Who pays for post secondary education?

[TimG]

She goes on to say that dentistry is a private business and dentists can charge whatever they want and can treat only those people who can afford it, and yet, we the taxpayers subsidize their training.

The same argument goes for anyone who takes a job in the private sector. Why is this a problem? (note: market forces limit was dentists can charge just like market forces limit what salaries are paid by the private sector).

[WestCoastRunner]

The same argument goes for anyone who takes a job in the private sector. Why is this a problem? (note: market forces limit was dentists can charge just like market forces limit what salaries are paid by the private sector).

It's a problem when we are subsidizing their training and as mentioned above,

while failing to provide essential dental treatment to Canadians who are poor, disabled, elderly or living in remote communities. The Canadian Institute for Health Information reported in November 2013 that, relative to the 34 countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Canada performed “poorly” in insuring equitable access to dental care.

[TimG]

It's a problem when we are subsidizing their training and as mentioned above

In other words, you think anyone who takes a job in the private sector should not benefit from government subsidies for higher education. I think this is a short sighted perspective. High paying jobs require an educated work force and government subsidies help create it. Edited December 26, 2014 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

There are far too many very intelligent Canadian kids who cannot afford to go to University for a variety of reasons. We continue to "import" workers for high specialty positions. These Canadian kids on this program would pay back the investment in a few short years through taxes in high income jobs.

That's what the government loans are for. And these kids are already getting scholarships from universities.

Immigrants with high-level specialty skills we need are fantastic immigrants, they're the best immigrants we could possibly ask for because they contribute the most to our economy & society. We can and do cater to both groups.

[WestCoastRunner]

In other words, you think anyone who takes a job in the private sector should not benefit from government subsidies for higher education. I think this is a short sighted perspective. High paying jobs require an educated work force and government subsidies help create it.

I have no problem with government subsidies, (after all, I took advantage of those subsidies myself) however, dentistry provides much needed medical services and as taxpayers we are funding 2/3 of the cost of the training.

Should we not as a nation ensure that "Canadians who are poor, disabled, elderly or living in remote communities receive dental treatment" much like Physicians provide?

I don't think this is a short sighted perspective. It is called 'thinking outside the box'.

[TimG]

I don't think this is a short sighted perspective. It is called 'thinking outside the box'.

No. It is called attacking a group of people who have the misfortune to be providers of services which people need. If you want to argue that dental care should be subsidized like medical care then start a thread on that. This is a thread on education subsidies and you have not provided any argument for why dentistry should be treated differently from law, engineering, actuarial sciences, architecture, or any other degree program that provides training for professionals that work in the private sector. Edited December 26, 2014 by TimG

[overthere]

Right - so they *would* be subsidized. I agree with TimG that students should bear some of the cost.

At the U of Alberta, the average cost per year to operate the university (excluding capital costs, which are large and constantly growing)for all full time students is about $22,000 per year. The average tuition is just under $6000, so about $16,000 per year per student is subsidized and nearly all of that is from taxpayers funds. The uni does have some other revenue from endowments and leases/rentals on their property.

That seems more than fair to the students, considering too that provincial grants are available, as are low cost federal loans.

[WestCoastRunner]

No. It is called attacking a group of people who have the misfortune to be providers of services which people need. This is a thread on education subsidies and you have not provided any argument for why dentistry should be treated differently from law, engineering, actuarial sciences, architecture, or any other degree program that provides training for professionals that work in the private sector.

My posts deserve to be included in this thread as they relate to tax payer funded programs.

Your post above is exactly my point. Dentists provide services which people need. And let's not pretend these services can be compared to engineering, lawyers, architects etc.

Taxpayers are funding 2/3's of a dentist's training and these dentists are not held accountable to provide essential services to children of low income families, disabled people on low income etc. All I'm suggesting is that we need to perhaps look at some of these tax payer funded programs and look at the policies governing them.

'

As far as my being a 'social warrior', I will just add that to my ever growing list of labels that are attached to me whenever someone disagrees with my posts.

[TimG]

Your post above is exactly my point. Dentists provide services which people need. And let's not pretend these services can be compared to engineering, lawyers, architects etc.

Again. Your logic does not compute. Dentists are professionals like any other but you seem to think that they should picked on because you decided you want to force them to pay for your pet social program. It unfair and completely ridiculous. If the government wants to provide dental care it should create a program to fund it - not use phoney arguments about how dentists are subsidized (like all professionals) and use that as an excuse to impose a burden on dentists that no other professional has to pay.

[WestCoastRunner]

Again. Your logic does not compute. Dentists are professionals like any other but you seem to think that they should picked on because you decided you want to force them to pay for your pet social program. It unfair and completely ridiculous. If the government wants to provide dental care it should create a program to fund it - not use phoney arguments about how dentists are subsidized (like all professionals) and use that as an excuse to impose a burden on dentists that no other professional has to pay.

Let me set you straight buddy. I am not on an agenda for pet social programs. I am no social warrior and I am no enviro-techo nut that you have referred to me in the past. I am simply suggesting alternatives to the policies of the education programs that are heavily reliant on tax subsidies and yet provide no help to the disadvantaged in Canada.

[TimG]

I am simply suggesting alternatives to the policies of the education programs that are heavily reliant on tax subsidies and yet provide no help to the disadvantaged in Canada.

You keep avoiding the question: why do you want to pick on dentists? As I said all professionals have their education subsidized. Why do dentists deserve to be singled out and forced to pay for your new social program? Edited December 27, 2014 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

You keep avoiding the question: why do you want to pick on dentists? As I said all professionals have their education subsidized. Why do dentists deserve to be singled out and forced to pay for your new social program?

Sorry Tim. Can't debate with an unreasonable person.

[TimG]

Why is it so difficult for you to answer a simple question about why you single out dentists?

You said:

Taxpayers are funding 2/3's of a dentist's training and these dentists are not held accountable to provide essential services to children of low income families, disabled people on low income etc. All I'm suggesting is that we need to perhaps look at some of these tax payer funded programs and look at the policies governing them.

Well, every professional has their program funded by taxpayers. Are you advocating that all professionals see their tuition raised and be required to provide services free of charge? If not then you are picking on dentists whether you admit or not.

Personally, if there is a need for dental services then the government should fund the program like it funds medical care. It makes no sense to try and create a stealth social program by targeting one group of professionals.

Edited December 27, 2014 by TimG

[Keepitsimple]

Sorry Tim. Can't debate with an unreasonable person.

It all seems to be going over your head. It's not about education for dentists, doctors. lawyers or accountants - all of whom are "subsidized" just about equally. Your argument is about whether the government should fund dental care through a new taxpayer funded program - and to what extent.

[WestCoastRunner]

It all seems to be going over your head. It's not about education for dentists, doctors. lawyers or accountants - all of whom are "subsidized" just about equally. Your argument is about whether the government should fund dental care through a new taxpayer funded program - and to what extent.

It is not going over my head as much as you men like to insinuate that. It is about subsidized education for medical professionals. Dental care is just as much needed as care provided by physicians. Please do not condescend to my intellect.

[TimG]

It is about subsidized education for medical professionals. Dental care is just as much needed as care provided by physicians.

Why are you singling out medical professionals? Why not accountants or fine arts grads who have their training subsidized?

Do you even think about your arguments? Did you really intend to argue that we should subsidize fine arts grads but not dentists because society needs dentists but not fine art grads? Because that is what your are saying.

Edited December 27, 2014 by TimG

[Keepitsimple]

It is not going over my head as much as you men like to insinuate that. It is about subsidized education for medical professionals. Dental care is just as much needed as care provided by physicians. Please do not condescend to my intellect.

It's difficult to debate with an unreasonable person . What's with the "you men" comment? That makes it even more unreasonable. You are clearly proposing an expanded, government-funded social program for Dental Care. That has nothing to do with the standard subsidization programs that governments offer for all post-secondary education....unless you are proposing that dentists be "singled out" as Tim says....and unless their profession mandates free services to poor people or "the government" implements your social program - that post-secondary dental school should have any subsidization taken away? Do I have that right - is that what you are advocating?

[TimG]

That has nothing to do with the standard subsidization programs that governments offer for all post-secondary education....unless you are proposing that dentists be "singled out" as Tim says....and unless their profession mandates free services to poor people

My guess is her thought process is like this: dentists are "rich", poor people need dental care, therefore we should force "rich" dentists to pay for this care by either by selectively cutting dental tuition subsidies or by requiring free services because, in her world, rich people have a duty to provide whatever social services she decides are necessary. This, of course, is over and above all of the taxes they already pay because they are "rich".

She does not seem to know that having a dental degree is not a license to print money. To be successful a dentist must invest capital in a business, pay skilled assistants and manage demanding customers. She does not understand that to build a successful practice a dentist needs to live somewhere with a density of customers that can afford to pay and this usually means big cities. This means any attempt to force dentists to live in rural areas will likely mean fewer dentists and higher prices for the ones that already have a degree.

Edited December 28, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

At the U of Alberta, the average cost per year to operate the university (excluding capital costs, which are large and constantly growing)for all full time students is about $22,000 per year. The average tuition is just under $6000, so about $16,000 per year per student is subsidized and nearly all of that is from taxpayers funds. The uni does have some other revenue from endowments and leases/rentals on their property.

That seems more than fair to the students, considering too that provincial grants are available, as are low cost federal loans.

-degrees-diplomas-and-debts-oh-my-/

These government cutbacks in funding education has burned larger holes in the pockets of mid-low income families. Ontario is giving high priority to high income families and leaving the rest of Ontario's families to pay the price. Why give a helping hand to someone who does not need it? Meanwhile, students not from these higher income families are resulting to student loans and heavier work hours during their studies.

It's a question of levelling the playing field, equal opportunity.

.

[TimG]

It's a question of leveling the playing field, equal opportunity.

University has to cost the student something. It can't be free because that will lead to rationing of supply which is what goes on in Europe. We can debate whether money should be taken from other programs like healthcare or primary education in order to reduce fees from their current level but I find it hard to believe that the fees are so high today that we could justify cutting other programs in order to lower them.

[Michael Hardner]

University has to cost the student something. It can't be free because that will lead to rationing of supply which is what goes on in Europe.

Couldn't you limit supply by qualifying applicants, though ?

[TimG]

Couldn't you limit supply by qualifying applicants, though?

That is what I mean limiting supply. You could limit it are the front end and simply make a students future limited by the often arbitrary decisions of university admissions officers or you could limit access to individual courses which will force poorer students to drop out because they can't afford to spend 7 years in university to get a 4 year degree. Scholarships are the way to ensure that the best students have access to the opportunities. Edited December 28, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

University has to cost the student something. It can't be free because that will lead to rationing of supply which is what goes on in Europe.

So what you're arguing for is selection based on economic status.

I would suggest that free tuition and selection purely based on qualification would be a better system.

We can debate whether money should be taken from other programs like healthcare or primary education in order to reduce fees from their current level but I find it hard to believe that the fees are so high today that we could justify cutting other programs in order to lower them.

We could take money from corporate private sector subsidies. Canada currently has a very low rate of private contribution to education and training.

.

[TimG]

So what you're arguing for is selection based on economic status.

Not at all. Scholarships, loans and bursuries exist to ensure equal access.

I would suggest that free tuition and selection purely based on qualification would be a better system.

Based on what logic? A student forced to drop out because they can't access "free" education in a timely manner is harmed more than a student who can get into the program but ends up with a loan that needs to be paid off.

We could take money from corporate private sector subsidies.

And many of those subsidies are provided precisely because the companies offer skilled job opportunities. I am not arguing for the subsidies - just that there is no pot of money to raid which will not require some other sacrifice to the public good. Edited December 28, 2014 by TimG

[Keepitsimple]

If the average tuition is $6500 per year as was posted earlier, is it so much to ask to find a way to earn half of that - and get a loan to cover the rest? That would result in a modest debt of about $13,000 upon obtaining a 4 year degree......and that doesn't include any grants that one might get. Success in life has more to do with purpose and determination - and having the wherewithal to prepare, save and earn your way. Paying a fraction of what it actually costs at least motivates students to treat the process seriously - and not fall victim to the eventual "entitlement" syndrome that comes with something "free".