Health Stats: Comparing US to Universal Healthcare

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis: 

            U.S.                    65%
 
            England               46%
 
            Canada                42%
 

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
 
            U.S.                      93%
 
            England                15%
 
            Canada                43%
 

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
 
            U.S.                      90%
 
            England                15%
 
            Canada                43%
 
 
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
 
            U.S.                      77%
 
            England                40%
 
            Canada                43%
 
 
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
 
            U.S.                      71
 
            England                14
 
            Canada                18
 
 
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":
 
            U.S.                    12%
 
            England                2%
 
            Canada                6%
 
 
            And now for the last statistic:
 
 
            National Health Insurance?
 
            U.S.                   NO
 
            England              YES
 
            Canada              YES

*statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization; published by Investors Business Daily.

School Vouchers Equal Better Outcomes for All

from The Platte Institute for Economic Freedom: 7/2/2013

Indiana Leading the Way on Vouchers

In 1875, the Speaker of the House of Representatives James G. Blaine introduced an amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit the use of state funds at private religious schools. While the amendment failed on the national level, 37 states-including Nebraska-adopted these amendments for their state constitutions.[1] While these amendments have long been an impediment to those who support school vouchers-state-sponsored certificates of specified dollar amounts that parents can use for private school tuition[2]-a recent ruling on Indiana's expansive voucher program indicates that vouchers may not fall under Blaine amendment constraints, which would open the door to vouchers in Nebraska.

The Indiana Supreme Court case examined whether Indiana's voucher program, which is available to low and middle-income families, was constitutional. The court held that it was, as the state funds "do not directly benefit religious schools but rather directly benefit lower-income families with school children."[3] Such a precedent could make it possible for other states with Blaine amendments to introduce voucher programs without violating state constitutions, giving parents more choice and control in how their child is educated.

Twelve states currently have voucher programs, but Indiana's is the most expansive. It is a statewide program with a maximum voucher amount of $4,500 for students in grades 1-8.[4] A family of four earning less than $42,000 annually can receive up to 90 percent of the maximum state voucher; families making up to $62,000 annually receive 50 percent.[5] Since its establishment in 2012, participation in the program has grown 140 percent, jumping from 3,919 students to 9,424. In the Indianapolis area in particular, the number of students receiving vouchers increased 94 percent, from 644 to 1,262.[6] Such results demonstrate a critical need for more educational options for students and parents, and Indiana's response is one to be emulated.

Voucher programs introduce choice and competition into education. With vouchers, private schools are no longer open only to those who can afford it, and the playing field is leveled so parents with limited means that want to send their children to private school have opportunities to do so. In addition, a marketplace of educational choice compels both public and private schools to focus on advancing student achievement and meeting parent expectations.[7] Research also suggests that public schools improved when subject to the competition introduced by vouchers. A study of public schools in Florida found "that public schools subject to more competitive pressure from private schools raised their test scores the most following the introduction of Florida's voucher program."[8] Therefore, the positive benefits of vouchers extend even to those who choose to remain in the public school system in some cases.

Voucher programs have shown success in raising student outcomes in their own right. Students in Washington DC's Opportunity Scholarship Program-which provides vouchers to low-income students through a lottery-had a graduation rate of 91 percent, 21 percent higher than those without vouchers. DC voucher students also had higher student achievement and parental satisfaction, even while spending only $7,500 per pupil, while DC public schools spent $29,409 per pupil in 2010.[9] More than 20,000 students in Milwaukee's voucher program also saw positive results, achieving a graduation rate 18 percent higher than their public school counterparts between 2003-2009.[10]

The Indiana court ruling provides Nebraska a unique constitutional opportunity to implement vouchers and give Nebraska parents more opportunities for their children. Every child deserves to have a choice in where they go to school, and it is time to give all of Nebraska's children that choice.

______________________________________________________

[1] Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., School Choice: The Blaine Amendments & Anti-Catholicism, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Accessed June 13, 2013, http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/BlaineReport.pdf; Blaine Amendments, "States." Accessed June 13, 2013, http://www.blaineamendments.org/states/states.html.

[2] Jordan Cash, "Vouchers and Tax Credits," Platte Institute for Economic Research, August 28, 2012. Accessed June 13, 2013, http://www.platteinstitute.org/docLib/20120823_Vouchers_and_Tax_Credits.pdf.
 
[3] Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Brent Dickson qtd. in Mark Guarino, "Indiana's expansive school voucher program upheld: A model for others?" Christian Science Monitor, March 26, 2013. Accessed June 13, 2013, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2013/0326/Indiana-s-expansive-school-voucher-program-upheld-A-model-for-others.
 
[4] National Conference of State Legislatures, "School Voucher Laws: State-by-State Comparison." Accessed June 13, 2013, http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/educ/voucher-law-comparison.aspx
 
[5] Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Brent Dickson qtd. in Mark Guarino, "Indiana's expansive school voucher program upheld: A model for others?" Christian Science Monitor, March 26, 2013. Accessed June 13, 2013, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2013/0326/Indiana-s-expansive-school-voucher-program-upheld-A-model-for-others.
 
[6] Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Brent Dickson qtd. in Mark Guarino, "Indiana's expansive school voucher program upheld: A model for others?" Christian Science Monitor, March 26, 2013. Accessed June 13, 2013, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2013/0326/Indiana-s-expansive-school-voucher-program-upheld-A-model-for-others.
 
[7] David N. Figlio and Cassandra M.D. Hart, "Competitive Effects of Means-Tested School Vouchers," National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 16056, June 2010. Accessed June 13, 2013, http://www.nber.org/papers/w16056.pdf.
 
[8] David N. Figlio and Cassandra M.D. Hart, "Competitive Effects of Means-Tested School Vouchers," National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 16056, June 2010. Accessed June 13, 2013, http://www.nber.org/papers/w16056.pdf.
 
[9] Jason Richwine, "D.C. Voucher Students: Higher Graduation Rates and Other Positice Outcomes," Heritage Foundation, July 28, 2010. Accessed June 13, 2013,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/07/dc-voucher-students-higher-graduation-rates-and-other-positive-outcomes; Patrick Wolf et al., "Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Final Report," United States Department of Education, June 2010. Accessed June 13, 2013,
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104018/pdf/20104018.pdf; Andrew Coulson, "Census Bureau Confirms: DC Spends $29,409/pupil," Cato Institute, June 26, 2012. Accessed June 13, 2013,
http://www.cato.org/blog/census-bureau-confirms-dc-spends-29409-pupil.
 
[10] John Robert Warrem, "Graduation Rates for Choice and Public School Students in Milwaukee, 2003-2009," University of Minnesota, School Choice Wisconsin, January 2011. Accessed June 13, 2013,
http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/29370.pdf.

Increasing Legal Immigration is the Answer

By: Alex Nowrasteh -- June 27, 2013

This afternoon the Senate voted 68-32 to pass its sweeping immigration reform bill. The bill is a solid improvement over the current immigration system. It legalizes most of the unlawful immigrants here and provides larger pathways for legal immigration in the future.

Under today’s immigration rules, very few of our ancestors would have been able to immigrate here legally. 

The bill does have flaws – many of which I’ve written about in detail. It doesn’t increase lawful immigration enough. The guest worker visa programs for lower skilled workers are too small, restricted to certain sectors of the economy, and governed by confusing bureaucracy. Under today’s immigration rules, very few of our ancestors would have been able to immigrate here legally. The Senate’s immigration bill takes us a small step closer to our traditionally more open immigration policy.

It shovels gargantuan amounts of security resources toward the southern border in an attempt to halt future unlawful immigration that could otherwise cheaply be halted with an expanded guest worker visa program. The border “surge,” as many are calling it, is truly embarrassing, especially for a country with such proud immigrant traditions. There are certainly legitimate security concerns, but the extra enforcement will just drive up the price of smuggling and marginally decrease unlawful immigration of peaceful workers at enormous cost.

Worse, the bill creates a mandatory employment verification system called E-Verify. Those seeking work here will have to use this proto-national ID system to ask the government for permission to work. Government audits of the system find that its inaccuracy rate hovers at around a quarter of a percent. Independent audits, the most recent carried out in 2009, found error rates 3 to 4 times as high as that. As the system is expanded it will place an unfair burden on American businesses, saddling them with costs, and incentivizing illegal hiring without even a cursory I-9 form as has happened in states that have already mandated E-Verify.

Even with those flaws, this bill still does a lot more good than bad. Millions of new Americans will finally be able to live and work openly without fear of deportation. Millions of more highly skilled workers, merit-based immigrants, and their families will be able to become Americans. Americans will have more freedom to hire whom they want and more buyers for their goods and services. Our economy will grow more quickly, wages will increase, and the fiscal state of the federal government will improve over the medium-term.

Despite all of these benefits, this bill will face an uphill battle in the House of Representatives. The first round of a major political brawl has been concluded; time for the toughest round to begin.

http://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-bill-better-not-best?utm_content=bufferb6f2c&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer