What changes would you have them do?
Well I'd like to see competition rather then a socialist system (and a true socialist system, the government is providing the service, not just paying for it like in Canadian Health care, or American food stamps).
Doubling the (real per-child) resources we pay for educating kids each generation probably isn't sustainable. If that isn't enough for the schools the way they are currently set up, then we have to change how they are set up.
Why? Why not give them the money they need to run their schools instead of shortchanging them?
If we got buy OK with X, and now a couple of generations later we spend 8 or 10X (per student, adjusted for inflation), the argument that the total amount of funds provided is inadequate is weak. The idea that moving to from 8-10, to say 10-12 would solve the problem is even weaker.
Sorry, I should have been clearer.....it was the CDC in Atlanta.
It still doesn't make for much of an argument. Some doctors could be say 3. The CDC employs a lot more than 3 doctors.
Even if it was some very prominent doctor, or list of doctors, it would be an argument from authority. Arguments for authority based on projections in to the future are weak, and even weaker if they project the reversal of a long run trend without providing evidence.
Now if some doctor from the CDC wants to make the argument, I'd be willing to listen to or read it. The "authority" would be enough for me to not dismiss the unlikely prediction out of hand. But if all you have is "some doctors say", well then you can "prove" anything you want about health care. You can prove that longevity will decrease, or that the current trend toward increases will speed up. You can "prove" that we should go to socialized health care, or that we should greatly reduce the role of the government in health care. "Some doctors say" is meaningless. |
