Mens sana in corpore sano
A sound mind in a sound body
should the state not provide universal education and universal health care.
I believe strongly that the State should intervene in human affairs to ensure good outcomes for all. Education and Healthcare seem to be similar programs.
My country, the UK, provides primary and secondary universal education (publicly funded) and universal health care (publicly funded) as of right. Education has been thus provided since the early twentieth century and health care since 1948.
In the US, universal primary and secondary education is provided through public funds, yet the suggestion that health care be so provided is met with cries of horror.
Why does the US body politic accept universal socialized education but not universal socialized medicine.
If not, why is education funded. Health and Education seem similar goods to me, and well summed up in the wish of people for a sound mind in a sound body- what everyone wants for their offspring.
My question is not ‘should we strive for a sound body and a sound mind’ but how could we justify striving for a sound mind (education) and not doing so for a sound body (child health).
If Health care is to be individually funded, why not health care?
You do realize that American children whose parents have no private health insurance are covered by Medicare?
You Europeans seem to have the idea that in the US if you don’t have private health insurance you’re thrown out on the street. No, we don’t have universal health care for everyone provided at the national level. Yes, we do have government provided health care for the needy.
Or maybe you could open a thread now and then about issues in your own country? Why is it that every single thread you open is about problems in the US? You might argue that American foreign policy affects the world. But how exactly does US health insurance policy affect you? Why is it that I never see you post in threads except ones complaining about what a shithole America is? What’s wrong with you? First remove the beam in your own eye, then you can see clearly to remove the speck in your neighbors eye.
I also don’t agree that this is a solid assumption to argue from. Don’t get me wrong, I think a healthy population is a good thing. But who decides what “a sound mind” is?
Medical professionals - OK I’ll cautiously yet suspiciously support that with the caveat that we keep a damn close eye on who’s being locked up and why.
The STATE?! - no freakin’ way! It just smacks a little to much of “right thinking”.
US politics: 2 OPs
UK politics: 3 OPs
US/UK: 1 OP
Israel: 1 OP
Guantanamo: 8 OPs
Iraq: 8 OPs
So, if the US had not illegally led an invasion of Iraq (for which I hold Blair and the UK equally culpable) and if Bush hadn’t opened the Black Hole, then you would not have noted any ‘Anti-Americanism’.
Well, but it is the case that American children whose parents don’t send them to private schools are covered by the public school system. So in both cases, those children whose parents don’t provide them with private options (private school and private health insurance), benefit from public school and Medicare public health insurance.
So, apart from the posts and threads where you are most likely to attack the US, you don’t attack the US all that much. Gotcha.
If you would like to discuss what your OP is purportedly about, perhaps you could provide a cite as requested, instead of begging the question. Or address Debaser’s point.
Does it make any difference to the OP that, in the US, much of the money for primary and secondary education comes at the state and local levels, not from the US Government?
The parallel is only apt if you’re specifically talking about health care for children, as the “universal socialized education” provided in the US is for children, not adults.
Because the quasi-mythical “State” you refer to is made up of citizens, who vote for people who fund one but not the other. What’s the problem with that? People don’t want Universal Health Care over here.*
Is this actually true? I realize that British law is more organic than American, but has health care actually been established as a “right” inside British common law?
I ask since it doesn’t appear to be an enshrined right in the Canadian Charter which was repatriated in 1982. I would imagine we would have borrowed heavily from the British experience.
I wouldn’t say so. It’s still public money that people have paid in tax. In the UK a lot of the schooling and health budgets are controlled by local councils IIRC.