Knights & Knaves Alehouse

TRP: "actually, it doesn't. Not in these parts anyway. Each school is pretty much required to pull it's own weight." Actually its the same in this town. I just assume there's stuff coming out of some national funds, but have never heard of it and doubt its much of anything $ wise. Infact, the church sometimes cuts into the schools budget (the school is subject to the priest's wishes).

AxeMental wrote:TRP: "actually, it doesn't. Not in these parts anyway. Each school is pretty much required to pull it's own weight." Actually its the same in this town. I just assume there's stuff coming out of some national funds, but have never heard of it and doubt it accounts to much of anything $ wise. Infact, the church sometimes cuts into the schools budget (the school is subject to the priest's wishes).

I actually know a thing or two about Catholic schools, diocesan finances, etc.

Schools pull their own weight. If a child is resident in a given geographic parish, that child's tuition is usually reduced, but the amount of the reduction is paid by the parish from moneys collected in the weekly Sunday Mass collection.

Every parish in the diocese is assessed Cathedraticum, a 10% tax on moneys collected. Usually, the census and tax liability are calculated based on one month's receipts annualized. The parish is liable for this no matter what. This is the primary source of funds for the diocese.

Some diocese will assist a Catholic high school, especially if there is only one in the diocese. The Diocese of Fort Worth, where I presently live, does this. The Archdiocese of New Orleans, where I grew up, does not. Partially, in NOLA, this is because many of the parish schools and high schools belong, not to the Archdiocese, but to the religious order that runs them (Jesuits, Christian Brothers, Dominicans, Carmelites, Ursulines, Brothers of the Holy Cross, etc.).

Most diocese will not assist a struggling parish school and, in most cases, the diocesan staff at the chancery are not available to assist the parochial schools in fulfilling their educational mission.

HTH

And, if anyone has more questions on this topic, I'll be happy to ramble on.

Flambeaux wrote:Partially, in NOLA, this is because many of the parish schools and high schools belong, not to the Archdiocese, but to the religious order that runs them (Jesuits, Christian Brothers, Dominicans, Carmelites, Ursulines, Brothers of the Holy Cross, etc.).

Shame on you for relegating the most awesome Brothers of the Sacred Heart to the "etc" category.

TheRedPriest wrote:

Flambeaux wrote:Partially, in NOLA, this is because many of the parish schools and high schools belong, not to the Archdiocese, but to the religious order that runs them (Jesuits, Christian Brothers, Dominicans, Carmelites, Ursulines, Brothers of the Holy Cross, etc.).

Shame on you for relegating the most awesome Brothers of the Sacred Heart to the "etc" category.

I hang my head in shame. I also forgot the good ladies of Sacra Coeur, who formed several of the young ladies I dated.

[quote="AxeMental]
The notion that 1. you work and save, 2. You risk and invest (usually in education, savings and sometimes your own company...this sometimes takes a long while), 3. You hire workers and increase your standard of living, 4. your workers work and save, 5. they follow those same steps. The net result is that the United States, in 200 years has seen greater prosperity then any nation in the history of mankind. And the greatest freedom of any nation in the history of mankind. Think about that, 200 years of a hodgpodge of English, French, Blacks, etc. all working for a single goal, the selfish goal of improving your own life and those of your loved ones. Net result, selfishness improves everyones lives. People not only have a check to live off of they have something far more valuable, self respect.
[/quote]

The fact that less people save is mainly connected with Consumerism, which is a form of Capitalism (Capitalism is not necessarily consumerism) and probably the least beneficial kind. The logic is that people should be buying, whether or not it's in their interest to or not. For a not so important example, (except maybe to people here), look at WOTC - the idea is that players should buy more material even though they probably are not getting more fun out of it. Likewise advertising promotes credit spending and a lot of products that are quite simply useless as if such things were essentials ("Truth in advertising" is non-existent)

Italians, historically wary of capitalism, have always been a savers, investing in real estate (because of a natural suspicion of abstract investments), but now that is changing and debt is reaching UK/US levels.


[quote="AxeMental]
3. agreeing with politicians to lower their own taxes and raise everyone elses (or hell even not tax them at all) so the "evil rich people" pay for the roads, hospitals and other public services they use (thats called class warfare, its hate generated and just as fascists as anything Hitler pulled), [/quote]

A survey of British billionaires showed that 37 out of 42 paid NO-INCOME-TAX at all. Furthermore international corporations often declare income/profits in low-tax regions which are not necessarily a true indication of where that money was made. I lived with an accounting student who was studying how to transfer funds into tax-havens (a very lucrative field to work in!)

The idea is not to tax "the evil rich" into submission (well maybe it is for some people) so much as to share the tax burden. Furthemore it is clear that $25 dollars per week from someone on $150 a week is a lot more than $100 a week for someone on $5000.

Also I think you're forgetting that actual Fascism - not just a word thrown around to insult those you don't agree with - was largely funded by and widely supported by big business. There was also an attempted Fascist coup d'etat, backed by business interests, in the US in 1934 which was foiled by Roosevelt. You might want to read up on it.

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_ ... 77711.html


One point I hadn't considered. Tieing Universal Health Care would make even those paying taxes tied to a socialist system.

Do 40% of Americans really not pay taxes? Are they saying that 40% do not pay income tax (even that seems a bit high) but still paying VAT and so forth.

This link from your link made me laugh and worry at the same time:
http://www.thoseshirts.com/

Do people really want to wear "I'd rather be waterboarding" t-shirts?

State healthcare is seriously not a bad thing . in the insurance business it's simply bad business to insure people likely to claim - for example people with long-term illnesses. In other words, running a healthcare system that actually covers people as they need is actually BAD-BUSINESS - that's why it makes sense to have state-healthcare.

Would you privatise the Fire-Dept, Military or Law Enforcement? In the later case people in high crime areas (usually poor areas) would also have to pay more for law-enforcement cover.

Werral wrote:Do 40% of Americans really not pay taxes? Are they saying that 40% do not pay income tax (even that seems a bit high) but still paying VAT and so forth.

This link from your link made me laugh and worry at the same time:
http://www.thoseshirts.com/

Do people really want to wear "I'd rather be waterboarding" t-shirts?

State healthcare is seriously not a bad thing . in the insurance business it's simply bad business to insure people likely to claim - for example people with long-term illnesses. In other words, running a healthcare system that actually covers people as they need is actually BAD-BUSINESS - that's why it makes sense to have state-healthcare.

Would you privatise the Fire-Dept, Military or Law Enforcement? In the later case people in high crime areas (usually poor areas) would also have to pay more for law-enforcement cover.

I have first hand experience with the insurance company attitude towards person with health issues. My 11 year old son was diagnoised with depression and GI issues under my insurance at my old job. The insurance at my new job is total crap and won't cover the specialist that he needs. We applied to purchase him private insurance and were told by basically every company that he was denied because of his pre-existing condition or they would cover him but not his conditions. They all kept telling us the same thing that only employer based insurance and medicaid were required to cover him. So the insurance companies don't want to deal with you if you have a health issue, they insure only healthy people. People with long term health issues (my wife and both mym sons) are shunted over to the public health system. So yeah the private system works great if your healthy.

Socialized medicine would be a total disaster. Just like socialized anything is a total disaster, except in this case were talking about those who take care of us. Do you really want substandard doctors, substandard equipment, long waits to get tests? Go to a government agency in your town, say the zoning office. Take a good look around. Do you want that calaber of person taking care of you or running this mammoth organization.

Everything great about this country in its history is directly related to its free market capitalistic grounding. Even those things invented by the government for war etc. became viable and applicable in the private world.

Stone Giant: "People with long term health issues (my wife and both mym sons) are shunted over to the public health system. So yeah the private system works great if your healthy."

I think this is a huge problem. Costs of insurance directly relate to the huge costs in development and espl. govt. required testing, and of course, the potential for law suites (which could put a huge bio-co. like Merk say out of business). Once again, the government does little to make medicine affordable or protect those involved in its production (cap lawsuite rewards, cut the time and costs to test etc).

And will it cost more if we socialize the system (remember, "universal care" wont be free, someone is paying for it in taxes etc). you just loose competition, and the universal benefits of market force.

AxeMental wrote:Everything great about this country in its history is directly related to its free market capitalistic grounding.

*makes his saving throw vs. Tasha's Uncontrollable Hideous Laughter*

AxeMental wrote:Socialized medicine would be a total disaster. Just like socialized anything is a total disaster, except in this case were talking about those who take care of us. Do you really want substandard doctors, substandard equipment, long waits to get tests?

Yes. I do, and I vote.

joe "Liberal" b.

The police in the US are "socialised", aren't they?

I mean, their wages are paid out of taxes, they're run on an administrative system based on local precincts; in fact, the whole system is directly analagous to the British National Health Service in terms of structure and funding.

You could make the police into a private enterprise. Just have them send you an invoice whenever you ask them to solve a crime, and, bingo. Right?

Do you endorse privatising the police force? Or are you prepared to agree that there are limits to the market's effectiveness?

Also, aren't you concerned about the incentive for doctors to downplay preventive healthcare because they get so much more money for letting you get as sick as possible? Do you think that could be related to the reasons why Europeans generally live longer than Americans?

P&P I know zero doctors like that. Most doctors are really nice people who take care of 1000s of free patients in their carreers. The last thing they want to see is someone suffering. Screening for cancers etc. are very much supported here (your insurance covers them). Anyway ever here of the Hippocratic Oath, all doctors agree to this.

If true, I suspect Europeans live longer because they eat less crap and spend more time outdoors (moving), not because they go to a doctor on a regular basis in perfect health. When you start feeling ill you go to the doctor. Or you go when your a kid for immunizations and when your older for screening checkups (such as breast cancer, etc.)


The reason the free market system works so well in medicine is that it benefits from the same forces of competition and supply and demand that exist in any other industry or service (hyper-speed inovation, highly efficient, lower operating costs, higher supplies, more variety, better service/quality, etc.) but unlike most products or services, it actually benefits us by extending our lives and health (something that is more valuable to us then any of our treasures). And people will pay a premium for it. Thats why most of the commercial advancements in medicine start in free markets (like the USA). And without that free market workhorse the socialists nations that use (either copy or buy direct) that technology would have never gotten it to begin with.

As for privatizing the police. I believe they are delt with in the US Constitution. Plus there'd be less benefit for police services to be privatized because there'd be no way to set up competition (you couldn't have say 20 different police forces in Daytona Beach for instance, they'd need to share information, and work in a co-ordinated fashion).

Even if you had companies compete for the right to police this or that state or city (say New York), each would end up being a monopoly (just as private water companies or electric companies are). I'm not opposed to it (and the idea has been floated around), but many are (preferring the stability I suspect).

PS I wouldn't say the police are socialized. I'd say they are government employees. If they were socialized x police force would be privately owned, but its day to day functioning would be controlled or mandated by the government. Afterall that is what socialism basically is. Perhaps it's more akin to a communist system within government, since the government owns the police force?

Stormcrow wrote:

AxeMental wrote:Everything great about this country in its history is directly related to its free market capitalistic grounding.

*makes his saving throw vs. Tasha's Uncontrollable Hideous Laughter*

Fare enough, but I will say "most everything".

AxeMental wrote:P&P I know zero doctors like that. Most doctors are really nice people who take care of 1000s of free patients in their carreers. The last thing they want to see is someone suffering. Screening for cancers etc. are very much supported here (your insurance covers them). Anyway ever here of the Hippocratic Oath, all doctors agree to this.

So... would "socialized doctors" be substandard, or not? You wouldn't want the government to guarantee a baseline of care from these really nice, caring, Hippocratically sworn doctors? You could still pay more for a private doctor if you wanted.

If true, I suspect Europeans live longer because they eat less crap and spend more time outdoors (moving),

Umm... no. The European countries with the best health are the ones with the government health care systems.

As for privatizing the police. I believe they are delt with in the US Constitution.

Nope. Very little of the makeup of executive power is described in the Constitution.

Plus there'd be less benefit for police services to be privatized because there'd be no way to set up competition (you couldn't have say 20 different police forces in Daytona Beach for instance, they'd need to share information, and work in a co-ordinated fashion).

Sure, you could have 20 different police forces. They're called "mercenary outfits." Seriously. They're also called "the mob." You pay your protection money. That's exactly what privatized police would be.

PS I wouldn't say the police are socialized. I'd say they are government employees. If they were socialized x police force would be privately owned, but its day to day functioning would be controlled or mandated by the government. Afterall that is what socialism basically is. Perhaps it's more akin to a communist system within government, since the government owns the police force?

Eh? Methinks you have an odd understanding of socialism. "Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation." (Wikipedia)