Quote from: sturle on November 02, 2012, 07:07:01 AM

Quote from: myrkul on November 02, 2012, 02:14:36 AM

Quote from: sturle on November 01, 2012, 10:54:38 PM

Quote from: myrkul on November 01, 2012, 08:27:41 PM

Quote from: sturle on November 01, 2012, 08:00:05 PM

Quote from: myrkul on November 01, 2012, 06:59:37 PM

There seems to be a mistake in terms. If your "private" schools are getting government funding, they're not private schools. They're public schools that also charge their students. You see "real competition" between the "public" sector and the "private" sector, when, in fact, you don't have a private sector.

Yes, there are some schools which are run for profit, and don't want to keep their fees below the limits for public funding, or wants to have very different standards (not fulfilling all of the minimums, e.g. so their pupils will have to go an extra year to qualify for higher education). A couple of those are popular among dropouts who want to pull themselves together and study intensively to qualify for higher education.

And yet, you refer to the faux-private schools, and not the actual ones.

Do I? If schools which are run for profit and don't get any public funding aren't actual private schools, which schools are?

At least make it hard to make you eat your words...

Quote from: sturle on November 01, 2012, 06:50:43 PM

In my country private schools will get almost the same amount from the government per pupil as public schools...

Quote

...provided they keep their fees at a reasonable level and comply with certain quality standards

So there are three kinds of schools.

You requested tax breaks for sending your kids to a private school. What's the difference? You must love bureaucracy! Instead of sending one payment directly to the school, the government should send one payment to each of the parents sending kids to the school, so the parents can forward the money to the school? This gets even more complicated with modern family structures. You really want to waste money on this for some principle of what you choose to call the school? You must be kidding!

Actually, I'd prefer that the government stop stealing my money to pay for other kids' schooling, and just let me pay for the schooling I want my kids to have. How's that for simple?

Quote from: sturle on November 02, 2012, 07:07:01 AM

Quote from: myrkul on November 02, 2012, 02:14:36 AM

Quote from: sturle on November 01, 2012, 10:54:38 PM

Quote from: myrkul on November 01, 2012, 08:27:41 PM

Quote from: sturle on November 01, 2012, 08:00:05 PM

Quote from: myrkul on November 01, 2012, 06:59:37 PM

Quote from: sturle on November 01, 2012, 06:50:43 PM

Show me one country which is satisfied with their public school system. This is a matter of basic psychology as well. When you spend resources on something, you expect a reward. People who pay for something are therefore more likely to feel rewarded afterwards than someone who get it for free.

Seems like the best argument for a totally private school system I've heard yet.

No, it is an argument for sending your kids to an expensive private school. Most of the effect vanishes when there is no free or much cheaper alternative. Like taxes.

[citation needed]

I believe it is a case of Cognitive Dissonance and more specifically Effort Justification.

Fascinating. Not the articles. That you even know the terms. However, neither of those articles imply any great loss of sense of achievement if no free option is available. And the link to taxes, is of course, non-existent.

Yes. If there is a free option available, the effort invested is proportionally higher. If you want private schools to come out really badly, try giving people money to send their kids there. You got the reward, and don't have to justify it by convincing yourself it is a better school. As for taxes, please google that yourself.

I almost see the logic here. But then I realize that it's not logic, it's a fallacy. You do understand that cognitive dissonance is not something to be sought, right? That effort justification is a perceived difference, like rating the same wine better if you're told it's $200 a bottle than if you're told it's $20? Whereas the difference between public schooling and private schooling is quantifiable?

Quote from: sturle on November 02, 2012, 07:07:01 AM

Quote from: myrkul on November 02, 2012, 02:14:36 AM

Quote from: sturle on November 01, 2012, 10:54:38 PM

Quote from: myrkul on November 01, 2012, 08:27:41 PM

Quote from: sturle on November 01, 2012, 08:00:05 PM

In terms of USD corrected for purchasing power, Canada is on level with Europe. Canada spends 55% of what the USA spends per capita. Average life expectancy at birth is 81.38 years in Canada, 78.37 years in the USA.

All right. Now compare that to a 100% free market medical system (Hint, you'll have to go back a few decades).

I don't have comparable numbers from different countries from decades ago, and I have no idea what the health systems in different countries looked like back then. I don't know how relevant the numbers would be either. Medicine has made a lot of progress the last few decades. The odds of surviving many diseases has become much better due to better treatments. Some of the new treatments are very expensive, and it is hard for one normal person or family to afford it alone. A few decades ago most cancer diagnoses came with a very short life expectancy. Nowadays most people get well from cancer, but the treatment is far from free. Your alternatives are a) have a free public health system or b) a good private insurance or c) be very rich or d) die.

We're not comparing treatments. we're comparing healthcare expenditures as a percentage of GDP.
Here, let me help you out: Option e): http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html (though this could be considered a subset of b)

One or two dollars a year, huh? No wonder the average life expectancy in Britain at the time was 31 years.

You seem to think that expending more money confers some magical quality upon healthcare that makes it better. Yet you also advocate spending fully half as much money on healthcare per capita. You must want my grammy to die!