KMAN commenting on less smoking on the Left Coast:
===============
Yes, but there is more spandex.
=================

True, but also more people who can actually wear the stuff and look
good doing so. That would, however, not include me GRIN.

Make mine a double latte, eh.

Wilf

A Usenet persona calling itself Frederick Burroughs wrote:

--
"This president has destroyed the country, the economy,
the relationship with the rest of the world.
He's a monster in the White House. He should resign."

- Hunter S. Thompson, speaking to an antiwar audience in 2003.

Thompson was a drug and alcohol-addled pundit of dubious talent lionized by
the left merely because he was willing to be outrageous.

--
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

Scott argues:
===============
They're just like any other business. How ever much of a pain med
students
are, the university has a lot invested in the med school program, as
you
yourself admit, and the only way to pay for all that infrastructure is
to
have students in the programs.
==============


But surely you don't want to *increase* your investment in this
expensive program. Please! Explain to me why it is in a university's
best interests to increase the number of seats in med school (from a
purely free market perspective -- which is what you insist they're
responding to)?

If the increased admissions come because of a government (state
education department) directive -- by way of the regents -- then, of
course it will happen. But please explain the economics of increasing
med school admissions to me. How is that good for the university when
opening more seats in the executive MBA program will yield so much more
in terms of income.?

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott argues:
===============
They're just like any other business. How ever much of a pain med
students
are, the university has a lot invested in the med school program, as
you
yourself admit, and the only way to pay for all that infrastructure is
to
have students in the programs.
==============


But surely you don't want to *increase* your investment in this
expensive program. Please! Explain to me why it is in a university's
best interests to increase the number of seats in med school (from a
purely free market perspective -- which is what you insist they're
responding to)?

The number of seats reflects the demand for doctors. Free market economics,
pure and simple.


If the increased admissions come because of a government (state
education department) directive -- by way of the regents -- then, of
course it will happen. But please explain the economics of increasing
med school admissions to me.

More students, more tuition, more alumni donations.

How is that good for the university when
opening more seats in the executive MBA program will yield so much more
in terms of income.?

Not everybody wants to be an MBA.
--
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

Scott trying to explain the economics of a university education:
===============
More students, more tuition, more alumni donations.
===========

And where, may I ask, does tuition cover the cost of education?
ESPECIALLY med school.

Unless mandated by governments to do so (excluding the case of private
universities), I doubt any unversities would run med schools.

Since tuition does NOT cover the costs of educating doctors, please
explain the economics again.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott trying to explain the economics of a university education:
===============
More students, more tuition, more alumni donations.
===========

And where, may I ask, does tuition cover the cost of education?
ESPECIALLY med school.

I didn't say it did.


Unless mandated by governments to do so (excluding the case of private
universities), I doubt any unversities would run med schools.

Our government doesn't mandate anything.


Since tuition does NOT cover the costs of educating doctors, please
explain the economics again.

More students, more tuition, more alumni donations, more government
subsidies.

No students, no tuition, no alumni donations, no government subsidies.

Pretty simple, really.

--
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

Scott:
=============
More students, more tuition, more alumni donations, more government
subsidies.

No students, no tuition, no alumni donations, no government subsidies.

Pretty simple, really.
===========

But WHY med schools?! They're so damned expensive to set up and run!

And please, forget about "alumni donations". Yeah! Right! We'll rely on
donations to fund our med school. GOOD LUCK! You're losing it Scotty!

And as to "Our government doesn't mandate anything." Are you quite
sure? Are you saying that although the government funds Whazzits State
University and the University of Whazzit State, this state government
exercises "no" control over what happens there? How positively
generous.

frtzw906

Mike comments to Scott:
=============
You're making this up as you go along.
==================

It's amazing isn't it. There's plenty wrong with our healthcare system
(and as we've also observed, all other healthcare systems), but Scott
has yet to identify the real issues.

Every time he's confronted by real, everyday, practical questions about
how he thinks the system works, he starts making stuff up. TOO FUNNY!

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Mike comments to Scott:
=============
You're making this up as you go along.
==================

It's amazing isn't it. There's plenty wrong with our healthcare system
(and as we've also observed, all other healthcare systems), but Scott
has yet to identify the real issues.

Every time he's confronted by real, everyday, practical questions about
how he thinks the system works, he starts making stuff up. TOO FUNNY!

And yet you can't refute them. Interesting.

--
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

Scott asserts:
==============
Every time he's confronted by real, everyday, practical questions
about
how he thinks the system works, he starts making stuff up. TOO FUNNY!

And yet you can't refute them. Interesting.
=================

Have done so every time. And every one gets batted right out of the
ballpark.

But that's OK. At least you're getting an education about the Cnadian
system. Good on USENET.

frtzw906