Education

[Stoked]

In our system the buyer doesn't even have access to the prices, and they generally don't care what they are anyway because the insurance company takes the responsibility. They are not being idiots. They are simply reacting to the way the system is set up.And btw, if you choose not to have insurance and shop around for your own medical care you are in an even worse position because you do not get the same prices that the insurance companies do... not even close. You would end up paying far more for the procedures than the insurance company would at the most expensive provider, even if you went with the least expensive provider.

So they have choices and just choose not to usually shop around.

Sounds like a lazy consumer in a market setting.

 

[fishonjazz]

So they have choices and just choose not to usually shop around.

Sounds like a lazy consumer in a market setting.

it Is but usually prices for goods and services are pretty easy to find out.

Healthcare is like going to grocery store and there are no prices on anything. If you want to know how much something costs you have to call a phone number or ask the manager. That's a real pain in the *** so you just end up going with whatever you see first.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

I don't think healthcare should be free btw. But maybe the 500 dollars per month I pay for premiums should cover my healthcare.
Instead the 500 dollars per month basically does nothing. When I go to the doctor I pay 100% of the cost up until a deductible amount that I will rarely ever meet.
So that 500 per month gets me absolutely nothing.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

That's how health insurance is meant to work to cover very expensive stuff. Just wait until you get old.

I complain about mine for the same reason because of how my pay structure has changed but I don't know there is much of a solution here other than coverage requirements like Obama put in place. Hell, my premiums are nearly 19 grand a year combined and I still have payed well over 50% out of pocket the last several years. Where's all the money going?

 

[JAZZGASM]

What do you think would happen to medical innovation if healthcare became "free"? What do you think would happen to quality? What do you think would happen to average wait times?

I know what would happen. The quality and innovation of healthcare would decline unless there is a sea change in world market structure. Right now, the U.S. market pays for the very large lion share of profits that allow pharmaceutical and manufacturers of durable medical equipment to innovate. I've mentioned this before on JF: the U.S. accounts for only 4.4% of the world population, yet we account for something like 45% of the big pharma/medical revenue (I forget the actual number that I found based on prior research, but the number is staggering).

The other downsize to "free" healthcare, is it may lower the salary's of physicians that has been a common occurrence when other 1st world country's have shifted to single payer policies, which is projected to amplify the primary care doctor shortage we have in the country (The United States will face a shortage of between 40,800 and 104,900 physicians by 2030 without any policy changes). It would be even worse if we did not have a continuous influx of immigration from high quality physicians that can get paid a lot more here. If we go to a similar single payer, we probably won't lose the high quality physicians we have (won't get paid more elsewhere), but there is a significant likelihood that the shortage of physicians we already have in this country will get even worse if high quality students choose to enter into alternate fields (and there is little to no incentive for foreign physicians to emigrate). England provides probably the best example. Their single payer system is very difficult for primary care physicians. Some are required to see 50+ patients per day for low pay (compared to U.S. doctors). England has seen a very large drop in the number of physicians they have, something like 5,000 of non-retiring physicians quit there practices there per year as I recall.

If we go to a single payer system, (and/or simply put legislation in place that these companies can't charge U.S. citizens more than the world average of other 1st world/industrialized countries, as every other 1st world country has caps on pricing), either there will be a steep decline in profits and innovation in the medical sector, or the rest of the world will start paying more for health care. The U.S. is effectively subsidizing a large portion of medical care and medical innovation for the rest of the world. I am fine for a free market economy, including health care. The fact is, in a global market that operates with interference, the U.S. model does not work for healthcare. We need a large change, and the ACA was not it. If anything, it made things worse IMO. Lots of complication and no correction of the issues that are driving up costs.

First, I think we should cap costs of pharma/medical equipment. This will be a good start. Then, I think having a similar system to medicare, where basic care is covered by insurance, but you can pay more for additional/better coverage. It would need to be done gradually.

As far as education, I like the Australian system better than ours. Costs are controlled, and loans are guaranteed at little to no interest. Once you start working a portion comes out as a deduction (similar to a tax/FICA deduction). Interest rates on student loans in the U.S. are very high.

The other solution is just to kill all the old people like Logan's Run.

 

[LogGrad98]

I don't think healthcare should be free btw. But maybe the 500 dollars per month I pay for premiums should cover my healthcare.
Instead the 500 dollars per month basically does nothing. When I go to the doctor I pay 100% of the cost up until a deductible amount that I will rarely ever meet.
So that 500 per month gets me absolutely nothing.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

Free healthcare is always not free. In Germany a substantial chunk comes out of your paycheck and you do make minor co-payments. But rarely is anything declined, the costs out of my check (and I was taxed at the highest tier due to my salary) was actually less than I pay for just having insurance now (what comes out of my check + deductible). The costs here are ridiculously out of control and it's because healthcare should not be viewed as a market good or service, it should be viewed as a utility. It is not a normal good, there is almost zero price elasticity of demand, meaning that demand goes down if the price goes up... No you generally just incur debt and that is why it drives so many bankruptcies. If they double the price of your insulin do you stop taking it? Or my son's seizure medication, which by the way happened to us. One medication he took went from $100 per month to $225, and the reason was to squeeze all the profit out before the patent ran out. It's all such a convoluted load of crap.

 

[Stoked]

it Is but usually prices for goods and services are pretty easy to find out.

Healthcare is like going to grocery store and there are no prices on anything. If you want to know how much something costs you have to call a phone number or ask the manager. That's a real pain in the *** so you just end up going with whatever you see first.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

True, but that’s still market based.

 

[JAZZGASM]

Free healthcare is always not free. In Germany a substantial chunk comes out of your paycheck and you do make minor co-payments. But rarely is anything declined, the costs out of my check (and I was taxed at the highest tier due to my salary) was actually less than I pay for just having insurance now (what comes out of my check + deductible). The costs here are ridiculously out of control and it's because healthcare should not be viewed as a market good or service, it should be viewed as a utility. It is not a normal good, there is almost zero price elasticity of demand, meaning that demand goes down if the price goes up... No you generally just incur debt and that is why it drives so many bankruptcies. If they double the price of your insulin do you stop taking it? Or my son's seizure medication, which by the way happened to us. One medication he took went from $100 per month to $225, and the reason was to squeeze all the profit out before the patent ran out. It's all such a convoluted load of crap.

Even worse, the FDA got the bright idea that any drug company that test drugs that have been on the market forever (but never formally tested) can have exclusive rights to that drug. So certain drugs went from $1.00 as a generic to over $100+ per month.

 

[LogGrad98]

Even worse, the FDA got the bright idea that any drug company that test drugs that have been on the market forever (but never formally tested) can have exclusive rights to that drug. So certain drugs went from $1.00 as a generic to over $100+ per month.

The pharmaceutical industry is a true travesty right now.

 

[silesian]

So, you were talking about carriages after all. Make up your mind.

I'm sure Daimler never talked to anyone who had made carriages nor studied them at all before he put an internal combustion engine on one. That's the logical thing for an inventor to do, right? Reinvent the carriage from the ground up.[/sarcasm]

The notion of the outsides who revolutionizes a system, and improves it, with no experience in the system nor advice from experts, is a myth. It's not reality. That's not how human progress works. It's Besty DeVos running the Department of Education. We make progress by standing on the shoulders of those who came before us to reach new heights.

Let me take me back to my original post: "Innovation rarely comes from those entrenched in any institution."

You use Daimler as an example, which of course totally supports my thesis.

Read Clayton M. Christensen, this idea is now very widely accepted.


And of course the innovators get advise from experts, that point is completely moot.
Why would you bring the idiot Betsy Devos into a discussion? We are talking about successful innovators, haha! : - )

 

[One Brow]

Let me take me back to my original post: "Innovation rarely comes from those entrenched in any institution."

I looked it up. It's a discussion of market leaders vs. small startups (both of whom would have industry expertise), not experienced vs. outsider.

You use Daimler as an example, which of course totally supports my thesis.

I checked. The first person to bring up Daimler in this thread was you.

Read Clayton M. Christensen, this idea is now very widely accepted.

I read a little. Did you know the early automobile industry is one to which he says his theory of disruptive innovation did not apply, because automobiles were a luxury item? Well after Daimler, it's Ford production line that causes the disruption.

And of course the innovators get advise from experts, that point is completely moot.

You responded to a post about how education experts needed to be consulted for changes in education that outsiders would be better placed. Even a casual perusal shows the theory of disruptive innovation has very little applicability to education.

 

[The Thriller]

Haven’t “outside innovators” been a major part of public education for decades now? When was the last time the Sec of Edu was an actual educator? Since at least Reagan, public education has been driven by outside “business” innovators. This has led to more standardized testing, lower teacher morale, greater teacher turnover, higher costs, and arguably worse results. Utah in the past 10 years tried a lawyer as superintendent in Ogden and it was a disaster. He later moved to be the superintendent of the entire state. He sucked so bad that he “retired” after one year.

It has been my experience that those who argue for “outside innovators” in public education rarely have any specific complaints or solutions. They’re just exercising their libertarian attitudes and repeating their anti-government diatribes attempting to sound concerned over education. From what I’ve seen in practice, states and districts that practice “outsider innovation” are merely socializing costs while privatizing profits. Usually into the hands of their friends and family.

For those wondering what I mean, google Howard Stephenson (former senator from Draper) and huge advocate of charter schools. He also had financial stakes in them...

Google former House speaker, Greg Hughes (also from Draper). He was a huge advocate for charters, helped change the way athletes can move around, and served on the board of of Summit Academy in draper (the school his sons played football for). Canyons and Jordan Districts were the first districts in the state that bought software Mastery Connect (based in Draper). Districts were spending millions on software that when I used to work for these districts years ago, didn’t help teachers out nor demonstrated academic improvement in the classroom. But hey, the district “was innovative” and made software designers in Draper wealthy.

Once again, “innovation” in public education typically means hurting unions, more testing on students, and funneling public money into private hands.

 

[silesian]

Did you know the early automobile industry is one to which he says his theory of disruptive innovation did not apply, because automobiles were a luxury item? Well after Daimler, it's Ford production line that causes the disruption.

Agreed! The Ford production line was also a disruptive innovation from someone outside the horse carriage industry. Exactly my point.

The idea that disruptive innovation does not apply to luxury items is so remote from reality and so alien to anything written by Christensen I don't know where to start. Okay let me start with Apple, Tesla, HBO, Viagra, Ford.

Even a casual perusal shows the theory of disruptive innovation has very little applicability to education.

Click here, the thought leader on disruptive innovation calls BS

I looked it up. It's a discussion of market leaders vs. small startups (both of whom would have industry expertise), not experienced vs. outsider.

I said: "Innovation rarely comes from those entrenched in any institution." So you are misrepresenting my argument by conflating the concept of "experience"

New entrant versus encumbents is a main theme of disruptive innovation.
"Therefore, new entrants (often founded by frustrated ex-employees of the incumbents) with little or nothing to lose when they enter the market. Initially these small upstarts don’t pose a threat — the new entrants find new markets to apply these technologies largely by trial and error, at low margins. Their nimbleness and low cost structures allow them to operate sustainably where incumbents could not."


Have a nice day!

 

[gandalfe]

When was the last time the Sec of Edu was an actual educator?

Well, John B King, Jr was Obama's Sec Ed the last year, and was a teacher. He did move in to administration, but that's just to be expected.

"After receiving a Bachelor of Arts in government at Harvard,[10] King taught social studies and received his master's at Teachers College, Columbia University. He taught for three years, including two years at a Boston charter school. King was among the founders of Roxbury Preparatory Charter School, where he served as co-director for five years and developed its curriculum and rules, such as no talking in the hallways between classes. Under King's leadership, Roxbury Prep's students attained the highest state exam scores of any urban middle school in Massachusetts, closed the racial achievement gap, and outperformed students from not only the Boston district schools but also the city's affluent suburbs.[11][12] King then joined as a managing director for Uncommon Schools, an urban, public charter school organization that operates some of the highest performing urban public schools in New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.[9] In 2013 Uncommon Schools won the Broad Prize for top charter network.[13]

King later received a Juris Doctor at Yale Law School and a Doctor of Education in educational administrative practice at Columbia.[10] King was a 1995 Truman Scholar and received the James Madison Memorial Fellowship for secondary-level teaching of American history, American government, and social studies.[10]"

 

[One Brow]

The idea that disruptive innovation does not apply to luxury items is so remote from reality and so alien to anything written by Christensen I don't know where to start. Okay let me start with Apple, Tesla, HBO, Viagra, Ford.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation:
Not all innovations are disruptive, even if they are revolutionary. For example, the first automobiles in the late 19th century were not a disruptive innovation, because early automobiles were expensive luxury items that did not disrupt the market for horse-drawn vehicles. The market for transportation essentially remained intact until the debut of the lower-priced Ford Model T in 1908.[5]
Christensen 2003, p. 49.

Is that a misquote in wikipedia?

Apple has not disrupted any market of which I am aware. Tesla is certainly no challenger for the Big 3. HBO is in middle-class households all over the world. Viagara is a common and inexpensive. The whole point of Ford is to put cars in the hands of people in the middle class.

I don't think you understand the concept of disruptive innovation at all. Your understanding certainly doesn't sound like any of the web pages you have linked to.

I said: "Innovation rarely comes from those entrenched in any institution." So you are misrepresenting my argument by conflating the concept of "experience"

Perhaps you should not have used that quote to rebut the notion of needing experienced educators, then.

Click here, the thought leader on disruptive innovation calls BS

Wow, computer assisted learning. Way to bring in a thought from the 1990s as disruptive innovation.

When computers can read, interpret, and respond to body language, you might be ready to begin to write a genuine computer education program. The industry will likely be heavily involved.

Have a nice day!

You also.

 

[The Thriller]

Well, John B King, Jr was Obama's Sec Ed the last year, and was a teacher. He did move in to administration, but that's just to be expected.

"After receiving a Bachelor of Arts in government at Harvard,[10] King taught social studies and received his master's at Teachers College, Columbia University. He taught for three years, including two years at a Boston charter school. King was among the founders of Roxbury Preparatory Charter School, where he served as co-director for five years and developed its curriculum and rules, such as no talking in the hallways between classes. Under King's leadership, Roxbury Prep's students attained the highest state exam scores of any urban middle school in Massachusetts, closed the racial achievement gap, and outperformed students from not only the Boston district schools but also the city's affluent suburbs.[11][12] King then joined as a managing director for Uncommon Schools, an urban, public charter school organization that operates some of the highest performing urban public schools in New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.[9] In 2013 Uncommon Schools won the Broad Prize for top charter network.[13]

King later received a Juris Doctor at Yale Law School and a Doctor of Education in educational administrative practice at Columbia.[10] King was a 1995 Truman Scholar and received the James Madison Memorial Fellowship for secondary-level teaching of American history, American government, and social studies.[10]"

Yep. So ya got me there. Apparently we did have someone with an education background under Obama. I missed one.

Before King we had Arnie Duncan whose background was in Sociology and CEO of schools who made his name for shutting down traditional public schools in Chicago and replacing them with charters (who have mostly failed). Before Arnie we had Margaret Spellings, who studied political science and made her name by helping George W Bush win political campaigns. And after King we had Phil Rosenfelt, a lawyer by trade. And after him Betsy DeVos, who graduated in some form of economics and married a rich CEO. She made her name by being rich and for promoting vouchers and charters in her home state. She became a household name, Palin style, by appearing on TV and displaying an incredible amount of ignorance for all to see. Even the first Sec of Education ever appointed under Carter was a lawyer. You'd think with all of these "outsiders" you'd have a lot more innovation in education, don't ya think?

Now I'm not exactly a huge fan of the Dept of Edu. Nor do I think it's their role to necessarily innovate new teaching or curriculum for all schools in all 50 states. I do however think it's hilarious that this department is largely seen as bureaucratic as they come despite being manned by a plethora of lawyers, business people, and lobbyists who are hailed by certain groups as being the "innovators" of our society instead of the traditional leeches (educators).

 

[The Thriller]

@One Brow I don't disagree with you necessarily about the benefits of maintaining a wide path for graduation from high school and college. I certainly am a believer in the arts and social sciences. I'm not advocating for a European like tracking system that places students on a trade school or university route based on a test they take at age 15. Our own society prides itself on letting students become "whatever they want."

However, I do oftentimes wonder that our system hinders having a sense of urgency in K-12 education because the road is so wide and the vision so vague. The standardized tests we take carry no weight on a student's grade. They're merely hoops for students and teachers to jump through. Students grow up through middle and high school with some goal (maybe) of graduating with a high school diploma and maybe going to college after. I wonder if our lack of standardized testing that is meant to really gauge student's skill/knowledge and have an impact on their lives leaves students completely unprepared for post high school life?

If students were to be tested and tracked, I wonder if:

A. We'd see an increase in student achievement knowing that the tests they take actually matter.
B. We'd see increased student engagement and higher levels of respect towards teachers and school.
C. Better prepared students for college since those who wasted their time in middle/high school would have gone a different route.

In other countries where testing and tracking take a more relevant role, I wonder if education is valued more? I wonder if academic in middle school and high school matter more than sports and cellphone selfies? How you would quantify this data would be difficult. But it seems to me that other societies seem to see much more academic value in the public education system than we do. I wonder if our lack of meaningful testing and tracking contributes to it?

 

[One Brow]

However, I do oftentimes wonder that our system hinders having a sense of urgency in K-12 education because the road is so wide and the vision so vague.

Since my front lines is at the Community College level, I am biased toward that route. I can't form an argument against anything you said.

 

[silesian]

I don't think you understand the concept of disruptive innovation at all. Your understanding certainly doesn't sound like any of the web pages you have linked to.

I won't argue with your opinion on this since you've learned a lot from your google searches. I've led successful innovation programs for a fortune 500 company and the largest private company in the US, am currently Chief Commercial Officer leading an innovation team for a chemtech startup, I've taught highly rated corporate classes in innovation, and taken graduate courses in innovation from a top B school. So, ironically, I am an innovation "institutional insider" who may have bought into the dogma, and you are (presumably) an institutional outsider who may have better ideas. You could be the person who disrupts disruptive innovation! How very cool and very meta would that be! : -)


Back to the discussion.....

To economists, luxury goods are in contrast to necessity goods. Food is a necessity good. Viagara is a luxury good. Cars were luxury goods in the early days, even after Ford. Hope that helps to clarify.

You are attempting to refute my statement that "Innovation rarely comes from those entrenched in any institution."

Jobs and Woz were not working for HP or IBM. Netflix was not launched by Blockbuster. Digital cameras did not emerge from Kodak. There are thousands of examples.

You dismiss how innovation in education might come from outside the institution of education but you have not explained why you believe this is impossible. Your only argument seems to be that people need to have experience and knowledge to innovate in education, which is both obvious and besides the point.

So I'll side with the guy who literally invented the term "disruptive innovation," remaining open to the idea that institutional education outsiders would likely be the place where successful educational reform might emerge.

Have a nice day.

 

[Deleted member 848]

@dalamon @One Brow @jimmy eat jazz @Red @Zombie

If you could focus on and get one agenda item passed would it be free healthcare or free college education? Why?

Healthcare.

 

[Deleted member 848]

You believe that we have a market based health care system? Among other things, patients have no idea what they are paying for their services before they receive them. American health care is definitely not market based.

America’s health care system is the most market-based (by a big margin) healthcare system in the developed world.

Not coincidentally, it is also by most metrics the worst healthcare system in the developed world.