From: BAR on 25 Jan 2010 19:23
In article <clark-A2D2E5.17314525012010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
> In article <MPG.25c76f7093acbf2e989ab6(a)news.giganews.com>,
> BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
> > In article <6bc68dda-a56e-4442-be1a-
> > d716ae5c749f(a)n7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, frostback2002(a)att.net says...
> > > >
> > > > You can only do that if you eliminate research in the sciences and
> > > > technology. It's way too expensive for tuition only revenue streams,
> > > > which is why relatively little of it in these fields is done in the
> > > > private schools.
> > >
> > > Private schools like Harvard? Education is one thing, research another
> > > in any event.
> > >
> > >
> > Isn't Harvard's current endowment at such a high level that it could
> > afford, even with its recent losses, to stop charging tuition and it
> > wouldn't adversely affect its ability to operate in perpetuity?
> It probably could, and it would be out of endowments in pretty short
> order. Do you have any idea what the operating budget of a large
> university is per annum? Go look it up.
Make the professors teach a full schedule.
From: Jack Hollis on 25 Jan 2010 20:28
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 02:49:16 GMT, assimilate(a)borg.org wrote:
>On 24-Jan-2010, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote:
>> Most Americans are quite happy with their health care and why not,
>> it's the best in the world. What they're are not happy with is the
>> cost. If Congress actually passed some legislation that would reduce
>> costs then people would support it. It also would allow more poor
>> people to be able to afford insurance.
>> Tort reform is one easy way to reduce cost. Of course, the Democrats
>> are owned by the trial lawyers so that's not on the table. Then you
>> could allow people to buy insurance in any state they want. This
>> would also reduce costs because people could only buy the insurance
>> coverage they want.
>> Neither of these proposals would cost the government a dime.
>let's not forget get rid of the employer provided policy, sell to
>individuals & allow the customer to choose what is covered, not some gov't
The advantage of getting your insurance at work is that you can get
group rates. What you need is portability if you leave or get fired
from your job, which already exists under COBRA. Obviously, at that
point, you have to start picking up your employer's contribution.
If you live in a state that has tons of mandated coverage, the cost
can be very high. If you were able to buy across state lines, it
would be a lot cheaper to buy catastrophic coverage only until you got
another job. Of course, it would be best to eliminate all state
mandates and let people buy whatever coverage they want.
From: Jack Hollis on 25 Jan 2010 20:34
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:28:04 -0800, Don Kirkman <donsno2(a)charter.net>
>"1837 - Horace Mann becomes Secretary of the newly formed
>Massachusetts State Board of Education. A visionary educator and
>proponent of public (or "free") schools, Mann works tirelessly for
>increased funding of public schools and better training for teachers."
Free? Now that's a laugh.
In any case, Mann was a lawyer who's main purpose for advocating
public schools was to eliminate poverty, crime and illiteracy. I'm
sure that if old Horace lived long enough to see what primary
education is like today, he might reconsider.
From: Jack Hollis on 25 Jan 2010 21:10
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:19:47 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr
>Which is true, however in Canada you can't just pop in and get service
>at a given health care provider, even if you do pay cash!
That's why they come to the US. Other than that better off Canadians
would have private insurance so they wouldn't have to die waiting for
health care. The Canadian Supreme Court has said that Canadians die
on waiting lists and Canadians should be able to buy private
From the NY Times:
"The system, providing Canadians with free doctor's services that are
paid for by taxes, has generally been supported by the public, and is
broadly identified with the Canadian national character.
But in recent years, patients have been forced to wait longer for
diagnostic tests and elective surgery, while the wealthy and well
connected either seek care in the United States or use influence to
jump ahead on waiting lists.
The court ruled that the waiting lists had become so long that they
violated patients' "liberty, safety and security" under the Quebec
charter, which covers about one-quarter of Canada's population.
"The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care
system are widespread and that in some serious cases, patients die as
a result of waiting lists for public health care," the Supreme Court
ruled. "In sum, the prohibition on obtaining private health insurance
is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver
From: assimilate on 25 Jan 2010 22:31
On 25-Jan-2010, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote:
> The advantage of getting your insurance at work is that you can get
> group rates. What you need is portability if you leave or get fired
> from your job, which already exists under COBRA. Obviously, at that
> point, you have to start picking up your employer's contribution.
I'm sorry but you are discounting, so to speak, the most powerful cost
saving mechanism available, competition. Real competition will come when the
person that needs the policy has to purchase it, or more precisely, when
companies have to compete for the buisness of the policy holder, who, unlike
the HR guy, is using his money to purchase what he feels he needs (again
getting rid of mandates is esstiential here). Current pricing problems stem
in large part from overuse (more demand than supply) largely due to "other
people's money" syndrome.