I sure did. Sorry 'bout that.Bob78164 wrote:You screwed up your quote tags. I'm not Beedums, nor do I play him on TV. --Bob
That's what I get for quoting out of Beeb's post and trying to gleen it out of there.
I sure did. Sorry 'bout that.Bob78164 wrote:You screwed up your quote tags. I'm not Beedums, nor do I play him on TV. --Bob
I realize no such thing. Government won't need to set rates (other than its own).Spock wrote:However, as you also realize, under the forthcoming health regime-the Government option will be setting rates and mandating coverages (etc, etc) for the "Private Competitors."
I also got a kick out of the other part of the Obama USPS analogy where he said UPS and Fed Ex are doing great and the USPS is the one in trouble. So tell me again, why are following the USPS model for our healthcare?
If they "won't need to", then why is there language in the bills that suggests they will?Bob78164 wrote: Government won't need to set rates (other than its own).
Oh. My. God. I had no idea. Shows how innocent and naive I really am. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But ewww.Lackadaisical Stumblebum wrote:I'll spoil for the delicate of constitution.Bob78164 wrote:Yes. --BobLackadaisical Stumblebum wrote:Are you being serious here?
Kiki might be able to enlighten you....
I will also agree with Estonut and Calvinator (!) that I am disappointed to see Sprots using that term. I expect that sort of thing from Nelly, but not from her.Spoiler
Teabagging refers to the act (generally used in a homosexual sense) of a male squatting over another person and putting their testicles in and out of the other person's mouth. It's called teabagging because the up and down motion is like when you're steeping a cup of tea.
Public education is also mostly handled at the state and local level.Ritterskoop wrote:I apologize if this question has already been addressed. I've seen a few times where it's been brought up, but not that it's been answered. If it has, that's my mistake, and I would appreciate a link.
It seems as though generally we want the government to handle education for most everyone. What is so scary about public healthcare that isn't scary about public education?
I would ask about roads and police and fire, but some of those are handled differently on the local level.
So if public healthcare was handled at the state and local level, it would be more palatable?Jeemie wrote:Public education is also mostly handled at the state and local level.Ritterskoop wrote:I apologize if this question has already been addressed. I've seen a few times where it's been brought up, but not that it's been answered. If it has, that's my mistake, and I would appreciate a link.
It seems as though generally we want the government to handle education for most everyone. What is so scary about public healthcare that isn't scary about public education?
I would ask about roads and police and fire, but some of those are handled differently on the local level.
No Child Left Behind was a disaster.
Perhaps.Ritterskoop wrote:So if public healthcare was handled at the state and local level, it would be more palatable?Jeemie wrote:Public education is also mostly handled at the state and local level.Ritterskoop wrote:I apologize if this question has already been addressed. I've seen a few times where it's been brought up, but not that it's been answered. If it has, that's my mistake, and I would appreciate a link.
It seems as though generally we want the government to handle education for most everyone. What is so scary about public healthcare that isn't scary about public education?
I would ask about roads and police and fire, but some of those are handled differently on the local level.
No Child Left Behind was a disaster.
I agree that teaching to a test is counterproductive.
Do you think our education system attracts the best and the brightest? The best at math are teaching our young kids? The best at science are in our Jr. High's?Ritterskoop wrote:I apologize if this question has already been addressed. I've seen a few times where it's been brought up, but not that it's been answered. If it has, that's my mistake, and I would appreciate a link.
It seems as though generally we want the government to handle education for most everyone. What is so scary about public healthcare that isn't scary about public education?
I would ask about roads and police and fire, but some of those are handled differently on the local level.
I attended church schools early on, and they were not set up to handle kids outside the middle ability group. One teacher handled three grades, and having one that needed extra work was not good for the group.Jeemie wrote:
Perhaps.
Depends on whether you think health care functions better as a public good or not.
For the most part, education does (or, did).
Although the private schools still do better, for the most part.
Neither the public nor the private schools attract the best and brightest. The pay is insufficient.BackInTex wrote:Do you think our education system attracts the best and the brightest? The best at math are teaching our young kids? The best at science are in our Jr. High's?
wintergreen48 wrote:Oh. My. God. I had no idea. Shows how innocent and naive I really am. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But ewww.Lackadaisical Stumblebum wrote:I'll spoil for the delicate of constitution.Bob78164 wrote:Yes. --Bob
I will also agree with Estonut and Calvinator (!) that I am disappointed to see Sprots using that term. I expect that sort of thing from Nelly, but not from her.Spoiler
Teabagging refers to the act (generally used in a homosexual sense) of a male squatting over another person and putting their testicles in and out of the other person's mouth. It's called teabagging because the up and down motion is like when you're steeping a cup of tea.
Always a pleasure to assist in expanding your knowledge base.wintergreen48 wrote:
Oh. My. God. I had no idea. Shows how innocent and naive I really am. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But ewww.
I don't want the federal government to be involved in education at all. I am not alone in that desire.Ritterskoop wrote:I apologize if this question has already been addressed. I've seen a few times where it's been brought up, but not that it's been answered. If it has, that's my mistake, and I would appreciate a link.
It seems as though generally we want the government to handle education for most everyone. What is so scary about public healthcare that isn't scary about public education?
I would ask about roads and police and fire, but some of those are handled differently on the local level.
That would have sucked for me, as I went to a land grant university.TheCalvinator24 wrote:I don't want the federal government to be involved in education at all. I am not alone in that desire.Ritterskoop wrote:I apologize if this question has already been addressed. I've seen a few times where it's been brought up, but not that it's been answered. If it has, that's my mistake, and I would appreciate a link.
It seems as though generally we want the government to handle education for most everyone. What is so scary about public healthcare that isn't scary about public education?
I would ask about roads and police and fire, but some of those are handled differently on the local level.
I don't generally want the government to educate most everyone. They are and have been doing a terrible job at it. But they have control over it and are very resistant to new ideas and innovation, and are totally opposed to giving the public another option, like school vouchers, which would give parents the choice of where to get their children educated. Too many jobs and empires and union territory involved to give up any power or control.It seems as though generally we want the government to handle education for most everyone. What is so scary about public healthcare that isn't scary about public education?
I would ask about roads and police and fire, but some of those are handled differently on the local level.
Bob78164 wrote:
A few years ago, the USPS had a multi-billion dollar surplus. This year, it's about a billion dollars in the red. But we are following the USPS model because it is essential that everyone have affordable access to health insurance. We can subsidize it via the emergency room or through a public option. But subsidize it we will. The issue is which way is cheaper, and I doubt it's a close call.
The problem most people seem to have with the public option is the fear that it will drive private insurance companies out of business. But we live now in an evidence-based world, and the available evidence strongly indicates that will not happen. --Bob
Bob have you tried to buy private crop insurance or flood insurance lately?In 2004, the USPS ran a surplus of $3 billion. Since then, they've done worse every year. Revenues between 2004 and 2008 rose about $6 billion while expenses increased $12 billion. That led to deficits in 2007 ($5.1 billion) and 2008 ($2.8 billion) and a current deficit of almost $5 billion that's on a rocket sled to $7 billion.
The postal service is "in trouble" in large part because the government mandates that they "cover everybody" while UPS and Fedex don't have to. I'm sure UPS and Fedex would come up with an equivalent of first class mail service if they were allowed to do so, but they wouldn't cover everyone in every podunk town in the country six days a week and they wouldn't do it for 44 cents.Spock wrote: I also got a kick out of the other part of the Obama USPS analogy where he said UPS and Fed Ex are doing great and the USPS is the one in trouble. So tell me again, why are following the USPS model for our healthcare?
SSS perhaps you can find something for me. I was looking for a list of addresses that the USPS delivers to that UPS doesn't.silverscreenselect wrote:
The postal service is "in trouble" in large part because the government mandates that they "cover everybody" while UPS and Fedex don't have to. I'm sure UPS and Fedex would come up with an equivalent of first class mail service if they were allowed to do so, but they wouldn't cover everyone in every podunk town in the country six days a week and they wouldn't do it for 44 cents.
Thanks for the clarification. I couldn't comprehend what the "I'm sorry" meant. I still can't, but that's not important. It's not what you meant.flockofseagulls104 wrote:I don't generally want the government to educate most everyone. They are and have been doing a terrible job at it. But they have control over it and are very resistant to new ideas and innovation, and are totally opposed to giving the public another option, like school vouchers, which would give parents the choice of where to get their children educated. Too many jobs and empires and union territory involved to give up any power or control.It seems as though generally we want the government to handle education for most everyone. What is so scary about public healthcare that isn't scary about public education?
I would ask about roads and police and fire, but some of those are handled differently on the local level.
So why not turn over our health care to a system like public government run schools?
BTW I have no idea how Sprots (I think) interpreted my previous post, but what I meant is that legal citizens of this country should not have to pay the health care costs of people who are here in this country illegally.
I don't think that UPS delivers to PO Boxes.themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:SSS perhaps you can find something for me. I was looking for a list of addresses that the USPS delivers to that UPS doesn't.silverscreenselect wrote:
The postal service is "in trouble" in large part because the government mandates that they "cover everybody" while UPS and Fedex don't have to. I'm sure UPS and Fedex would come up with an equivalent of first class mail service if they were allowed to do so, but they wouldn't cover everyone in every podunk town in the country six days a week and they wouldn't do it for 44 cents.
There's no question that private enterprise can run things better than the government. However, they can also fail spectacularly. In the private sector, when Circuit City goes under, there's a Best Buy to step in. If GM and Chrysler go under, Ford and the foreigners are ready to step in. That's how capitalism works.Jeemie wrote: For the most part, education does (or, did).
Although the private schools still do better, for the most part.
UPS and Fedex don't go anywhere six days a week on the offchance that someone might have something for them to deliver. Usually, if I want UPS or Fedex to pick up a package, I have to call or email them and let them know and then they come by and pick it up and they charge me a lot more that 44 cents to do that.themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:SSS perhaps you can find something for me. I was looking for a list of addresses that the USPS delivers to that UPS doesn't.silverscreenselect wrote:
The postal service is "in trouble" in large part because the government mandates that they "cover everybody" while UPS and Fedex don't have to. I'm sure UPS and Fedex would come up with an equivalent of first class mail service if they were allowed to do so, but they wouldn't cover everyone in every podunk town in the country six days a week and they wouldn't do it for 44 cents.
So there are addresses that UPS surcharges for? PO Boxes and Saturday delivery?Lackadaisical Stumblebum wrote: I don't think that UPS delivers to PO Boxes.
Or to anybody on Saturday or Sunday. I am all in favour of the mandate being lifted on Saturday delivery in order to bring down costs, btw. I still think 44 cents is a darned good deal on a letter but, as other ebayers would probably agree, the other rates have skyrocketed the past couple years and will probably continue to do so to keep down the costs of the first class postage stamp, since that's the only cost that the general public seems to get outraged about when rates go up.
And, while UPS would theoretically deliver to anywhere, they can charge any damned thing they want to get it there. So, if you don't want to deliver a piano to the top of Gobbler's Knob, but want to say you'll go anywhere, just make the cost so outrageous that nobody will take you up on it.
Maybe its just me but that seems a bit non-responsive.silverscreenselect wrote:UPS and Fedex don't go anywhere six days a week on the offchance that someone might have something for them to deliver. Usually, if I want UPS or Fedex to pick up a package, I have to call or email them and let them know and then they come by and pick it up and they charge me a lot more that 44 cents to do that.themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:SSS perhaps you can find something for me. I was looking for a list of addresses that the USPS delivers to that UPS doesn't.silverscreenselect wrote:
The postal service is "in trouble" in large part because the government mandates that they "cover everybody" while UPS and Fedex don't have to. I'm sure UPS and Fedex would come up with an equivalent of first class mail service if they were allowed to do so, but they wouldn't cover everyone in every podunk town in the country six days a week and they wouldn't do it for 44 cents.