systems that poor people can't afford are getting, then we can talk about getting everyone on the same playing field.
You can't sit there and put the poor people on first base, the middle/upper class kids in third base and then expect them to score a home run in the same amount of time.
So the best person for the position is most always gonna come from that school system with a teacher to child ratio of 1:20 versus 1:40; enough books for each kid, and all kind of tutoring and after school activities that the poor kids can't afford.

When we become like the Scandinavian countries with equal schooling since day one, then we can talk about "best person for the position".

U.S. School Spending Per Pupil Increased for Fifth Consecutive Year, U.S. Census Bureau Reports

The amount spent per pupil for public elementary and secondary education for all 50 states and the District of Columbia increased by 3.7% to $12,201 per pupil.

www.census.gov

"Of the 100 largest school systems based on enrollment in the United States, the five school systems with the highest spending per pupil in 2017 were New York City School District in New York ($25,199), Boston City Schools in Massachusetts ($22,292), Baltimore City Schools in Maryland ($16,184), Montgomery County School District in Maryland ($16,109), and Howard County School District in Maryland ($15,921). Maryland had one additional school system in the top 10, making it four of the top 10 school systems in the United States. To see the top 10 school districts by current spending per pupil, see the graphic Top 10 Largest School Districts by Enrollment and Per Pupil Current Spending...."

We spend plenty of money on schooling in "diverse" school districts.

What's the next idea?

 

[vector2]

A new report finds predominantly white school districts get $23 billion more in funding than nonwhite ones

Predominantly white school districts in the US get $23 billion a year more than districts that educate mostly non-white children, an education advocacy group says.

A report from EdBuild, which promotes equity in public schools, found that the average white school district got $13,908 for every student in 2016, compared to $11,682 per student in districts that mostly serve people of color.

The country has about 13,000 traditional public school systems, averaging 3,500 students each, the report says. The report defines "white" or "non-white" districts as "racially concentrated" districts -- attended by more than half of US students -- in which the population is either three-quarters white or three-quarters non-white.

The money gap -- a difference of roughly $2,226 per student -- originates in the way Americans pay for education, with locally run schools being tied to local control of taxes.
...
The report also found that white districts enroll just over 1,500 students — half the size of the national average -- while non-white districts serve over 10,000 students, about three times more than that average

A new report finds predominantly white school districts get $23 billion more in funding than nonwhite ones

A report from an education advocacy group found the average white school district got $13,908 for every student, compared to $11,682 per student in districts that mostly serve people of color.

www.cnn.com

EdBuild | 23 Billion

Even after accounting for wealth disparities, the United States invests significantly more money to educate children in white communities.

edbuild.org

Also

The Data Are Damning: How Race Influences School Funding

Research shows that in Pennsylvania’s public schools skin color, not economics, determines how much money districts get.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[radsisrad]

Those are interesting data. Essentially, they reflect the fact that majority-white districts have higher local taxes with which to finance public schools than do majority-non-white districts. Well, one has every right to advocate higher local taxes for the purpose of improving the education for the children in one's community.

What, then, is a solution to this?

 

[chocomorsel]

Uhhhh... that's not even close to what I said. I was saying racism hasn't existed in the electoral college in a very long time; the context of the conversation we were just having.

By the virtue of the fact that the EC in 48 out of 50 states have all or none rules,

The South - Where more than 50% of African Americans in this country live.
The South - Where all states besides Florida, Virginia and North Carolina are deep Red/Republican states
The EC- Where there are laws in all states but two (not in the south) for winner takes all
African Americans have pretty good voter turnout of >60% over the past couple of decades and a very large percentage (appx 90%) vote Democrat. Yet in the South, because of the Electoral College, their vote is squashed and never heard.
How the hell is that not a system that was not only born of racism but still continues to to be racist by ignoring millions of black votes?

 

[chocomorsel]

Those are interesting data. Essentially, they reflect the fact that majority-white districts have higher local taxes with which to finance public schools than do majority-non-white districts. Well, one has every right to advocate higher local taxes for the purpose of improving the education for the children in one's community.

What, then, is a solution to this?

How about the federal government collect the taxes for the schools and disburse them equally per student instead of each school district fending for itself. Do you think that poor people want crappy schools for their kids? Do you think that if they could afford to live in more affluent school districts and pay more taxes for a better education they wouldn't? Do you think that they just want to remain poor and and have their kids barely climb the income ladder by continuing to receive a sub-par education?

 

[radsisrad]

How about the federal government collect the taxes for the schools and disburse them equally per student instead of each school district fending for itself. Do you think that poor people want crappy schools for their kids? Do you think that if they could afford to live in more affluent school districts and pay more taxes for a better education they wouldn't? Do you think that they just want to remain poor and and have their kids barely climb the income ladder by continuing to receive a sub-par education?

"Sub-par" is relative.

Apart from social conditions fostered by communities themselves, public schooling - broadly speaking - provides ample opportunities for conscientious students to achieve the education necessary to reach the ballparks of their respective academic potentials.

With that being said, I'd take up that proposal. Wealthy people could then choose to subsidize after-school programs to bolster their children's education, though, which would lead us to the same exact discussion.

Equality is a myth. Its pursuit is a fruitless endeavor.

 

[deleted500612]

What you're missing is that the EC system was designed specifically with racist intent in mind, and the repercussions of its design are still felt today even though slavery and the 3/5th compromise do not exist. The EC was designed not to balance between simply populous and non-populous states, but more accurately to balance power between the South and the North. . You are simply incorrect when you imply that the EC is totally separable from the circumstances under which it was founded. And there absolutely is a justification to change the current electoral system because it's been distorted by rules and laws which no longer exist.



It is absolutely quite different. The distinction you're unable to get is that the EC was and is broken because the very machinery under which it was designed was broken. It has an intrinsic issue with its apportionment mechanism as a consequence of slavery and the 3/5thsC, and that can't be fixed just because slavery and the 3/5thsC don't exist anymore. OTOH, there is nothing wrong with the intrinsic machinery of the popular vote. A PV in and of itself is just a mathematical show of hands. A popular vote had to be modified to make it discriminatory. The EC had to be modified to make it less discriminatory. Are you able to see why that distinction matters? If not, I won't be holding my breath either.

This is just historical revisionism. Slavery and the "3/5th compromise" both precede the electoral college by many years. The 3/5ths compromise was enacted at the constitutional convention of 1787, long before the electoral college ever existed... in fact the election of 1789, the first to occur after implementation of the 3/5ths compromise, used a popular vote electoral system... how ironic. Yet here you are still claiming that the 3/5ths compromise was "intrinsic to" the electoral college but somehow not the popular vote system which it was first enacted under. The EC was designed and implemented in a time when both African-Americans and women were considered less-than and thus ineligible to vote in ANY democratic system, not just the electoral college system, as evidenced by the fact that in the popular vote system that preceded the EC the 3/5ths compromise still existed and African-Americans and women were both still not allowed to vote.... The EC system was not "specifically" designed to be racist, it was merely designed and implemented in a time that was already racist and sexist, and thus including racist provisions was par for the course as was the case with every other voting system up until that time, including popular vote.

There is also no "intrinsic" issue with apportionment. The states are free to apportion however they please and it is not something intrinsic to the EC system, but rather a choice of each individual state to apportion their representatives... take it up with the state legislatures, not the electoral college.

In any case, those outwardly racist and sexist provisions no longer exist and haven't for many decades... you have also failed to demonstrate how it is still racist today despite these provisions no longer existing.

One argument that seems to keep coming up is that it suppresses African-American voters because their population disproportionately exists in the south which tends to have a very conservative white majority that continually overshadow their vote. That may be the case, but it is an indiscriminate result of the system and not a representation of nefarious oppression. In the 2016 election there were more republicans without a voice in California alone than there were black democrat voters in the entirety of the bible belt combined... don't hear you saying it's a problem that Californian Republican votes dont matter though. Don't see any concerns that in a popular vote system if you don't live within 100 miles of a coast you basically don't matter. In fact never heard any democrats saying the electoral college was a problem at all until the 2016 election when their candidate lost because of it, now suddenly it's a huge problem. That's really what it boils down to... it hasn't favored your preferred political party recently so it has suddenly become broken, oppressive, and exists only for nefarious and racist purposes

 

[vector2]

This is just historical revisionism. Slavery and the "3/5th compromise" both precede the electoral college by many years. The 3/5ths compromise was enacted at the constitutional convention of 1787, long before the electoral college ever existed... in fact the election of 1789, the first to occur after implementation of the 3/5ths compromise, used a popular vote political system... how ironic. Yet here you are still claiming that the 3/5ths compromise was "intrinsic to" the electoral college but somehow not the popular vote system which it was first implemented under. The EC was designed and implemented in a time when both African-Americans and women were considered less-than and thus ineligible to vote in ANY democratic system, not just the electoral college system, as evidenced by the fact that in the popular vote system that preceded the EC the 3/5ths compromise still existed and African-Americans and women were both still not allowed to vote.... The EC system was not "specifically" designed to be racist, it was merely designed and implemented in a time that was already racist and sexist, and thus including racist provisions was par for the course as was the case with every other voting system up until that time, including popular vote.

There is also no "intrinsic" issue with apportionment. The states are free to apportion however they please and it is not something intrinsic to the EC system, but rather a choice of each individual state to apportion their representatives... take it up with the state legislatures, not the electoral college.

In any case, those outwardly racist and sexist provisions no longer exist and haven't for many decades... you have failed to demonstrate how it is still racist today despite these provisions no longer existing.

Ouch, right off the bat you're spewing errors left and right. Firstly, both the 3/5C and the main language establishing electors (Article II, S1, C2) were debated and agreed to in the Convention in 1787. Secondly, Washington was elected with 69 electoral votes from 10 of the 13 extant states. The presidential election of 1789 most definitely was not ultimately decided with a popular vote. In fact, it was even further away from a popular vote than you probably imagine because some of the electors weren't even chosen by citizens, but rather by state legislatures.

But regardless, you mistake something having existed for some time previously to mean that it can't be "intrinsic" to the formation of a future idea or thing. That is facile and wrong (or do we not need to know the germ theory of disease to make modern-day abx?). And you are embarrassingly under-informed of history if you don't know that the Connecticut Compromise and particularly the 3/5C were integral to the formation of the electoral college. The EC requires electors. To have electors you need to figure out a formula for how many and from where. To figure out that formula you need the Connecticut Compromise and 3/5C. Ergo, the intrinsic framework of the EC cannot exist without a racist AF 3/5C. You follow? As to whether the EC was "designed" to be racist, let's see:

"
Some delegates, including James Wilson and James Madison, preferred popular election of the executive.[19][20] Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South:

There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.[21]

"

United States Electoral College - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Library of Congress

So we have the founders taking up the EC to appease a bloc of people who wanted to devalue black people as much as possible. To me it sounds like racism was part of the design. To you I guess you'll keep saying that it was designed in a time that was already racist? I'm sure you could go on for days with your absolutely mind-numbing pedantry, but I say potato potahto.

To get to the crux of the matter though, I noticed you conveniently ignored anything I said about what specifically makes up the difference between the PV and EC, and I don't blame you because it makes your argument disintegrate. Your entire premise is based on some self-ascribed notion that we absolutely just have to be talking about whatever specific original version of a popular vote that you have in your head, while I keep telling you that a PV system is just a mathematical count- nothing less, nothing more. That system has to have injustice added to it because on its own a PV is purely value-neutral. You want "PV vs EC" to mean a notion of the PV that comes from 18th century, else your false equivalence just disappears. However, there is only one "(United States) Electoral College," and it definitely was created with racist formulaic underpinnings. There is no "National Presidential Popular Vote" system. And there never was even though you just tried to invent one for the election of 1789. So for the 15th time, let me say, it is logically consistent to abandon the EC due to social grievances with or flaws in its design and replace it with a (de novo) PV system that is completely unencumbered from whatever historical notion of sexism or racism you desperately want to attach to it.

In the 2016 election there were more republicans without a voice in California alone than there were black democrat voters in the entirety of the bible belt combined... don't hear you saying it's a problem that Californian Republican votes dont matter though.

Give 'em a voice with a popular vote. I'm all for it. 100%.

That's really what it boils down to... it hasn't favored your preferred political party recently so it has suddenly become bad, oppressive, and exists only for nefarious and racist purposes

A statistical fluke in 1888, a hundred-some year gap, and then all of a sudden happens again in 2000 and crazily again in 2016. Yep, I guess 20 years ago is also a "recent" grievance. So sure, keep playing mind-reader and making false assumptions- that's the one thing you're pretty good at.

 

[pgg]

All of your points are well taken, but I'll just answer your question here -

In my opinion, we have swung too far from quenching mob into overriding legitimate democracy. I asked someone else and didn't get an answer so I'll ask again. HRC lost by 3m votes. Cities are getting more densely populated and while rural populations in many places dwindle, so therefore the "win popular vote / lose EC" margin is going to keep going up. Is there a particular margin where it's ridiculously unjust? If a candidate wins by 10m votes and still doesn't become president, is that OK with you?

The notion that the EC will or could result in a situation where a candidate could lose the popular vote by an ever-increasing margin, truly thwarting the will of a supermajority of the people, is just wrong. There is no conceivable realistic redistribution of our population, ever, that would result in a 66-33 or 60-40 or even 55-45 popular vote victory losing the EC.

3M voters is less than 1% of the population. Clinton losing with 48.2% of the vote to Trump's 46.1% is not the structural crisis it is presented to be. This is a non issue. If there's anything to lament, it's our embarrassig chronically low turnout.

The simple answer is that candidates who want to get elected will simply need to credibly convince a diverse group of people from a broad swath of the country to vote for them.

 

[vector2]

The notion that the EC will or could result in a situation where a candidate could lose the popular vote by an ever-increasing margin, truly thwarting the will of a supermajority of the people, is just wrong. There is no conceivable realistic redistribution of our population, ever, that would result in a 66-33 or 60-40 or even 55-45 popular vote victory losing the EC.

3M voters is less than 1% of the population. Clinton losing with 48.2% of the vote to Trump's 46.1% is not the structural crisis it is presented to be. This is a non issue. If there's anything to lament, it's our embarrassig chronically low turnout.

I'm surprised you're so sure that a redistribution like that couldn't happen when that's exactly what's been happening over the last 20-30 years. Large cities have grown on average at a ~7% per year clip while 35% of all rural counties in America are in protracted population declines. But regardless, my rhetorical point is that it is irrelevant whether won PV margin in a lose EC situation is small, large, or a massive supermajority. What is the logical underpinning of why 48-46 is OK, 52-48 is OK, but 55-45 is a line too far? Just gut feeling? How does one go about deciding the threshold where all of a sudden just one more vote shifts and now it's unacceptable?

The internally consistent position is either PV winner takes all or EC winner takes all (even if that becomes some ridiculous scenario where NYC and LA are megalopolises with 50m people and the PV margin of the loser really is 55-45). If the latter scenario is not acceptable to you, even in a hypothetical, my assertion is that that underlies some very serious shortcomings in the EC that should be dealt with before it does become a bonafide structural crisis.


I do agree that turnout is just horrific, which means that it's irrelevant that 3M is less than 1% of the total US population. Only 250m are eligible. Only 130m people voted. That makes the 3M figure feel like a lot more.

 

[pgg]

I'm surprised you're so sure that a redistribution like that couldn't happen when that's exactly what's been happening over the last 20-30 years. Large cities have grown on average at a ~7% per year clip while 35% of all rural counties in America are in protracted population declines. But regardless, my rhetorical point is that it is irrelevant whether won PV margin in a lose EC situation is small, large, or a massive supermajority. What is the logical underpinning of why 48-46 is OK, 52-48 is OK, but 55-45 is a line too far? Just gut feeling? How does one go about deciding the threshold where all of a sudden just one more vote shifts and now it's unacceptable?

The internally consistent position is either PV winner takes all or EC winner takes all (even if that becomes some ridiculous scenario where NYC and LA are megalopolises with 50m people and the PV margin of the loser really is 55-45). If the latter scenario is not acceptable to you, even in a hypothetical, my assertion is that that underlies some very serious shortcomings in the EC that should be dealt with before it does become a bonafide structural crisis.


I do agree that turnout is just horrific, which means that it's irrelevant that 3M is less than 1% of the total US population. Only 250m are eligible. Only 130m people voted. That makes the 3M figure feel like a lot more.

Well again, the logical underpinning of the system we've got is that it was deliberately designed to prevent dense population centers from dominating the government. You think that's a bug, I think it's a feature.

We also ought to admit and bring our own bias to the forefront here. I'm never exactly heartbroken to see Democrats lose. Which is not to say that I enthusiastically support Republicans in general or any Republican in particular, so much as I generally feel less damaged or threatened by their abuse. I'm a glass-half-full kind of guy and enjoy a Democrat loss in the context of it being a silver lining to the lesser evil being in power. And I know you're very much on the progressive side and favor Democrat wins. So it's perhaps natural that you object to the structural advantage the EC gives to non-Democratic candidates, and I'm content to take a broader view.


Taking a step back, that broader view is that our government has separation of powers and the people who serve in different segments are chosen differently. This is not merely OK, but desirable. We have a piece that is directly elected and directly proportionate to population - the House. We have a piece that gives each state an equal voice, regardless of population, according to a simple majority of voters in those states - the Senate. The Judicial branch isn't even elected at all, but has lifetime terms appointed by the executive branch. And we have a president that's aaaaaaalmost directly elected, but with a small tilt toward smaller states.

If you're going to complain that the EC results in the president not being elected by a direct simple majority of voters nationwide, isn't it infinitely worse that federal judges including Supreme Court Justices aren't elected AT ALL? And that they serve for life?

My point is simply that there are compelling reasons that some of the people who govern us not be directly accountable to election and re-election by simple majority votes of the people. The people who wrote the Constitution understood this. These were deliberate design decisions. There were a lot fewer Americans back in the late 1700s - they certainly COULD have created a much more direct democracy and gone with Ancient Athens style then, but they didn't.

That choice has worked out pretty nicely for 200+ years. Maybe changing the system because a historically bad candidate lost to a reality TV star isn't really the best path forward.

 

[pgg]

What you're missing is that the EC system was designed specifically with racist intent in mind, and the repercussions of its design are still felt today even though slavery and the 3/5th compromise do not exist. The EC was designed not to balance between simply populous and non-populous states, but more accurately to balance power between the South and the North. . You are simply incorrect when you imply that the EC is totally separable from the circumstances under which it was founded. And there absolutely is a justification to change the current electoral system because it's been distorted by rules and laws which no longer exist.



It is absolutely quite different. The distinction you're unable to get is that the EC was and is broken because the very machinery under which it was designed was broken. It has an intrinsic issue with its apportionment mechanism as a consequence of slavery and the 3/5thsC, and that can't be fixed just because slavery and the 3/5thsC don't exist anymore. OTOH, there is nothing wrong with the intrinsic machinery of the popular vote. A PV in and of itself is just a mathematical show of hands. A popular vote had to be modified to make it discriminatory. The EC had to be modified to make it less discriminatory. Are you able to see why that distinction matters and why the idea of a novel, presidential national PV is in a different category? If not, I won't be holding my breath either.

Again I have to point to the Senate. Those racist white men with land also concocted the idea of a Senate with two votes per state, regardless of population. Regardless of the racial split, slave vs non-slave, women not voting at all (even the white churchgoin' women who didn't talk back to their men).

The Senate, with its members being elected by state legislators, was even more divorced from direct one-person-one-vote representation than today's Electoral College.

You're claiming that the EC was constructed solely with racist intent. And of course, yes, I completely agree that many if not most of the Founders were racist misogynist white guys. But its form is first and foremost a reflection of an overall design goal for a republic that had layers between individual citizens and leaders, and a deliberate tilt toward less populous states. That we've modified our elections and the EC over the centuries to be less racist is great - but that's not itself an argument for getting rid of it entirely.

You might as well be complaining that the UN is insufficiently democratic because five nations have permanent seats with veto powers. That is also not a bug, but rather a feature that speaks to its intended function. (The popular vote doesn't affect the makeup of that body, either.)

 

[BLADEMDA]

The strive for equality typically leads to mediocrity. We will never all be equal. That is fallacy. As for "equal opportunity" such as in education that too sounds great but in practice rarely works out. Simply throwing money at the problem won't solve it. What does solve the "education gap" is motivated parents and students who decide to enroll in charter schools. This sub group of minority students are motivated and that motivation is the key ingredient missing from many schools these days.

The more personal responsibility we place on people the better the result. This is true in education, healthcare and economics. There are areas we must all "share" responsibility for like national defense, FDA, Border patrol, Judicial system, police, fire, etc but the less of it the better. The nationalization of healthcare will create a low standard of mediocrity. Everyone will have access to the same low standard of care.

 

[IlDestriero]

You forgot to add sexual predator to that list of adjectives.

Whatever happens, bare minimum we need a system that provides insurance for the BMI > 30, chain-smoking ASA 3 & 4s.

Ironically our local Democratic Party leadership has also had a problem with nominating and getting sexual predators elected. Coincidence? Multiple predators? Are there really that many out there? Maybe there are? I think the second amendment also allows for the killing of sexual predators who violate your family. If not, I’d take my chances.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Black students in New York City’s charter schools outperform black students in the rest of the state by more than 26 percentage points in English. In math, 59 percent of black students in the city’s charter schools score at proficient or above, compared to only 25 percent of black students in all other schools in the state.

Almost a third of black students in the city’s charter schools score “extremely proficient,” the highest level on the test, in math; only 8 percent of black students and 19 percent of all students score at that level in the rest of schools in the state.

New York City’s charters are getting students to excel.

Why limit the best public schools for poor minority NYC kids?

In New York City’s five boroughs, 60,000 black children and 43,000 Hispanic children were enrolled in charter schools last year. They are in those schools because their parents believe that charter…

nypost.com

Personal responsibility and freedom to choose result in high performance among Black students.

 

[BLADEMDA]

What about Healthcare? How do we avoid the same low level of performance in our healthcare system that we see in our educational system? Is the answer more government or more personal responsibility? You already know the answer.

 

[deleted171991]

What about Healthcare? How do we avoid the same low level of performance in our healthcare system that we see in our educational system? Is the answer more government or more personal responsibility? You already know the answer.

Both hands-on and hands-off approaches can have success and can fail.

I am partly the product of a governmental hands-on approach, which imposed world-class science education in K-12. The same education would mean much less nowadays, because kids are spoiled rotten and cannot be punished properly anymore, even by involved parents.

I don't think there is a golden solution. But I do think it could begin with the Finnish model: federally-subsidized schools, well-paid teachers chosen from the best graduates and empowered to decide individually what's best for every kid, more science etc. It's so common sense it hurts my brain.

Or we could adopt the Chinese or Korean models at a family basis. No more Playstation/TV/smartphone, except as a reward for outstanding results. Study, study, study, work, work, work. That was my childhood, too. It f-ing works, no doubt about it, even with lazy people like me. My parents let me have everything I wanted... as long as I was A+ in school, no excuses.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Charters receive less public funding per pupil than do traditional public schools in the city.

Finally, research has documented that charter schools aren’t “cream skimming” the best students.

In a 2018 study published in Education Next, Temple University’s Sarah Cordes found “no significant changes in school demographics at district schools after charters’ entry that might explain improved student performance.” The city’s

Independent Budget Office found that student attrition from charter schools is lower than it is in neighboring district schools.

What's the Magic Formula? Why do Charter Schools succeed at less cost with the same minority student body present at public schools?

Personal Responsibility and motivation by parents and students.

 

[vector2]

Well again, the logical underpinning of the system we've got is that it was deliberately designed to prevent dense population centers from dominating the government. You think that's a bug, I think it's a feature.

I sorta noticed here that this was a non-answer answer to the question. The "winning the EC / losing the PV" part of our electoral process certainly seems like a bug given the infrequency with which it happens, and it seems some of the founders like Hamilton realized that the scales could one day tip heavily toward states with significantly fewer citizens, as might be happening given our population density trends. Again, I'll ask though: What makes 48-46 OK but 55-45 an absurd or unnacceptable win PV/lose EC result? Where is the limit and how is it determined?

We also ought to admit and bring our own bias to the forefront here. I'm never exactly heartbroken to see Democrats lose. Which is not to say that I enthusiastically support Republicans in general or any Republican in particular, so much as I generally feel less damaged or threatened by their abuse. I'm a glass-half-full kind of guy and enjoy a Democrat loss in the context of it being a silver lining to the lesser evil being in power. And I know you're very much on the progressive side and favor Democrat wins. So it's perhaps natural that you object to the structural advantage the EC gives to non-Democratic candidates, and I'm content to take a broader view.

Taking a step back, that broader view is that our government has separation of powers and the people who serve in different segments are chosen differently. This is not merely OK, but desirable. We have a piece that is directly elected and directly proportionate to population - the House. We have a piece that gives each state an equal voice, regardless of population, according to a simple majority of voters in those states - the Senate. The Judicial branch isn't even elected at all, but has lifetime terms appointed by the executive branch. And we have a president that's aaaaaaalmost directly elected, but with a small tilt toward smaller states.

If you're going to complain that the EC results in the president not being elected by a direct simple majority of voters nationwide, isn't it infinitely worse that federal judges including Supreme Court Justices aren't elected AT ALL? And that they serve for life?

My point is simply that there are compelling reasons that some of the people who govern us not be directly accountable to election and re-election by simple majority votes of the people. The people who wrote the Constitution understood this. These were deliberate design decisions. There were a lot fewer Americans back in the late 1700s - they certainly COULD have created a much more direct democracy and gone with Ancient Athens style then, but they didn't.

That choice has worked out pretty nicely for 200+ years. Maybe changing the system because a historically bad candidate lost to a reality TV star isn't really the best path forward.

For some context, I think I mentioned before that I never voted before the election in 2018. I never had skin in the game the same way as the "go to rally wearing Bernie or HRC tshirt and then be first in line at the polls" people did. Regardless, I still remember distinctly in 2000 and in 2016 how patently unfair the result felt even though I didn't vote for HRC and probably wouldn't have even if I did vote. However, most conservatives are simply physically unable to ascribe to anyone who has a problem with the EC that it could be anything other than sheer partisan Democratic angst. Just look at sidefx's rolling eyes diatribe in the last paragraph of the post he directed to me. We have a popular vote for literally every other type of election in this country, but if someone suggests that given our population distribution, lack of increasing apportionment, and two party system that it makes sense to do that for the presidential election as well, immediately it must be based on partisanship and not just reasonableness. That's silly.

I understand the logic for indirect representation- I really do. The point that I've been making is that appeals to the functioning of the founders system in their day just do not work in our day. Is the only way to move forward to throw out the EC entirely? Maybe, maybe not. We can say for sure though that our current apportionment system (combined with other problems like gerrymandering) is absolutely unacceptable. The middle ground for now (assuming the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact does not go through) may be significantly increasing per capita Congressional representation.

 

[chocomorsel]

Black students in New York City’s charter schools outperform black students in the rest of the state by more than 26 percentage points in English. In math, 59 percent of black students in the city’s charter schools score at proficient or above, compared to only 25 percent of black students in all other schools in the state.

Almost a third of black students in the city’s charter schools score “extremely proficient,” the highest level on the test, in math; only 8 percent of black students and 19 percent of all students score at that level in the rest of schools in the state.

New York City’s charters are getting students to excel.

Why limit the best public schools for poor minority NYC kids?

In New York City’s five boroughs, 60,000 black children and 43,000 Hispanic children were enrolled in charter schools last year. They are in those schools because their parents believe that charter…

nypost.com

Personal responsibility and freedom to choose result in high performance among Black students.

So are we to assume that Charter schools have the capacity to absorb ALL the black students? As in, there's one in every neighborhood with as many seats as the public schools?
I tried looking up the number of schools and capacity for students, but there is no direct page that has those numbers.
Is it really that simple?

 

[chocomorsel]

Black students in New York City’s charter schools outperform black students in the rest of the state by more than 26 percentage points in English. In math, 59 percent of black students in the city’s charter schools score at proficient or above, compared to only 25 percent of black students in all other schools in the state.

Almost a third of black students in the city’s charter schools score “extremely proficient,” the highest level on the test, in math; only 8 percent of black students and 19 percent of all students score at that level in the rest of schools in the state.

New York City’s charters are getting students to excel.

Why limit the best public schools for poor minority NYC kids?

In New York City’s five boroughs, 60,000 black children and 43,000 Hispanic children were enrolled in charter schools last year. They are in those schools because their parents believe that charter…

nypost.com

Personal responsibility and freedom to choose result in high performance among Black students.

Like @FFP said and I tried to say earlier, how about the Federal government step in and make all schools equal by using tax payers money?
Why is that such a difficult concept instead of a hodgepodge of public schools versus charter schools.
Why do low income people of any race have to apply and get into a Charter school to get the better experience/education when middle and high income people can go to their neighborhood school without worries that they will receive a good education?
Are you worried that educating these poor, mostly minority students is going to take away from your middle and upper class children if they have access to an equal education?
Again, create hurdles for the poor keep less hurdles for the middle and rich people, and then complain that the poor aren't taking advantage of "freedom to choose". Well, some people have no choice and some people are ignorant to what is available to them. All they may know is that their neighborhood school is what they have, but I guess people like you are completely ok with keeping other people ignorant and then blaming them for not having "personal responsibility".

 

[chocomorsel]

What about Healthcare? How do we avoid the same low level of performance in our healthcare system that we see in our educational system? Is the answer more government or more personal responsibility? You already know the answer.

Well, a lot of Europe has more of the federal government involved in both aspects, and you know what, they aren't exactly producing a bunch of dump people nor is everyone there dying of disease at an early age due to lack of proper healthcare.

If our educational system is lowly performing, it's because its because it's left to the people and not the federal government to come up with a uniform plan.

Let's face it. In this country, too many people care about nothing but making as much money as possible, don't care to help the people less in need, or at the minimum, give them access to equal education and then complain that those people can't pull their bootstraps on and climb the economic ladder and are not "personally responsible".
Come on. Go back to crying about your stocks.