Proponents
of Sheila Kuehl’s ‘Single Payer’ health plan for California like to
lead with the argument that ‘Everybody in, nobody out’ is a good thing.
Of course, many of the same interest groups (ie. powerful lobbying
organizations in California) are vehemently opposed to school choice,
while demanding greater and greater regulations for what it means to be
a ‘qualified’ teacher.
Fascinating, then, the new study from USC’s Rossier School of Education.
The charter schools (read that to mean, more choices for students and
parents) do more with less funds, generally have fewer layers of
administration, and have fewer ‘licensed teachers’.
But it is all about outcomes these days—for both education and health care.
So how do charter schools stack up? From page 6 of the study:
California charter schools typically have smaller per-student
allocations than non-charter schools in their districts, yet charter schools have roughly equivalent levels of productivity: They get “more bang for their buck.”
Choice and freedom, and relieving the burden of excessive regulation and union
and other lobbyist control are good for education. The taxpayer
benefits. The student benefits. Society benefits.
So
why would the nurses union, whose members are on the ‘front lines’ of
healthcare, want to strip all choice and freedom out of healthcare?
H/T to the WSJ editorial page
Categories: Uncategorized
I think you are cherry picking. The charter schools do worse on the API – the outcome measure than their counterparts. They do worse even though they have fewer students in the demographics typically associated with poorer results (English Language Learners and non-White, non-Asian students). I think there is a place for charter schools, but hardly is their performance an argument for transforming our education system. In fact, charter schools have overpromised and underdelivered.
Finally, look at who produced this report. They are all chartered school cheerleaders and the best they could come up with is “we spend less money and don’t suck.” On the other hand, universal access healthcare systems spend less money and offer superior results. I think the difference between those two positions is obvious.
Does Kuehl’s plan “strip all choice and freedom out of healthcare?”
It is my understanding that it allows free choice of physician. It is the current HMO, PPO, etc. system which strips out choice of physician!!
Patients don’t really want “choice” of payer, so long as that payer doesn’t interfere with their choice of physician.
That said, there may be other aspects of Kuehl’s plan that are not optimal, but only someone financially dependent on the HMO industry could complain about a plan which removes the NECESSITY for choosing between organizations which take away freedom of choice.