« The Children's Database | Main | Greek Fires »
August 27, 2007
Paul Krugman: Better Not Use That Argument, eh?
Paul Krugman tries to use what he thinks is a killer argument here:
Suppose, for a moment, that the Heritage Foundation were to put out a press release attacking the liberal view that even children whose parents could afford to send them to private school should be entitled to free government-run education.
They’d have a point: many American families with middle-class incomes do send their kids to school at public expense, so taxpayers without school-age children subsidize families that do. And the effect is to displace the private sector: if public schools weren’t available, many families would pay for private schools instead.
So let’s end this un-American system and make education what it should be — a matter of individual responsibility and private enterprise. Oh, and we shouldn’t have any government mandates that force children to get educated, either. As a Republican presidential candidate might say, the future of America’s education system lies in free-market solutions, not socialist models.
O.K., in case you’re wondering, I haven’t lost my mind, I’m drawing an analogy. The real Heritage press release, titled “The Middle-Class Welfare Kid Next Door,” is an attack on proposals to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. ... And Rudy Giuliani’s call for “free-market solutions, not socialist models” was about health care, not education...
The truth is that there’s no difference in principle between saying that every American child is entitled to an education and saying that every American child is entitled to adequate health care. It’s just a matter of historical accident that we think of access to free K-12 education as a basic right, but consider having the government pay children’s medical bills “welfare,“ with all the negative connotations that go with that term.
And then, over here, we get this little factoid:
DCPS superintendent Michelle Rhee is doing a heroic job trying to get textbooks into classrooms by the start of school. One problem is that school officials still can’t tell her how many books they actually need. Classes start on Monday.
Is the problem insufficient funding? As it happens, DCPS’s total gross budget for the last school year was upwards of one billion dollars according to its own website, and its enrollment was about 52,000 students. That means DCPS had total per pupil spending of nearly $20,000 last year, or half a million dollars per class of 25 students. You’d think that would cover books.
The District’s perennial problem with getting books into students’ hands is a great illustration of what’s wrong with the status quo. When was the last time you walked into a Barnes and Noble or a Borders bookstore in mid August and didn’t see a well-stocked “back to school” display? Why is it so easy for them to handle inventory issues when they don’t even know how many customers they are going to have, while DCPS is flummoxed, year after year, despite having a fairly accurate enrollment number up front?
That's just what everyone is worried about, that a State run health care system will be exactly and precisely as efficient and effective as the State run education system.
August 27, 2007 in Economics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00e54ed1e8a08833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Paul Krugman: Better Not Use That Argument, eh?:
» Krugman Abets the SCHIP Deception from Health Care BS
Paul Krugman, perpetuating the myth that SCHIP is about “the children,” advises his long-suffering readers that expansion of that program is analogous to providing public education:
We offer free education because giving every child a fair chance i... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 27, 2007 6:30:40 PM
Comments
It would have to go some to be less efficient than the non-state-run health system.
Posted by: PooterGeek | Aug 27, 2007 11:37:03 AM
What?
You mean as efficient as a state run manufacturing system? Or a state run food distribution system? Or a state run agricultural system? Or a state run consumer goods system? Or a state run system?
Posted by: Chris Harper | Aug 27, 2007 11:44:05 AM
What?
You mean as efficient as a state run manufacturing system? Or a state run food distribution system? Or a state run agricultural system? Or a state run consumer goods system? Or a state run [insert activity of choice] system?
Posted by: Chris Harper | Aug 27, 2007 11:45:20 AM
By several accounts, in Europe France seems to have developed a successful and widely admired system of national healthcare.
"The Euro Health Consumer Index 2006 identifies the most consumer-friendly health care system in the European union, as rated by 27 Index indicators. The 2006 Index includes all the 25 EU public healthcare systems plus Switzerland for reference.
"France emerges as the 2006 winner of the Euro Health Consumer Index, 'with a technically efficient and generously providing healthcare system'. France scores 576 out of 750 maximum points. 2005 years winner, the Netherlands, now takes the silver position, followed by Germany. Estonia and Slovakia gets the highest ranking in the category 'value for money'."
http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10006355.shtml
For details of country marking in the index:
http://www.healthpowerhouse.com/media/EHCI2006.pdf
The Civitas website has a collection of briefs on national healthcare systems, including both France and the US:
http://www.civitas.org.uk/nhs/orig.php
Posted by: Bob B | Aug 27, 2007 1:36:52 PM
Why do they do all this navel-gazing when there's a real live experiment being run right under their noses?
Yoo-hoo! Yanks! The NHS is right here, right now!
You don't need to guess what it will be like.
Posted by: Andrew Duffin | Aug 27, 2007 2:35:04 PM
He did cheat, didn't he? He argues about free education for the kiddywinkies and that alludes to free "health care" for them. But I'll bet that he's not thinking about free "health care" that stops when they are 18. A bit deceitful, surely.
Posted by: dearieme | Aug 27, 2007 4:29:50 PM
He did cheat, didn't he? He argues about free education for the kiddywinkies and that alludes to free "health care" for them. But I'll bet that he's not thinking about free "health care" that stops when they are 18. A bit deceitful, surely.
Posted by: dearieme | Aug 27, 2007 4:29:53 PM
Interesting, a look at the decisions made by private sector military/state sector military.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/08/we-are-not-wrong.html
Posted by: Chris Harper | Aug 28, 2007 12:35:02 AM
Great. We should pull British troops immediately so the Americans can hire even more well-equipped Blackwater mercenaries from America to take their place.
Btw BAE trades unions and shareholders will surely cheer with ecstatic delight at the great news for British taxpayers about substituting Super Tucano trainer-ground attack planes - which look like derivatives of Mustangs from WW2 - from Brazil for the extravagantly priced Eurofighters and note with exquisite pleasure that Shorts already have a licence to build trainer versions of the Tucano for the RAF in Belfast:
http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/tucano.cfm
Why ever didn't the government think of doing that switch before?
The Russians will look sick when they compare the cost of SU-35/37s against the Tucano:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=upYX_SISZ84
A different kind of arms race by weapons cost. Archers have great cost-kill ratios and we used to be good at archery.
Posted by: Bob B | Aug 28, 2007 8:50:54 AM
His parody argument doesn't sound that bad really.
In fact it sounds very good.
At least in the US the federal government should get out of education, and probably state governments too. Over here at the very least Westminster should get out of education.
Posted by: Tristan Mills | Aug 28, 2007 4:35:58 PM
