"Students' access to and achievement in computer science must not be predictable on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, language, religion, sexual orientation, cultural affiliation, or special needs."
How does anyone imagine that is achievable, except by not marking... performance?
It's even sillier than that... "[the figure] also includes tax credits and rebates to buyers of solar panels and electric cars"... in other words "subsidies" given not even to Musk/companies, but to customers.
"some of them will see what is being done to them"
Don't you feel guilty about abusing the english language this way, by using passive voice to insinuate an affirmative harmful action by someone? And yet, in reality, all we're talking about is resistance to being made to give our stuff to someone else. It's not a harmful action - it's at the very most neglectful inaction, and even that only if you presume some sort of inherent moral claim on other people's labours.
The mechanics are lovely, but it's funny to define "complete life cycle" their way, as though death/destruction were an interesting or difficult achievement of life (or machine operation).
If the likelihood of a positive return was high, people would undertake personal debts for it.
"in general pay for themselves"
Note that even this happy-hypothetical-scenario is all from the point of view of the government treasury. From the point of view of individual net-taxpayers, there is no pretence of "return" on their "investment".
"government handouts are the best way to distribute a good. See justice, fire protection and military defense for undisputed options"
Note that not one of your examples is actually a government "handout of a good". They are services provided generally, not as transfers to specific individuals.
(Sorry, but "the right" in context means conservative type people, not those states that happen to vote republicans. Equivocating the two is a category error.)
"they pay similar taxes as we do in the US in terms of taxes as a % of income"... where "similar" translates to a, what, 40% later "tax freedom day".
"so not only is private healthcare not illegal [in canada]"... but it is. IIRC, a few years ago, Ontario ran out of the province an american company who wanted to open up a subscription-fee-based very quick access to new family doctors. (There is quite a shortage of that in most areas here.) No can do - says the Canada Health Act - the government must monopolize that industry, and we citizen-units aren't permitted to pay someone else for anything that the System provides. They couldn't even start up.
"their system is cheaper and more effective and of a higher quality"... the grass always look greener on the other side. There are ways in which the canadian systems work better, and ways in which they work worse. They are certainly much less libre and not gratis either.
"people don't go bankrupt from getting sick"
Look, bankruptcy is not even the worst thing that can happen to a person. Going untreated is worse. Paying taxes for health care, then finding out that one's condition isn't covered... having to beg/threaten invincible government bureaucrats who get to make such rationing decisions... complaining to newspapers how OHIP or whatever is letting Poor Kelly die... taking up collections from public so Poor Kelly can travel to the States for treatment. This really happens here in the Great White Up.
"OTOH if you don't have health insurance in the US, your access to health care in many states is nonexistent"
It is a clever trick to equivocate "insurance" and "access". It is possible to self-insure - a completely rational, actuarially-sound, choice for many young people.
Please read the wikipedia text before parroting the link. "This mostly goes towards services not covered or partially covered by Medicare..."
In other words, if you would like to set up a family practice, or walk-in clinic, or hospital, or specialist office, and work directly for your customers, the po-po will take you to the jail-jail.
You haven't quite supplied enough activation energy to fuel a point-by-point rebuttal, so this will have to do...
Are you QUITE sure that the reason this seems (to you) to work so well (in terms of services provided) is because of economies of scale? Have you considered that, just perhaps, it might be because the weighted-distribution of the beneficiaries is different from taxpayers, so that your aggregation of "canadians" into a single uniform mass of happy taxpayers-beneficiaries is... dishonest?
Slashdot Mirror
"signing up" may be a prerequisite, but definitely not the same thing as "achievement". ... unless they give marks for mere attendance
"(in-effect-)equal achievement" means "equal compulsion" only in some language that is not English.
(If it were simply about "equal access", most of the quoted paragraph - listing identity group after identity group - wouldn't have to be there.)
"Students' access to and achievement in computer science must not be predictable on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, language, religion, sexual orientation, cultural affiliation, or special needs."
How does anyone imagine that is achievable, except by not marking ... performance?
"one could amass crippling debt as a result, not of [...] reckless borrowing and spending, but of going to college"
That is a false dichotomy. For some examples of "going to college", it is exactly reckless borrowing and spending.
"There are obvious common sense reasons for why those sorts of laws are in place"
"Unobvious common nonsense" would be more accurate.
... not to those who make their living championing the issue.
There is no contradiction between "show me the money" and "ethics and integrity".
It's even sillier than that ... "[the figure] also includes tax credits and rebates to buyers of solar panels and electric cars" ... in other words "subsidies" given not even to Musk/companies, but to customers.
"some of them will see what is being done to them"
Don't you feel guilty about abusing the english language this way, by using passive voice to insinuate an affirmative harmful action by someone? And yet, in reality, all we're talking about is resistance to being made to give our stuff to someone else. It's not a harmful action - it's at the very most neglectful inaction, and even that only if you presume some sort of inherent moral claim on other people's labours.
The mechanics are lovely, but it's funny to define "complete life cycle" their way, as though death/destruction were an interesting or difficult achievement of life (or machine operation).
If the likelihood of a positive return was high, people would undertake personal debts for it.
"in general pay for themselves"
Note that even this happy-hypothetical-scenario is all from the point of view of the government treasury. From the point of view of individual net-taxpayers, there is no pretence of "return" on their "investment".
"We're supposed to use the government to oversee the process
and keep it honest, make sure contracts are completed."
That's what the courts (contract/tort law) are for - a Department of Roadbuilding is not needed for that.
"government handouts are the best way to distribute a good. See justice, fire protection and military defense for undisputed options"
Note that not one of your examples is actually a government "handout of a good". They are services provided generally, not as transfers to specific individuals.
... then that one in a thousand will help subsidize the 999 until the money runs out
It hasn't run out quite yet.
(Sorry, but "the right" in context means conservative type people, not those states that happen to vote republicans. Equivocating the two is a category error.)
The right doesn't "want stuff" taken from other people. They want to earn it.
"bankruptcy is not normally on the table for nations"
It's a funny-shaped table then - even the US has gone bankrupt a few times, e.g. when reneging on their gold-convertibility obligations.
That "infographic" proves the matter - disregard its absence of info.
... too bad that catastrophic-only coverage has been made apprx. illegal by obamacare.
yes yes ... but it says "exceptionally good reason" ... there must be harm ... exceptionally serious harm ... right?
"they pay similar taxes as we do in the US in terms of taxes as a % of income" ... where "similar" translates to a, what, 40% later "tax freedom day".
"so not only is private healthcare not illegal [in canada]" ... but it is. IIRC, a few years ago, Ontario ran out of the province an american company who wanted to open up a subscription-fee-based very quick access to new family doctors. (There is quite a shortage of that in most areas here.) No can do - says the Canada Health Act - the government must monopolize that industry, and we citizen-units aren't permitted to pay someone else for anything that the System provides. They couldn't even start up.
"their system is cheaper and more effective and of a higher quality" ... the grass always look greener on the other side. There are ways in which the canadian systems work better, and ways in which they work worse. They are certainly much less libre and not gratis either.
"people don't go bankrupt from getting sick"
Look, bankruptcy is not even the worst thing that can happen to a person. Going untreated is worse. Paying taxes for health care, then finding out that one's condition isn't covered ... having to beg/threaten invincible government bureaucrats who get to make such rationing decisions ... complaining to newspapers how OHIP or whatever is letting Poor Kelly die ... taking up collections from public so Poor Kelly can travel to the States for treatment. This really happens here in the Great White Up.
Adjust your reality filter accordingly.
"OTOH if you don't have health insurance in the US, your access to health care in many states is nonexistent"
It is a clever trick to equivocate "insurance" and "access". It is possible to self-insure - a completely rational, actuarially-sound, choice for many young people.
Please read the wikipedia text before parroting the link. "This mostly goes towards services not covered or partially covered by Medicare ..."
In other words, if you would like to set up a family practice, or walk-in clinic, or hospital, or specialist office, and work directly for your customers, the po-po will take you to the jail-jail.
You haven't quite supplied enough activation energy to fuel a point-by-point rebuttal, so this will have to do ...
Are you QUITE sure that the reason this seems (to you) to work so well (in terms of services provided) is because of economies of scale? Have you considered that, just perhaps, it might be because the weighted-distribution of the beneficiaries is different from taxpayers, so that your aggregation of "canadians" into a single uniform mass of happy taxpayers-beneficiaries is ... dishonest?