So What: A Nation Where Approx 45,000 Allegedly Prematurely Die Yearly Because of Lack of Insurance
Robert Cohen
10. I'm not a keeper
9. The poor shall always be there
8. Commie media lie
7. Rush says charity will take care of the needy when taxes are
lowered
6. Glen says hospitals aren't fun anyhow
5. Hey, lameo, when ya gotta seizure, then go to an emergency room
4. Health/medical are a supply/demand thing, all about market forces,
that' a fact, Jack
3. Every other first world nation is collectivisty-freaky, cept us
2. Uncle Milty (& perhaps Aunt Ayny) said Hong Kong, for example, was
nearly economic freedom perfect
1. We cannot break the budget any further, sorry
Fred Weiss
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/opinion/29kristof.html?em
>
> 10. I'm not a keeper
That's true. You're not. Have you ever bothered to look at the other
side? Do you want to be kept?
Now ask yourself how many people will die from socialized medicine.
Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill
Negative 45,000.
Any more questions?
Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
Ah, so socialized medicine is to blame for overpopulation.
Shrikeback
No, the real point is that the statistic is bogus ideologically
constructed horseshit.
Tim
How does inspecting urinal troughs in gay bars qualify you to comment
on the state of healthcare?
Fred Weiss
> > Now ask yourself how many people will die from socialized medicine.
>
> Negative 45,000.
>
> Any more questions?
Yes, how many illiterates does public education produce?
And why, when parents are given a choice, do they not send their
children to their local school?
(Is that why perhaps the teacher's union so vehemently opposes school
choice?)
Mediocrity and stagnation - the socialist disease - will not save
lives. It will merely protect the mediocre. But in crushing the
alternative of freedom, people will never be able to learn what might
have been.
Fred Weiss
1Z
> On Nov 30, 12:12 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> > > Now ask yourself how many people will die from socialized medicine.
>
> > Negative 45,000.
>
> > Any more questions?
>
> Yes, how many illiterates does public education produce?
A lot less than there were before free universal educaiton.
> And why, when parents are given a choice, do they not send their
> children to their local school?
They are given a choice to vote public education out
of existence and they don't. It is supported in every country
that has it, just like public healthcare.
Fred Weiss
> On 30 Nov, 13:43, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
> > Yes, how many illiterates does public education produce?
>
> A lot less than there were before free universal educaiton.
Illiteracy was actually quite low in the 19th Cent. and steadily
declined.
Reading was very widespread because other forms of entertainment and
keeping up with the news were relatively scarce.
Also being able to read the Bible was considered desirable.
But the point is that today given the vast sums spent on public
education, the results are mediocre at best. Of course the socialist
solution - as it is with everything else - is to pour even more money
into it.
> > And why, when parents are given a choice, do they not send their
> > children to their local school?
>
> They are given a choice to vote public education out
> of existence and they don't.
Given a choice for choice and they choose it.
But once again - as always and as I mentioned to you elsewhere - you
will always staunchly defend the status quo and the establishment,
even when that means a clear violation of rights and the use of force.
Fred Weiss
John Stafford
<5d47b451-12e8-48ce...@m35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Fred Weiss <fred...@papertig.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 9:07�am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On 30 Nov, 13:43, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yes, how many illiterates does public education produce?
> >
> > A lot less than there were before free universal educaiton.
>
> Illiteracy was actually quite low in the 19th Cent. and steadily
> declined.
>
> Reading was very widespread because other forms of entertainment and
> keeping up with the news were relatively scarce.
>
> Also being able to read the Bible was considered desirable.
True, and the trend began very early in colonial America.
> But the point is that today given the vast sums spent on public
> education, the results are mediocre at best. Of course the socialist
> solution - as it is with everything else - is to pour even more money
> into it.
The USA has an excellent high school program - unfortunately it begins
in college.
Bret Cahill
> > Negative 45,000.
> > Any more questions?
> Yes, how many illiterates does public education produce?
So _that's_ your excuse for dodging issues like a GOP "market"
economist.
You can't read.
> And why, when parents are given a choice, do they not send their
> children to their local school?
You _have_ a choice with the public option. You will be able to buy
all the private sector health insurance you want.
> (Is that why perhaps the teacher's union so vehemently opposes school
> choice?)
Do you support vouchers for home skoolin'.
No dodgin' 'n dodgin'.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
>
> > A lot less than there were before free universal educaiton.
>
> Illiteracy was actually quite low in the 19th Cent. and steadily
> declined.
U. S. public education goes all the way back to Plymouth Rock with
stiff punishments for tax evaders.
> Reading was very widespread because other forms of entertainment and
> keeping up with the news were relatively scarce.
> Also being able to read the Bible was considered desirable.
Many Revolutionary Americans also learned French and read the original
_Spirit of Laws_ where the Montesquieu handles libertaria under the
designation "despotism."
Democratic republics have national education. Despotisms only have
home skoolin'.
Again, do Repugliars support vouchers for home skoolin'?
> But the point is that today given the vast sums spent on public
> education, the results are mediocre at best. Of course the socialist
> solution - as it is with everything else - is to pour even more money
> into it.
Socialist Europe is much better educated than "free market" America so
apparently it works.
> > > And why, when parents are given a choice, do they not send their
> > > children to their local school?
> > They are given a choice to vote public education out
> > of existence and they don't.
> Given a choice for choice and they choose it.
The "public option" gives everyone a choice. If you want Blue Cross
Blue Shield you buy Blue Cross Blue Shield.
> But once again - as always and as I mentioned to you elsewhere - you
> will always staunchly defend the status quo and the establishment,
> even when that means a clear violation of rights and the use of force.
I don't see anyone holding a gun to any one's head forcing him to live
in the collectively acquired collectively defended territory of the U.
S. and pay taxes.
_Forbes_ once ran an excellent article on "taxpatriation." It's
highly recommended reading.
You can leave any time.
We don't need you.
We don't want you.
Call 1-800-FLY-4-LESS and book the next one way flight to Mogadishu in
low tax paradise Somalia.
Take your guns because you'll need them on your new job as a pirate.
Bret Cahill
Robert Cohen
re: charter schools
I'd like to know peoples' opinions
I have not experienced the genre
It appears there is somethings worthwhile that conventional
public schools can't do as well
Try not to distort ideologically too much when offering
your critiques of what may be the desirable alternative
Taxpayers still fund 'em, while they GENERALLY seem to have
more autonomy and esprit d' academe