[quote=“fred smith”]Omni:
Yes a vote for Fred Smith means a vote for Honesty, Integrity and Support for the Hardworking Family Man.
But what would I run for? haha[/quote]
Hey fred,
how about a privatised Fire Department or Police Force. They check your payment records and insurance before coming to your aid. 
[quote=“Kenny McCormick”][quote=“fred smith”]Omni:
Yes a vote for Fred Smith means a vote for Honesty, Integrity and Support for the Hardworking Family Man.
But what would I run for? haha[/quote]
Hey fred,
how about a privatised Fire Department or Police Force. They check your payment records and insurance before coming to your aid. [/quote]
We have them in the U.S. They work fine – at least nowadays.
Thirty years or so ago, they would often only fight fires for their existing paying clients. One of my college roommates saw his parent’s house burn to the ground while the asshole firefighters stood around waiting – his parents had bought the place only a couple of weeks earlier and hadn’t yet paid their annual fee, so the assholes let it burn, but watched in case any of the neighbors’ houses caught fire. He said that his father was screaming and begging and waving cash at them, but they wouldn’t budge. I think I know of another case like that, but can’t remember enough details to say for sure.
Because of cases like that, these private FD’s are now regulated. They are required to put out any fire, but can charge a reasonable fee (several times more expensive than membership) for doing it if you’re not already a member. Just like hospital emergency rooms – treat anyone, but charge a #%*&ing fortune. A friend of mine has a farm in Idaho, and his hay field caught on fire; the local private FD tried to charge him a service fee because some neighbor called them, even though the fire was already out by the time they got there. (IIRC, he refused to pay, and they backed down.)
Why are there private fire departments now or even the need for them?
I was talking with someone six months ago regarding this. A similar problem had arisen at their home in Colorado. He told me that the fire departments used to be voluntary. People took time off to train and fight fires as amateurs in small communities. The problem?
Communities have broken down in the states. Newcomers arrive and don’t participate (let someone else handle it) but yell and scream when the amateurs do not do a good enough job fighting fires. When one mexican couple tried to sue the amateurs, that was it for fighting fires on a voluntary basis in that town. Maybe the professional group has better qualifications and legal protection so that is how they protect themselves.
Anyway, anyone who lives in Taiwan might suspect that the Taiwanese would be less than willing to participate in such joint voluntary efforts. I am sure that this is true with a lot of other immigrant groups as well. In addition, no one stays in these small towns anyway (worldwide). People move to big cities and this kind of civic mindedness and volunteerism can die down. So when people face these kinds of attitudes what are they going to do? Say we will only fight fires (volunteer wise) for those who participate? This is getting to be a major problem worldwide. Who takes care of whom? Is it up to the government? Families in Taiwan are no longer responsible for their family members either, villages and towns are depopulated, and then they all move to the city where “it’s someone else’s problem.”
Maybe an interesting thread would be to discuss big cities and community mindedness or sense of communities within those cities as well as what it take people to get involved. Otherwise, if no one wants to do this, it means there is no other choice but big government and that can be odiously bureaucratic, impersonal, expensive and slow to react.
freddy
[quote=“fred smith”]Why are there private fire departments now or even the need for them?
I was talking with someone six months ago regarding this. A similar problem had arisen at their home in Colorado. He told me that the fire departments used to be voluntary. People took time off to train and fight fires as amateurs in small communities. The problem?
Communities have broken down in the states. Newcomers arrive and don’t participate (let someone else handle it) but yell and scream when the amateurs do not do a good enough job fighting fires. When one Mexican couple tried to sue the amateurs, that was it for fighting fires on a voluntary basis in that town. Maybe the professional group has better qualifications and legal protection so that is how they protect themselves.[/quote]
The only problem with your argument, Fred, is that there have been private fire departments for at least a century. It’s just another business. Nothing wrong with it, nor even ignoble.
Volunteer fire departments are dying down now, but IMHO that’s simply because the U.S. is increasingly urban. VFDs thrived in rural areas which were both sufficiently densely populated to need them and too sparsely populated to afford a full-time FD. Those areas are increasingly suburban, and so can afford a full-time FD; or they are aging and thinning out as the younger generation goes to where the jobs are, in which case they can’t support a VFD because the population of young adults just isn’t there.
IMHO it’s not a “breakdown”, it’s just demographics.
There are private “police” too – they’re called private investigators, security guards, rent-a-cops. They range from unarmed (watchmen who call the real cops) to armed-response (rare but extant) to investigative (Jim Rockford, Bruce Cheseborough, Simon & Simon, etc.). Again, they’re just businesses, nothing sinister about making a buck.
[quote=“MaPoDoFu”][quote=“fred smith”]Why are there private fire departments now or even the need for them?
I was talking with someone six months ago regarding this. A similar problem had arisen at their home in Colorado. He told me that the fire departments used to be voluntary. People took time off to train and fight fires as amateurs in small communities. The problem?
Communities have broken down in the states. Newcomers arrive and don’t participate (let someone else handle it) but yell and scream when the amateurs do not do a good enough job fighting fires. When one Mexican couple tried to sue the amateurs, that was it for fighting fires on a voluntary basis in that town. Maybe the professional group has better qualifications and legal protection so that is how they protect themselves.[/quote]
The only problem with your argument, Fred, is that there have been private fire departments for at least a century. It’s just another business. Nothing wrong with it, nor even ignoble.
Volunteer fire departments are dying down now, but IMHO that’s simply because the U.S. is increasingly urban. VFDs thrived in rural areas which were both sufficiently densely populated to need them and too sparsely populated to afford a full-time FD. Those areas are increasingly suburban, and so can afford a full-time FD; or they are aging and thinning out as the younger generation goes to where the jobs are, in which case they can’t support a VFD because the population of young adults just isn’t there.
IMHO it’s not a “breakdown”, it’s just demographics.
There are private “police” too – they’re called private investigators, security guards, rent-a-cops. They range from unarmed (watchmen who call the real cops) to armed-response (rare but extant) to investigative (Jim Rockford, Bruce Cheseborough, Simon & Simon, etc.). Again, they’re just businesses, nothing sinister about making a buck.[/quote]
I think the problem is when such private businesses take over the public sector not augment/add to it. eg privatised healthcare (lots of pros and cons). but think if companies who now privatize schools, prisons, utilities, etc now privatize fire depts, police depts, etc. the accountability risks changes. as much as the specter of big govt haunts ppl, i do not want a nation run by businesses with their hands all the trad public services. a few perhaps, but not all.
[quote=“MaPoDoFu”]
There are private “police” too – they’re called private investigators, security guards, rent-a-cops. [/quote]
And “bounty hunters”, who do most of the work of tracking down and bringing in the thousands of people who jump bail, as the police say they lack the time and resources to do so themselves.
Uh, Kenny . . . the “problem” is exactly opposite of what you describe – it’s the “public” sector that the politicians body-slam the private sector with.
Washington state used to have excellent ferry service. Then the state decided to force a price-freeze on rates. The companies couldn’t make a profit after that, so the state created a “public” ferry system, which is now basically collapsing under a pile of bureaucratic blubber.
Same thing goes for healthcare in Canada – sure, you don’t see the bill because it’s taken from you in taxes (which are outrageously high compared to, e.g., the U.S.), but you get worse healthcare up there than we do in the U.S., warts and all.
Fred:
Fred wrote: “DC schools spend US$7,500 to US$9,000 per pupil (let’s not even talk about private grants that are outside this as well as special education) compared with US$1,500 to US$3,000 at private (but often Catholic) schools with much better results academically.”
Here is a slightly different perspective on this:
dcwatch.com/parents/pu030207.htm
(Extract)
DCPS Per Pupil Funding Compared With That of Surrounding Suburbs
Total Operating Funding. Despite the greater needs of its student enrollment and even with the inclusion of federal grant funds, the District spends less per pupil than two of its five neighbors and only marginally more than two more. The chart below depicts the FY 2003 per pupil budgets of DCPS and its surrounding school districts. The suburban numbers are calculated annually by the Metropolitan
Area Boards of Education (MABE) by a standardized methodology, which we have applied to the DCPS budget and enrollment. The MABE methodology excludes summer school, special education tuition and other expenditures of the kind in DCPS’ “state-level” budget, but includes most federal grant funds.
Per Pupil Operating Budget FY 2003:
DCPS vs. Surrounding Suburbs
Arlington …$12,716
Alexandria …$11,914
DCPS …$10,031
Montgomery …$9,741
Fairfax …$9,388
Prince George’s …$6,554
About private schools, where did you get your figures? In particular, is this the only money available to them?
Your public and private schools, are they both DC?
Is the pupils intake identical in your public and private schools in terms of social background?
What about the academic results of your private schools compared to those of public schools in the DC’s surrounding suburbs mentioned in www.dcwatch.com? Still better?
Fred:
I) U.S.-wide Private Schools Tuition
The range in tuition fees is quite large and because you have a substantial proportion well above the figures you’ve given (US$1,500 to US$3,000 for private), you would need to have specific figure for same-area, similar-enrolment schools.
Plus, that’s only tuition fees and I expect part of the private schools sector to get some money from elsewhere – that’s what happens in France.
Elementary schools
less than $1,500 …40%
$1,500 to $3,499 …47%
$3,500 or more …12%
Non-elementary schools
less than $3,000 …60%
$3,000 to $7,999 …25%
$8,000 or more …14%
II) Average Enrolment per School
Because of the big difference between public and private here, you would need to find a comparison between schools with similar enrolment levels.
50 to 299
Private …56%
Public…26%
300 or more
Private …20%
Public…71%
Fred:
You say better results in private schools. That may be the case, but is this for same-area, similar social background schools?
Plus here are some indications why it may not be the across-the-board characteristic you seem to imply.
Qualification
The education levels of private school teachers on average were somewhat lower than those of public school teachers: 7 percent of teachers in private schools did not have a bachelor’s degree, compared to fewer than 1 percent of public school teachers. Seventy-one percent of private school teachers, compared to virtually all public school teachers, held state certifications.
Experience
The related experience of the two teacher groups was similar, although many more of the most experienced teachers were in public schools: 21 percent of private school teachers had 20 or more years’ teaching experience, compared to 35 percent of public school teachers.
Pay
Teachers at private schools were paid substantially less on average: about half earned less than $20,000, compared to 4 percent of public, while fewer of them (5 percent) earned $40,000 or more, compared to 25 percent of public.
Maybe less pay means more motivation?
Or what?
When you state something, please say why you think that is.
Or is it too much to ask?
Well, for the two last posts, look at:
That’s a bit ancient, but still indicative, I think.
Another probable bungling by the EPA due to “interference/instructions” from the White House concerning air safety standards around 911 WTC area.
[quote]The day after the attacks, former EPA Deputy Administrator Linda Fisher’s chief of staff e-mailed senior EPA officials to say that “all statements to the media should be cleared” first by the National Security Council, which is Bush’s main forum for discussing national security and foreign policy matters with his senior aides and Cabinet, the inspector general’s report says.
Approval from the NSC, the report says, was arranged through the White House Council on Environmental Quality, which “influenced, through the collaboration process, the information that EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones.” [/quote]
story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … r_safety_8
What the heck is the EPA good for anyways.
Ok, so 911 was a national security issue, but this is pretty thin:
[quote]
For example, the inspector general found, EPA was convinced to omit guidance for cleaning indoor spaces and tips on potential health effects from airborne dust containing asbestos, lead, glass fibers and concrete. [/quote]
[quote]In all, the EPA issued five press releases within 10 days of the attacks and four more by the end of 2001 reassuring the public about air quality. But it wasn’t until June 2002 that the EPA determined that air quality had returned to pre-Sept. 11 levels
[quote]THE GRINCH THAT STOLE LABOR DAY
Friday, August 29, 2003
In celebration of the working person’s holiday, Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao has announced the Bush Administration’s plan to end the 60-year-old law which requires employers to pay time-and-a-half for overtime.
I’m sure you already knew that – if you happened to have run across page 15,576 of the Federal Register.
According to the Register, where the Bush Administration likes to place its little gifts to major campaign donors, 2.7 million workers will lose their overtime pay for a “benefit” of $1.53 billion. I put “benefit” in quotes because, in the official cost-benefit analysis issued by Bush’s Labor Department, the amount employers will now be able to slice out of workers’ pockets is tallied on the plus side of the rules change.
Nevertheless, workers getting their pay snipped shouldn’t complain, because they will all be receiving promotions. These employees will be re-classified as managers exempt from the law. The change is promoted by the National Council of Chain Restaurants. You’ve met these ‘managers’ - they’re the ones in the beanies and aprons whose management decisions are, “Hold the lettuce on that.”
My favorite of Chao’s little amendments would re-classify as “exempt professionals” anyone who learned their skill in the military. In other words, thousands of veterans will now lose overtime pay. I just can’t understand why Bush didn’t announce that one when he landed on the aircraft carrier.
CHOICE NUMBER FOUR: BREAK THE LAW
Now I should say that, according to Chao’s press office, the changes will actually extend overtime benefits to 1.3 million burger flippin’ managers. How does that square with the billion dollar “benefit” to business owners? Simple: The Chao hounds at the Labor Department suggest that employers CUT WAGES so that added to the new “overtime” y, the employees on’t actually take home a dime more.
I can hear the moaners and bleeding hearts saying this sounds like the Labor Department is telling Big Business how to evade the law. Yep, that’s what the Department is doing. Right there on page 15,576 of the Federal Register it says,
"Affected employers would have four choices concerning potential payroll costs:
[quote=“Jonah Goldberg”]I hate blue cheese. I mean I hate it. To me, it tastes like death or Al Sharpton’s socks after they’ve been under the fridge for a year. But no matter how much I hate it, no matter how much I loathe its texture and smell and taste, it’s still only blue or, if you must, “bleu” cheese. Even if you tripled my hatred for it, it would still just be a musky fromage from the land of cheese, long speeches, and short-lived loyalties. It would not, through the mysterious alchemy of hatred and bile, become poison. Sure, I could call it Sarin or Anthrax but that would not make it so. Because, you see, hating an object doesn’t change an object. Only the most arrogant and solipsistic fool would argue or convince himself that his hatred of something increases the importance of that thing.
And that’s how I think of all these people who e-mail me insistent that George Bush is a Nazi. They believe they are so important, so noble, their hatred and fear must be rooted things of Great Consequence. It’s just so prosaic to hate Republicans. I am better than that. So, Republicans must be Nazis. They must be a threat to the whole world and to the sanctity of everything I hold dear because anything less would not be worth my time. George Bush can’t simply be someone I disagree with. No, his popularity must be an indication of mass hysteria, of Nuremberg-style devotion to evil.
So desperate are these people to live in interesting times and play the hero, that they are willing eager to topple every significant moral and historical category so they can role play as the Heroes who Would Not Stay Silent. That would be fine if these losers were playing some multisided dice game in their basements. But they’re not. There’s a war going on and these guys are acting like we’re the real enemy. That’s not just shameful and stupid, it’s unhelpful.[/quote]
Read the entire article here: nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg.asp
MApodofu wrote:
Health care has problems but largely because of political inertia and right-wing provincial meddling (like in B.C. where hospitals are closing even as the government was fighting to win the bid for the 2010 winter Olympics).
As for taxes, yes they are high, but not because of our health care system. Here’s a quote for you:
[quote]Measured in terms of share of gross domestic product (GDP), the United States spent 13 percent on health care in 2000, Switzerland spent 10.7 percent, and Canada spent 9.1 percent. The OECD median was 8 percent. U.S. private spending per capita on health care was $2,580, more than five times the OECD median of $451. In addition, the U.S. financed 56 percent of its health care from private sources - the highest of the OECD countries, along with Korea.
According to the study, the absolute amount of money financed from public sources - primarily Medicare and Medicaid – is similar to other countries. For example, public sources in the United States accounted for spending of 5.8 percent of GDP in 2000, close to the OECD median of 5.9 percent. However, public sources spent per person in the U.S. was $2,051 in 2000, far higher than the OECD median of $1,502. In most of the other OECD countries the public expenditures cover everyone.
[/quote]
Get that? Your government is spending more per capita on health care yet still not covering everyone. Therefore, you are paying more in taxes than we are for health care. And then you still have to pay to get private insurance.
Speaker Pigeon:
I actually used to work for a large urban school district (public relations) in the States. I just saw your post. Please allow me some time to pull up the information that you require.
Part of the problem offhand is that 72 to 76 percent of the money in DC goes to outside classroom expenses (administration, etc.) so this accounts for the vast difference between public and private schools in the DC district.
Yes, to my knowledge, all in DC, all with similar social backgrounds, teachers though at private schools earn less but if you notice the above statistic it would not make that much of a difference given the high outside classroom expenses. Let me track this down for you. Then I will return.
freddy
[quote=“Mucha (Muzha) Man”]MApodofu wrote:
Health care has problems but largely because of political inertia and right-wing provincial meddling (like in B.C. where hospitals are closing even as the government was fighting to win the bid for the 2010 winter Olympics).
As for taxes, yes they are high, but not because of our health care system. Here’s a quote for you:
[quote]Measured in terms of share of gross domestic product (GDP), the United States spent 13 percent on health care in 2000, Switzerland spent 10.7 percent, and Canada spent 9.1 percent. The OECD median was 8 percent. U.S. private spending per capita on health care was $2,580, more than five times the OECD median of $451. In addition, the U.S. financed 56 percent of its health care from private sources - the highest of the OECD countries, along with Korea.
According to the study, the absolute amount of money financed from public sources - primarily Medicare and Medicaid – is similar to other countries. For example, public sources in the United States accounted for spending of 5.8 percent of GDP in 2000, close to the OECD median of 5.9 percent. However, public sources spent per person in the U.S. was $2,051 in 2000, far higher than the OECD median of $1,502. In most of the other OECD countries the public expenditures cover everyone.
[/quote]
Get that? Your government is spending more per capita on health care yet still not covering everyone. Therefore, you are paying more in taxes than we are for health care. And then you still have to pay to get private insurance.[/quote]
The 13% figure MuchaMan cites is not U.S. government spending, but U.S. public and private spending on healthcare. The correct figure for U.S. government spending on health care is 6.3% of its GDP, which is slightly below Canada’s 6.6% (figures are from 1995). That’s still high, considering the U.S. insures a far smaller percentage of its citizens than does Canada, but that’s not what MuchaMan claimed.
Coldfront please read the quote. It clearly states that 13% is of GDP.
And actually I claim exactly what you do which is that the US government spends more per capita than does the Canadian government yet covers far fewer people (in terms of percentages). What exactly are you confused about? I was not disingenous in the least. 
[quote=“Mucha (Muzha) Man”]Coldfront please read the quote. It clearly states that 13% is of GDP.
And actually I claim exactly what you do which is that the US government spends more per capita than does the Canadian government yet covers far fewer people (in terms of percentages). What exactly are you confused about? I was not disingenous in the least. 
[/quote]
You’re right. I missed your switch from the cost of health care as expressed as a percentage of GDP to it expressed as government spending in per capita terms.
But I did not call you disingenuous; I simply implied you made a mistake. The mistake, however, was mine.