From: William Clark on 24 Jan 2010 13:55
In article <7s3falFsl2U2(a)mid.individual.net>,
"dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> > In article <7s23f4FircU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
> > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> > > "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > news:wclark2-6CD7D2.12290223012010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Why education and not health care?
> > >
> > > One reason is that there is no end to it. When was the last time you
> > > of an educator tell the public, "we have enough funds, thank you very
> > > In Oregon, K-12, the state spends 10k. per child. A classroom of 24
> > > $240,000. The teacher makes 70k tops. So where is the rest going??
> > >
> > > Medicare is just as bad. So would be any sort of a gov't health care
> > >
> > > -Greg
> > What are you talking about?
> Look at your question (top line).
Indeed, but your response makes no sense in the context of the question.
My question asks why should we all not pay, as individuals, for the true
cost of education, up to the limit we either can, or want to, afford?
From: Jack Hollis on 24 Jan 2010 13:55
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:21:52 -0800, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com>
>Medicare is just as bad. So would be any sort of a gov't health care plan.
Personally, I'd be very happy if there were no public schools,
including colleges, no Medicare, no Social Security and no public
housing. Then you can get rid of NPR and the NEA.
The government has no business spending taxpayer money on any of these
From: William Clark on 24 Jan 2010 13:56
In article <7r2pl5953kf52p776d6oc6nm9u9f7r7v19(a)4ax.com>,
Don Kirkman <donsno2(a)charter.net> wrote:
> It seems to me I heard somewhere that BAR wrote in article
> >In article <wclark2-38BD28.15204023012010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
> >state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says...
> >> Are you paying for your children's education? Oh, yes, by taxes.
> >I'm not paying yet. I am saving and I am saving quite a bit. I figure I
> >will need about $30,000 a year saved up for each kid and then there will
> >be about $1,500 a month out of pocket costs to me. Damn kids want to go
> >to Ivy league schools.
> How is that possible if they're over about six years old? Home
> schooling, maybe, or not paying taxes, but ISTM not possible
Thank you. My point precisely.
From: Jack Hollis on 24 Jan 2010 13:59
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:42:25 -0800, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com>
>"Howard Brazee" <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in message
>> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 03:35:46 GMT, assimilate(a)borg.org wrote:
>> I suspect a lot of people are against this plan because they don't
>> want to acknowledge that they are paying for the poor.
>People are against it because they perceive it will do nothing to reduce
>their own premiums.
The reason people are against it is because they will end up paying
more than they're already paying for the poor.
From: Jack Hollis on 24 Jan 2010 14:06
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 06:10:08 GMT, assimilate(a)borg.org wrote:
>On 23-Jan-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> > IOW, rationing. Americans will never accept this and she agreed.
>> > It's a contrast of two cultures. You are wasting text discussing
>> > single payor in the US, Carbs.
>> Greg, be serious. More rationing happens in the US than in any other
>> first world country.
>please explain yourself, as this is absurd on it's face.
Carbon thinks that if someone doesn't have health insurance that they
don't have health care. In reality people in the US without health
insurance have access to much better health care than anyone in