There is a war being fought for the minds of our most vulnerable children.

On one side are those who want to give parents the choice of which schools their children attend. These people advocate school choice and charter schools, which enable minority children to escape poor public schools. This provides these children with a quality education that gives them the tools to escape poverty. (see School Choice – The Key to the American Dream.)

On the other side are those who want to protect the jobs of teachers’ unions and poor teachers. These people are more concerned with the political support of teachers’ unions and less concerned with the education and future of minority children. They are counting on the loyalty of minority parents who traditionally have voted Democratic despite years of that party’s ignoring the needs of their children.

Joe Biden just made his choice – he chose to support the teachers’ unions. He chose to put teachers and unions ahead of students and their future.

Biden recently pledged his support of the National Educators Association (NEA), one of the largest teachers’ unions in the country. His wife, Jill, is an NEA member. He proudly announced, “When we win this election, we’re going to get the support you need and the respect you deserve. You don’t just have a partner in the White House, you’ll have an NEA member in the White House. And if I’m not listening, I’m going to be sleeping alone in the Lincoln Bedroom.”

Biden made his priorities clear to the NEA in March, when it endorsed him in the Democratic primary. He said, “No privately funded charter school – or private charter school – would receive a penny of federal money.”

The Wall Street Journal editorial board says this is a departure even from the days of President Obama. From 2000 to 2017, the share of public-school students who attended a charter school rose from 1% to 6%. Those statistics represent thousands of stories of children, many of them black and Hispanic, who escaped failing schools to get a better education.

Biden seems eager to repudiate this record and put space between his intentions and the record of the Obama administration. He told the NEA his plan involves, “higher salaries for educators,” “universal pre-K”, and “tripling the funding for Title 1 schools.” He also pledged to “double the number of school psychologists and counselors and nurses and social workers in school,” and to “help educators wipe out the burden of their own student debt.”

The WSJ says, “Teachers first. Put it on a bumper sticker, Mr. Biden, and hope people don’t notice the corollary is that students, and especially poor and minority students, come second.”

 This practice of supporting teachers’ unions at the expense of minority children has been successful for many years for Democratic candidates. But the 2018 Florida gubernatorial election proved minority parents are paying attention. Post-election analysis showed that the difference in this closely contested election was the votes of black women. They chose Ron DeSantis, a white Congressman, over Andrew Gillum, a black mayor of Jacksonville.

According to CNN exit polling of 3,108 voters, of the roughly 650,000 black women who voted in Florida, 18% or about 117,000 chose DeSantis. This exceeded their support for GOP U.S. Senate candidate Rick Scott (9%). In other words, they selected the Republican gubernatorial candidate but not the Republican senatorial candidate. William Mattox, director of the Marshall Center for Educational Options at the James Madison Institute, writes in The Wall Street Journal that the reason is school choice.

 Joe Biden is surely aware of these statistics but betting on the loyalty of black and minority voters. It’s time these parents made the right choice – and voted for their children’s future. It’s time they supported the only presidential candidate who will support School Choice – President Trump.

The process of reopening our economy is now well under way, but not the school system. As school officials argue over when and how to reopen the schools this fall, some on the left are resisting this move. The Wall Street Journal editorial board says, “Everything else about the coronavirus has become politicized in America, so why not a return to school as well?”

President Trump has pushed for schools to reopen and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has supported this policy. Naturally, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi condemns this idea in the strongest possible terms. She said, “I think what we heard from the secretary was malfeasance and dereliction of duty.” So much for civility in Washington these days.

What have we learned from history?

In 1951 the nation was deeply entrenched in the polio epidemic that was especially devastating to children. The same question was posed by health officials then: Should polio close schools? Here is an abstract from the Journal of School Health, published September, 1951:

“The recent severe poliomyelitis epidemic has again revived the question: Shall the schools be closed or children kept out of school in the presence of an epidemic? There has been some agitation for school closure here and some parents delayed sending their children to school last fall. Such parents reason thus: Public health people tell us to avoid crowds; at the same time, they advise us to send our children to school where they may be exposed. On the surface such advice seems inconsistent but practically it has been found, both in America and Britain, that school attendance has no effect on epidemics of polio or any other communicable disease. Numerous epidemiological studies have proved this point beyond controversy.”

“Anderson and Arnstein in “Communicable Disease Control,” 1948, in discussing poliomyelitis, say: “School closure, as well as closure of moving picture theaters, Sunday schools, and other similar groups, is frequently attempted in response to popular demand that ‘something be done.’ Although tried repeatedly, it is of no proved value, never altering the usual curve of the epidemic; nor has the disease been more prevalent or persistent in those communities with the courage to resist such demands.”

Former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, agrees it is time to reopen the schools. Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Gottlieb says it can be done safely with certain precautions. He says Germany and Norway reopened schools with stringent precautions such as distancing and wearing masks. But when Israel reopened schools, large outbreaks followed, although most infections in both teachers and students were mild.

He suggests the use of hand-washing stations will be routine. Desks will be farther apart. Teachers should be given protective equipment. Classes may be staggered and students may wear masks. Colleges should use pooled testing of students and teachers to reduce risk, and this practice could be adopted widely. Timing of reopening and the measures necessary may vary according to local prevalence of disease.

How risky is the coronavirus to children?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 30 children under age 15 have died from Covid-19. In a typical year 190 children die of the flu, 436 die from suicide, 625 from homicide, and 4,114 from unintentional deaths such as drowning. Only two children under age 18 have died in Chicago – less than were killed in shootings in a recent weekend! In New York City, 0.03% of children under age 18 have been hospitalized for Covid-19 and 7.5 in one million have died. The death rate for those over age 75 is more than 2,200 times higher than for those under 18.

The differences between Covid-19 and poliomyelitis are significant. Polio was especially virulent and widespread in children and caused crippling effects and many deaths. Covid-19 has been especially benign in the young and rarely causes permanent effects or death. The largest study of 2,100 pediatric Covid patients from China found that 5% of children developed severe disease with low blood oxygen; 0.6% became more critically ill with respiratory failure, shock or multiple organ dysfunction. There is some investigation currently underway concerning a rare inflammatory syndrome related to Covid that can make children seriously ill and damage their hearts.

The risks of children contracting the disease must be measured against the risks of leaving them home where their education and socialization are likely impaired. “Missing school can have serious consequences for child health and wellbeing, particularly for students with disabilities or with special healthcare needs,” American Academy of Pediatrics President Sally Goza said recently.

While some parents are able to effectively educate their children at home, most parents do not have the skills or means to adequately perform those duties. It is the children who will suffer the most. Since the risks and potential sequalae of Covid are far less than polio, the prudent choice is to send children back to school.

ObamaCare is the healthcare system of America, but neither Republicans, nor Democrats really like it. Republicans have been trying to repeal and replace it since President Trump was elected in 2016, but a few divisive Senators prevented that from happening. Democrats claim to support it (they were responsible for 100% of the votes that passed the legislation in 2010), but spend most of their time talking about replacing it with a single-payer system or Medicare for All.

Is there a better system anywhere in the world?

Singapore may be the answer to that question. Singapore has long been promoted by healthcare economists and policy experts as a model system. While America is generally regarded as the place to get the most advanced medical treatment possible, the Singapore healthcare system compares favorably with the U.S.

Former U.S. Secretary of State, George P. Shultz, and Vidar Jorgensen, writing in The Wall Street Journal, believe we would do well to look closer at Singapore. Here are some important statistics in comparing the two systems:

• U. S. Life Expectancy – 78.7 years
• Singapore Life Expectancy – 85.2 years
• Singapore infant and maternal mortality rates less than half U.S. rates
• U. S. healthcare spending 18% of GDP
• Singapore healthcare spending 5% of GDP

What accounts for these differences?

The two biggest problems in holding down costs in the U.S. healthcare system are third-party payers and lack of transparency in medical prices. Both contribute to stifling competition. Competition always leads to lower pricing and improved quality, no matter what industry you’re comparing. Most consumers of medical treatment don’t know what they’re paying for their care – and aren’t really interested because third-party payers (insurance companies and the government) are paying most or all of the bills. This means patients don’t compare pricing in order to get the best value for their healthcare dollars.

When you go to purchase a car, you always compare prices before you buy. No third-party will be picking up the tab so you want to know you’re getting a good deal. But when insurance companies or the government are responsible for the bill, you don’t care what they’re paying. This is why healthcare costs are rising faster than inflation.

Here is how Singapore does better:

• Price Transparency– All healthcare providers in Singapore must post their prices and outcomes so buyers can judge the cost and quality.
• Health Savings Accounts– Singaporeans are required to fund HSAs through a system called MediSave and to purchase catastrophic health insurance. As a result, patients spend their own money on health care and get to pocket any savings.
• A limited but effective safety net– The MediFund program serves those who, after exhausting their health savings and government subsidies, still need help paying their bills.

These differences in the Singapore healthcare system have provided the financial incentives that led to price and quality competition so intense that healthcare costs are 75% lower in Singapore than in the United States. Imagine a 75% discount on your next healthcare bill! Scrips College economist Sean Flynn estimates a heart-valve replacement costs $12,500 in Singapore ($160,000 in the U.S.) and a total knee replacement $13,000 ($40,000 in the U.S.).

All of this is possible in the U.S.

The Trump administration has pushed for more price transparency through an executive order that requires insurers and providers to make price information available to beneficiaries, enrollees and participants in healthcare plans. Naturally, healthcare providers, especially hospitals and insurers are pushing back at any attempts to open their books to comparisons. But people spending their own money need to have information to find value in their healthcare spending.

Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) were introduced in America in 2003 as part of the Medicare Part D legislation of the Bush administration. But limitations on qualifications and yearly contributions have made them much less effective than they could be. I personally established an HSA account some years ago, but once I switched from private health insurance to Medicare at age 65 I was no longer eligible to make additional contributions. This needs to change if we want to lower healthcare costs. HSAs should be encouraged by increasing annual contribution ceilings and expanding eligibility to all Americans, no matter their age or insurance provider.

America can do better, but it will require bipartisan agreement that the goal is to empower consumers with prices to compare and incentives to spend less by allowing them to benefit from the savings. Competition is a wonderful thing, but it requires a level-playing field where consumers can make their own decisions in their own self-interest.