Scott queries:
================
Well done Scott! Good research. Your editorials, however, most often
missed the mark. I'll take these points up with you at a later date
(there's just WAY TOO MUCH you interpreted incorrectly!).

The question you should ask yourself is whether that "incorrect
interpretation" is deliberate or not.
============

Well the options that spring most immediately to mind are (a) yes, you
are deliberately misinterpreting so as to continue to cling to and
spread false information or (b) no, but you're not bright enough to be
able to understand what was written.

Are there other options?

frtzw906

Scott claims:
============
It's just that I haven't seen a system which works better
than what we have in the US (including Colorado) anywhere in the world,
and
I've seen many that are much, much worse, including, notably, every
socialist state on earth.
============

WOW! You've "seen" every socialist state on earth?!

Scott boasts:
===========
Hey, we've got a great system here, why shouldn't I use it as a
touchstone?
===============

One those issues on which we agree --sort of. You have a pretty good
system and it makes for a good touchstone. But, there's also plenty
wrong with it and, guess what, occasionally other nations have figured
out how to do things better.


frtzw906

Scott:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
I don=B9t recall either, but that's an easy one: Yes, but with some
reservations...

Good to see you coming over to the bright side GRIN
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

I'll bet we could explore plenty of issues in the realm of social
libertarianism and find common ground... waddya think? Do you fancy
yourself a social libertarian?=20

frtzw906

Scott:
===========
The argument made in the various letters from the Health Ministers of
Canada
worrying that a two-tier system would cause problems because the
clinics
would "cherry pick" the easy cases while leaving the hard, expensive
cases
to the state is idiocy.
============

Idiocy to you, but true. If one believes in a universal program of any
sort (I know you may not), then that program needs to be protected
against exactly that: cherry picking.

Here in BC we have a "universal" auto insurance plan: if you want to
drive, you MUST have insurance. Allow me to paint with a broad brush to
make my point -- there are minor and trivial exceptions to what I'm
about to say. And the insurance you buy MUST be provided by a
Provincial Crown Coporation. You may not buy your BASIC coverage from
anyone else. Why? Because, if the corporation is to gain the benefits
that come from having this monopoly and is to be able to provide the
blanket, global coverage the corporation was set up to provide, then it
cannot afford to have private insurers cherry-pick the low-risk
clients, leaving the crown corp to pick up the difficult, expensive
clients. [BTW, the premiums compare quite favorably to other
jurisdictions across Canada that use the private model]

Further, an anecdotal example of cherry-picking (that really ****es me
off): in the elementary school my daughters attended, there were two
sisters, one of whom was severely handicapped. The parents,
dissatisfied with the education their daughters were getting at this
school, took the daughter who was not handicapped, and sent her to a
very expensive private school. By doing so, they further diminished the
academic calibre of the school by taking a very bright girl out, and
leaving a handicapped one. This sort of cherry-picking diminishes our
ability to provide quality to everyone.

I understand that you may not ascribe to that philosophy, but I do. If
one ascribes to that philosophy, then cherry-picking can not be
permitted.

frtzw906

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ups.com...
Scott:
===========
The argument made in the various letters from the Health Ministers of
Canada
worrying that a two-tier system would cause problems because the
clinics
would "cherry pick" the easy cases while leaving the hard, expensive
cases
to the state is idiocy.
============

Idiocy to you, but true. If one believes in a universal program of any
sort (I know you may not), then that program needs to be protected
against exactly that: cherry picking.

Here in BC we have a "universal" auto insurance plan: if you want to
drive, you MUST have insurance. Allow me to paint with a broad brush to
make my point -- there are minor and trivial exceptions to what I'm
about to say. And the insurance you buy MUST be provided by a
Provincial Crown Coporation. You may not buy your BASIC coverage from
anyone else. Why? Because, if the corporation is to gain the benefits
that come from having this monopoly and is to be able to provide the
blanket, global coverage the corporation was set up to provide, then it
cannot afford to have private insurers cherry-pick the low-risk
clients, leaving the crown corp to pick up the difficult, expensive
clients. [BTW, the premiums compare quite favorably to other
jurisdictions across Canada that use the private model]

Further, an anecdotal example of cherry-picking (that really ****es me
off): in the elementary school my daughters attended, there were two
sisters, one of whom was severely handicapped. The parents,
dissatisfied with the education their daughters were getting at this
school, took the daughter who was not handicapped, and sent her to a
very expensive private school. By doing so, they further diminished the
academic calibre of the school by taking a very bright girl out, and
leaving a handicapped one. This sort of cherry-picking diminishes our
ability to provide quality to everyone.

I understand that you may not ascribe to that philosophy, but I do. If
one ascribes to that philosophy, then cherry-picking can not be
permitted.

frtzw906

If I may, for many a person with a disability, "handicapped" is like the
n-word to many a person with black skin. I realize no offense likely
intended frtzw906 :-)

Now to your point, that is exactly what will happen. It's so obvious...poor
people and/or those more difficult to work with will be left behind. What is
the incentive of a profit-driven school to serve them? None.

Thanks to KMAN:
============
If I may, for many a person with a disability, "handicapped" is like
the
n-word to many a person with black skin. I realize no offense likely
intended frtzw906 :-)
=============

You're right, none intended.

As I was writing, I occasionally was about to write "disabled" but
wasn't sure if that was perhaps the taboo expression. In another
lifetime, I was in the public school system, and was more "aware". Now
I occasionally get caught using n-word equivalencies... Sorry!

As to the anecdote in question, you can't begin to imagine how the
hypocrisy of those parents ****ed me off. And for them to malign the
public system as they were in the process of diminishing it! It stills
makes my blood boil! If I were king for a day, private schools would be
on the chopping block. [I might be persuaded that "choice" in education
*might* be a good thing through some sort of voucher system so long as
-- ditto the medicare program -- nobody could spend more than the
voucher amount. I'd have to think this one through.]

frtzw906

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Thanks to KMAN:
============
If I may, for many a person with a disability, "handicapped" is like
the
n-word to many a person with black skin. I realize no offense likely
intended frtzw906 :-)
=============

You're right, none intended.

As I was writing, I occasionally was about to write "disabled" but
wasn't sure if that was perhaps the taboo expression. In another
lifetime, I was in the public school system, and was more "aware". Now
I occasionally get caught using n-word equivalencies... Sorry!

As to the anecdote in question, you can't begin to imagine how the
hypocrisy of those parents ****ed me off. And for them to malign the
public system as they were in the process of diminishing it! It stills
makes my blood boil! If I were king for a day, private schools would be
on the chopping block. [I might be persuaded that "choice" in education
*might* be a good thing through some sort of voucher system so long as
-- ditto the medicare program -- nobody could spend more than the
voucher amount. I'd have to think this one through.]

frtzw906

The challenge is to promote flexibility and excellence in education without
ending up with nothing but elite schools for the gifted/rich and slums for
everyone else.

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:


On 1-Apr-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Michael Daly

You seem to have a problem with me. Too bad, dickhead.

Nah, I just call 'em like I see 'em.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott:
===========
Hey, there are *lots* of opportunities to make a profit, even in police
departments. Do you think the police officers, or the professors and
custodians work for FREE?
============

I'm not clear on what you're trying to say.

You're right, I don't work for free. But that still doesn't explain how
a university (a state university) makes a profit.

I didn't say the university made a profit, I said, quite specifically,
"there are profits to be made."

Universities are profit generators. That the university itself doesn't show
a profit is irrelevant, they are a huge part of the economy of most
communities, not just from wages and compensation for employees, but to the
community that serves the students and faculty. And then there are the
scientific discoveries that universities foster and patent. They, and the
public, share in the profits accruing from such things.

People support universities not simply because they provide advanced
knowledge, but because they are massive profit-generating engines for the
communities and the nation as a whole.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott queries:
================
Well done Scott! Good research. Your editorials, however, most often
missed the mark. I'll take these points up with you at a later date
(there's just WAY TOO MUCH you interpreted incorrectly!).

The question you should ask yourself is whether that "incorrect
interpretation" is deliberate or not.
============

Well the options that spring most immediately to mind are (a) yes, you
are deliberately misinterpreting so as to continue to cling to and
spread false information or (b) no, but you're not bright enough to be
able to understand what was written.

Are there other options?

Indeed. There's (c) as well. Can you figure out what it might be? I've given
you many clues.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser