There has been a lot of discussion since Athens about foreign swimmers training in the United States. Most of them attend U.S. Universities, receive athletic scholarships, and compete at NCAA's. Some notable examples include Duje Draganja (Cal), Fred Bousquet and Kirsty Coventry (Auburn), Markus Rogan (Stanford), and the South African sprinters (Arizona). Some train in the U.S., but don't compete for a university (Inge de Bruijn). All of these athletes benefit from U.S. coaching, from training with U.S. swimmers, and in some cases, from financial support provided by U.S. entities (athletic scholarships). They all turn around and then win medals for other countries.
A couple questions: 1) What do you think about this arrangement generally? 2) Is it of benefit or detriment to U.S. swimming to have these foreign athletes training and competing here? 3) Should we be giving athletic scholarships, which are a scarce resource in swimming, to foreign athletes who will represent their own countries internationally instead of U.S.-born swimmers who will represent us internationally?
I'm sure there are other issues, but these come directly to mind.
Originally posted by gull80
Why should health care be free?
Health care should be paid for with public money because it is a public good--like roads, and far more essential. It should also be paid for with public money because putting for-profit companies in charge of goods that are essential leads to public extortion (see the manufactured California electricity "shortage"). Further, it is cheaper, in the long run, to encourage people to get preventive care than to force them to wait until something is so acute that they must go to the emergeny room. As a doctor, you should know that.
And it isn't only the indigent who are screwed. In fact, it is the lower middle class who are caught up most--too wealthy for public subsidy, too poor to afford healthcare on their own, employed by companies that don't offer insurance or charge too much while paying too little, hammered by the hospitals when they do finally show up with a problem: the situation is next to impossible. Not to mention that the inunsured are charged more for hospital services because of the ceilings on what insurance companies are willing to pay. There is a reason that the kids I know give fake names when they finally end up in the hospital, usually for problems that could have been taken care of if they could've afforded a doctor visit.
Originally posted by some_girl
Health care should be paid for with public money because it is a public good--like roads, and far more essential.
What makes you think public money makes something free? You might not pay for that visit when you leave the doctor's office, but you pay for it when you buy milk, use a toll-way, buy a new TV, etc. And, I have yet to ever see a single public institution manage anything more efficiently than private enterprise. I don't want to see my taxes go up so some gov't agency can mismanage the money and provide no additional health care services.
Originally posted by aquageek
What makes you think public money makes something free? You might not pay for that visit when you leave the doctor's office, but you pay for it when you buy milk, use a toll-way, buy a new TV, etc. And, I have yet to ever see a single public institution manage anything more efficiently than private enterprise. I don't want to see my taxes go up so some gov't agency can mismanage the money and provide no additional health care services.
Yes, but the difference is you need healthcare and you don't need any of those things. And I already gave you an instance where public companies did better--the California electricity boondoggle. Every town that had municipal electricity had power and the rates didn't go up. Every place that privatized had blackouts and high rates. Or take the British rail system: it has gone to hell with partial privitization, while French trains, still under government control (I believe--I haven't checked it out in a while) are a freaking dream to ride. They apologize when they are five minutes late and the trains are always clean and present.
What Americans do is starve government entities, demand they do too much, then *** about the result. Well, duh.
Originally posted by gull80
Arguably food and shelter are for the public good, neither of which are free (note I did not say affordable--clearly the health care system has problems). By the way, I don't believe that the millions of Americans who smoke receive their cigarettes for free--they pay for them.
Actually, you can qualify for free food with more money than you can qualify for free healthcare. And where I live, the city *does* have to house you if you show up at the homeless office. Because you know that's what tells you how civilized a nation is--how they take care of their least fortunate.
I don't see what cigarettes has to do with it, as you can live without smoking.
Originally posted by some_girl
What Americans do is starve government entities, demand they do too much, then *** about the result. Well, duh.
Have you looked at your paycheck lately? I don't think the government is in any jeopardy of starving. I don't think I'm demanding too much of anything when I take home far less than what I earn.
And, the French train system as synonymous with the US Healthcare system?
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who have little."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
(Niether a socialist nor a communist)
CraigIII,
No one on this thread has ever suggested any racist or negative international thought. The issue is not whether foreign athletes can and should be able to train in the US. This is widely accepted. The concern is that we are funding their experience at the expense of US citizens applying for the same position on the collegiate team.
Again, invite all the foreigners over to train you want. Just don't have US colleges pay their way.
John Smith
Those darn immigrants! (Sorry Grandma)
John, I think you need to distinguish between private universities and state universities (which are funded at least in part by the taxpayers).
Originally posted by hooked-on-swimming
Free health services?You must be dreaming,Paul, where did you see free health services here in the US?You'll be treated but it will not be free...
Why should health care be free?
