Log in

View Full Version : Dear Sarah Palin:



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5]

Dirty Ernie
10-12-2008, 09:55 AM
The problem, SK, is that the entity most guilty of wasteful spending is the government. i hear a lot of mention of government waste, not so much about corporate waste.

Wasteful corporate spending (like a $440,000 weekend retreat for a corp who was handed $118 billion in taxpayer dollars) is generally passed on to the consumer as cost of doing business.

Who's creating gov't waste by charging $800 for a toilet seat and $200 for a hammer? Either we need more oversight of gov't contracts to prevent gouging, or the gov't needs to do business with honest people.

flickad
10-12-2008, 05:43 PM
But then my taxes would go up to cover people who don’t work. I can’t say I like that. I work too hard to support people who don’t work.

Hugs and Hissessss,
Maria

Don't you think that's preferable to your taxes going on futile and trumped up wars in the Middle East?

And not everyone has the ability to work.

Also, as crime is linked to poverty, society would benefit in the long run..

SnakeBabe
10-12-2008, 06:00 PM
Don't you think that's preferable to your taxes going on futile and trumped up wars in the Middle East?

And not everyone has the ability to work......

I don’t want my taxes going to lots of things but that’s another subject. My view is still the same on health care.
I work and pay my bills, so why cant they?
Hugs and Hissessss,
Maria

FBR
10-12-2008, 06:09 PM
Wasteful corporate spending (like a $440,000 weekend retreat for a corp who was handed $118 billion in taxpayer dollars) is generally passed on to the consumer as cost of doing business.



Ernie, well the reality is there are thousands of small corporations just like mine who are lucky to do $440,00 in sales annually much less spend that amount on a junket. Middle class small business owners who employ 5 - 40 employees and are struggling to keep our heads above water don't understand why a bulls eye has been painted on our backs. And rest assured, in spite of Senator Obama's rhetoric we are the one who will be targeted.

FBR

Rockell
10-12-2008, 06:23 PM
I don’t want my taxes going to lots of things but that’s another subject. My view is still the same on health care.
I work and pay my bills, so why cant they?
Hugs and Hissessss,
Maria

Alot of people without health insurance DO work, but either their job doesn't offer them benefits or their job pays to little for them to realistically afford the healthcare that is available to them. These are the people that ring up your items at Wal-Mart, cut your lawn, work in factories to make the products that you use, harvest the produce you eat. What would happen if suddenly, they all got sick and couldn't work? The economy would cease to function without them. In order to keep the economy running smoothly, it should be in everyone's best interest to sacrafice a little to keep everyone healthy.

eagle2
10-12-2008, 07:44 PM
not really, these are all people who are paying too. We are not forced to support those who don’t join the group and pay their share. Also, I don’t want to get lumped into a group of overweight smokers, my rates would skyrocket.

Hugs and Hissessss,
Maria

Hi Maria,

I agree that everyone should pay their share. I'm in favor of everyone in the country paying for insurance and everyone having access to healthcare.

As far as I know you are in the same group of overweight smokers. I don't think health insurance providers distinguish between people who are overweight and people who aren't, and smokers and non-smokers. I get my insurance through my employer. As far as I know, my insurance company has no idea how much I weigh and whether or not I smoke. The only thing I know of that insurance companies look at, is whether or not you have pre-existing conditions.

VegasPrincess
10-12-2008, 10:08 PM
It's just disgusting to me when people accuse those who don't have health insurance of "not working."

Personally, I've had health care up to this year on my parents plan. Now with my age I am shopping for my own plan, and HOLY SHIT! I'm looking at about 500/month for decent coverage & pregnancy insurance in case I would get knocked up.

So, that is 6000 dollars a year. Are you saying that people who make 30K a year, which is really about 24 K a year after takes, should somehow be able to afford that? Riiiiiiiigggggghhhhhhttttt.

I don't make that fucking much money either, but I am all for paying a bit more in taxes so everyone can have health care. And also, I'm not so ignorant to accuse those who can't afford insurance of being lazy, worthless bums who just won't buy it.

oh, and to everyone who voiced their opinion that they don't want to pay extra for health insurance for people who don't work, wake up! Are you fucking kidding me? People who are on welfare or medicaid or disabilty ALLREADY HAVE STATE INSURANCE. Like, they have it now. Wanting to add coverage for everybody doesn't include those people...THEYRE ALLREADY COVERED.

flickad
10-13-2008, 02:00 AM
I don’t want my taxes going to lots of things but that’s another subject. My view is still the same on health care.
I work and pay my bills, so why cant they?
Hugs and Hissessss,
Maria

Some people aren't so employable, for a number of reasons. Not everyone is able-bodied and mentally healthy. Not all jobs in the US pay enough to survive on. Not everyone has somewhere to live from where to job-seek.

TheSexKitten
10-13-2008, 08:17 AM
I have a friend who has to pay $600/month that he can barely afford because he is flat broke with no degree (he works, doesn't make much though and he's writing) but he HAS to pay for that insurance because he's had 2 heart attacks.

Do you want to live in a country littered with sick, impoverished people, so long as YOU are healthy and well-off enough to step over them as you walk through the streets on the way to YOUR next destination?

I understand some arguments against socialized/universal healthcare (not healthcare reform, that shit needs to happen), but yours is uninformed, shallow, and selfish.

Eric Stoner
10-13-2008, 09:04 AM
I'd like a link to see where you're getting numbers from, because I've never heard those figures. I'm not being sarcastic or bitchy by saying that BTW I'm genuinely curious...becauseI can tell you, they're not true.

First of all, there are far more than 40 million unisured Americans. The actual stastic (from the Cenus Bureau) is:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/567737

47 million, or 15.9% of Americans. So, fifteen out of a hundred, or almost two out of ten Americans are without insurance. This is NOT taking into consideration people who are in the poverty level welfare, etc), because they have government funded healthcare. So that 47 million is from people ranging from the working poor to working class to Middle class.

Furthermore, these numbers don't incorporate people who are in the country illegally, check the link.

Why don't we just use the U.S. Census numbers which say that as of 2006 there were 47 million RESIDENTS who for at least a part or portion of the year had no health insurance. Health insurance; not access to health care. BUT in 2007 the number had declined to 45 million according to the L.A. Times analysis of Census data. Included in the 45 million are 18 million people making AT LEAST $50,000
per year. ABOVE the U.S. Median household income. Also included are 12.6 million NON-CITIZENS. Up to 9 million are only uninsured for two months or less out of a 12 month year. As many as 33% QUALIFY for public health plans but DO NOT ENROLL.

SnakeBabe
10-13-2008, 09:20 AM
Alot of people without health insurance DO work, but either their job doesn't offer them benefits or their job pays to little for them to realistically afford the healthcare that is available to them. These are the people that ring up your items at Wal-Mart, cut your lawn, work in factories to make the products that you use, harvest the produce you eat. What would happen if suddenly, they all got sick and couldn't work? The economy would cease to function without them. In order to keep the economy running smoothly, it should be in everyone's best interest to sacrafice a little to keep everyone healthy.

Why do people take low paying jobs?

I asked my far right wing husband to read this shook his head and he said if he can work 10 hours a day in a warehouse and then work a second job (as a juggler) at night to buy his first house and pay his bills anyone can. I guess I just agree with that. So I pressed him and said what if you had kids and a wifes health care to pay for?
He said” I wouldn’t have kids or gotten married if I could afford it first. That is not what a real Man does’
So that about sums it up for me. People need to be responsible for them selves. If they take low paying jobs that is their free choice but why expect the rest of the country to carry you? This country is so full of opportunities. If I can dress up in sexy clothes and carry a snake to make a living then an intelligent person should be able too do much better, no?

Hugs and Hissessss,
Maria

SnakeBabe
10-13-2008, 09:25 AM
...
As far as I know you are in the same group of overweight smokers. ....

When you choose our own health care and not go with whatever your employer gives, you have more options.
Our insurance provider asked us if we smoke our age and our weight and I am told our rates are based on that.
Hugs and Hissessss,
Maria

SnakeBabe
10-13-2008, 09:34 AM
Some people aren't so employable, for a number of reasons. ....

Why not?


S...Not everyone is able-bodied and mentally healthy. ....

I said in an earlier post I am all for helping the handicapped, mentally ill. It’s the people that abuse the system and the physically able I draw the line at


.... Not everyone has somewhere to live from where to job-seek.

again, why not?

Hugs and Hissessss,
Maria

Rockell
10-13-2008, 09:46 AM
Why do people take low paying jobs?

I asked my far right wing husband to read this shook his head and he said if he can work 10 hours a day in a warehouse and then work a second job (as a juggler) at night to buy his first house and pay his bills anyone can. I guess I just agree with that. So I pressed him and said what if you had kids and a wifes health care to pay for?
He said” I wouldn’t have kids or gotten married if I could afford it first. That is not what a real Man does’
So that about sums it up for me. People need to be responsible for them selves. If they take low paying jobs that is their free choice but why expect the rest of the country to carry you? This country is so full of opportunities. If I can dress up in sexy clothes and carry a snake to make a living then an intelligent person should be able too do much better, no?

Hugs and Hissessss,
Maria

You obviously missed the point of my post. The economy is dependent on people who take low paying jobs. If everyone decided to quit their low paying jobs to pursue better ones, there would be no one to run cash registers, work on farms, or provide day care for children, among other things. You should be glad that there are people out there that work for so little pay. It keeps the cost of the things we buy cheap. Otherwise, we would be paying twice as much and then EVEN LESS of the population would be able to afford private healthcare.

SnakeBabe
10-13-2008, 09:53 AM
Sorry, I thought I did get your point but mine is those jobs were not meant to support a family etc.
I grew up seeing jobs like that as jobs for after school kids needing money for their first car.
Retirees earring extra $$$ for some nice things they may want or to even for wives to help out but not as a sole income.

Hugs and Hissessss,
Maria
(I don’t mean to sound demeaning or sexist about the wife thing, it could be a husband. I’m just talking in the general terms. )

TheSexKitten
10-13-2008, 03:12 PM
Back OT... Sarah Palin found guilty of abuse of power:

jester214
10-13-2008, 04:12 PM
I understand some arguments against socialized/universal healthcare (not healthcare reform, that shit needs to happen), but yours is uninformed, shallow, and selfish.

Just because you and I disagree with the point doesn't mean it's uninformed, shallow, or selfish. It's her opinion, and on some level, I agree. If you don't go look at the people trying to get Disability in North Carolina. Not everyone is just a down on their luck, working hard as they can, but can't meet the needs joe.

Is it selfish to not want to pay even more of your own money in taxes to cover people like that? Beleive me, they're out there. I see them everyday, the walmart checkout people who drive nicer cars than I do.

Now I'm with you, I want everyone to be covered regardless, I just want it done properly, which is where I disagree with most people.

But not wanting to see more of your own money taken away is none of the three things you listed. Would you be willing to live the most minimal existence you could and have the rest of your money taken to give to help the homeless? The idea of keeping one's own money is not selfish shallow, or uninformed.

VegasPrincess
10-13-2008, 04:20 PM
Sorry, I thought I did get your point but mine is those jobs were not meant to support a family etc.
I grew up seeing jobs like that as jobs for after school kids needing money for their first car.
Retirees earring extra $$$ for some nice things they may want or to even for wives to help out but not as a sole income.

Hugs and Hissessss,
Maria
(I don’t mean to sound demeaning or sexist about the wife thing, it could be a husband. I’m just talking in the general terms. )

There are tons of people who don't qualify for jobs that pay 15 or more dollars an hour. I'm not going to quibble with you about it, but believe me, it's true. Your theory that only people who need extra money should have those jobs is pretty goofy, as those jobs make up a huge percentage of our workforce, but whatever.

What you're basically saying is, if all a person can qualify for is a shitty job, fuck them, that's not my problem, and if they need insurance they can figure it out on their own...Lovely. Aren't most Republicains Christians btw? Cause these attitudes certainly aren't very Christian.


I'm just amazed at how out of touch many people on this site are from the reality of what our economic situation is in this country. Go to Target right now...tons of people who work there are college graduates who can't find a job in their field at the moment.

I'm just .... amazed...

jester214
10-13-2008, 06:18 PM
There are tons of people who don't qualify for jobs that pay 15 or more dollars an hour. I'm not going to quibble with you about it, but believe me, it's true. Your theory that only people who need extra money should have those jobs is pretty goofy, as those jobs make up a huge percentage of our workforce, but whatever.

What you're basically saying is, if all a person can qualify for is a shitty job, fuck them, that's not my problem, and if they need insurance they can figure it out on their own...Lovely. Aren't most Republicains Christians btw? Cause these attitudes certainly aren't very Christian.


I'm just amazed at how out of touch many people on this site are from the reality of what our economic situation is in this country. Go to Target right now...tons of people who work there are college graduates who can't find a job in their field at the moment.

I'm just .... amazed...

I'm just amazed that you really think the only option is your way, and that anything other than that means, you hate people and are a selfish jerk. I know grocery store jobs that don't pay 15$ and hour. I'm not going to quibble with you about what jobs are out there, and how some people really aren't doing all they can. But you're getting more and more ridiculous by the moment.

CKXXX
10-13-2008, 08:30 PM
VegasPrincess..I totally agree. Just because someone had the opportunities and skills to get a better job,not everyone can. I find it incredibly offensive and small minded for someone to say "well if you cant afford healthcare get a better job". Good jobs are few and far between even for people who ARE qualified.

Saying that someone who likely already has a tough life shouldnt have healthcare either is so small minded it makes me angry. Do you think the middle aged man working at McDonalds is doing it because he likes it or is completely unwilling to better himself? I dont think thats necessarily true. Yes a few might be slackers,but many are doing what they need to do to care for themselves and their families. And making things a bit easier on them can only help them better themselves in the longrun.

Lucy in the Sky
10-13-2008, 08:45 PM
There is no point in arguing about this issue. Some of us out here just simply care more about the health and well being of people then some others do. It's a personal character thing and that isn't a matter that can be easily changed by internet debate.

So how about we all just get back to discussing Palin, shall we?

The latest investigation on her is that she had her house built, possibly for free, as a kickback for her getting contractors a deal to build the $12.5 million Wasilla Sports Complex. Built ofcourse by taxpayer money.

flickad
10-13-2008, 11:28 PM
Why do people take low paying jobs?

I asked my far right wing husband to read this shook his head and he said if he can work 10 hours a day in a warehouse and then work a second job (as a juggler) at night to buy his first house and pay his bills anyone can. I guess I just agree with that. So I pressed him and said what if you had kids and a wifes health care to pay for?
He said” I wouldn’t have kids or gotten married if I could afford it first. That is not what a real Man does’
So that about sums it up for me. People need to be responsible for them selves. If they take low paying jobs that is their free choice but why expect the rest of the country to carry you? This country is so full of opportunities. If I can dress up in sexy clothes and carry a snake to make a living then an intelligent person should be able too do much better, no?

Hugs and Hissessss,
Maria

Maybe some people take low paying jobs because that's all they can get. I don't think that $2 an hour is exactly anyone's wildest dream.

Read Nickle and Dimed. It's a bit out of date, but still pretty valid.

flickad
10-13-2008, 11:29 PM
Why not?



I said in an earlier post I am all for helping the handicapped, mentally ill. It’s the people that abuse the system and the physically able I draw the line at



again, why not?

Hugs and Hissessss,
Maria

Use your imagination. Not everyone exactly gets a flying start at life.

Perry
10-14-2008, 01:06 AM
I love it that people are on a STRIPPER message board critizing people that can't get a job that pays X amount or offers health insurance.

I gotta level with everyone here, I don't have health insurance. And I can't get a job that pays more than minimum wage untill I graduate. That's my dirty little secret. The club never offered me any benifits. Maybe I should strip harder? Sure, I make enough to cover my medical costs - unless I break an ankle, develope diabetes or get cancer. And then what the hell do I do? Oh, wait, that's right! Work a job that doesn't pay X, that I can't finish my degree on and won't offer me health insurance! Woo! I'm so lucky!

So, as long as I have my sexy clothes and my snake (he's a ball python named Calvin by the way) right along with my ability to pay for my education I'm golden. Fuck my friends, family and the rest of this country! They should have been born either ritch or hot or perfectly healthy. That's Darwinism at it's finest.

ETA - Carrying a snake around a strip club is animal cruelty.

TheSexKitten
10-14-2008, 07:15 AM
Just because you and I disagree with the point doesn't mean it's uninformed, shallow, or selfish.

I understand not wanting to have to pay out the ass for a bunch of people who could be stockbrokers or middle managers or college professors but instead choose to sit around on the couch, but her lack of factual knowledge and narrow sightedness is what makes her opinion shallow (lacking depth/understanding) and uninformed. Her kneejerk reaction = her opinion. But at least mentally ill and severely handicapped people get a break! Whew.

SnakeBabe
10-14-2008, 08:37 AM
Great, now I’m being called names for believing in personal responsibility.
If you want to discus health care someone start a “health care, should it be free” topic.
Lets this one get back to Palin. Who I don’t agree with either.

Hugs and Hissessss,
Maria

Eric Stoner
10-14-2008, 08:43 AM
There is no point in arguing about this issue. Some of us out here just simply care more about the health and well being of people then some others do. It's a personal character thing and that isn't a matter that can be easily changed by internet debate.

So how about we all just get back to discussing Palin, shall we?

The latest investigation on her is that she had her house built, possibly for free, as a kickback for her getting contractors a deal to build the $12.5 million Wasilla Sports Complex. Built ofcourse by taxpayer money.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/11/111018/34

Oh no you don't !
How dare you question the motives of people you don't know !
Who the hell are you to pass judgement on the compassion of other people ?

The problem is the U.S. is NOT so much that there are uninsured people. There are. It's not they don't have access to health care. They do. The problem is the AFFORDABILITY of the health care and the coverage. It's the hundreds of billions the system has to absorb for treating millions of ILLEGAL Immigrants. Why do you think California is bankrupt ?

Btw, the Daily Kos is a total SEWER completely empty of anything remotely resembling basic journalistic ethics. They literally post ANYTHING no matter how false or libelous.

flickad
10-14-2008, 09:00 AM
Great, now I’m being called names for believing in personal responsibility.
If you want to discus health care someone start a “health care, should it be free” topic.
Lets this one get back to Palin. Who I don’t agree with either.

Hugs and Hissessss,
Maria

Feel free to present me with a contradictory quote if I'm wrong, but I noticed no epithets being tossed in your direction. Criticism, sure, but no name-calling.

flickad
10-14-2008, 09:04 AM
Oh no you don't !
How dare you question the motives of people you don't know !
Who the hell are you to pass judgement on the compassion of other people ?

The problem is the U.S. is NOT so much that there are uninsured people. There are. It's not they don't have access to health care. They do. The problem is the AFFORDABILITY of the health care and the coverage. It's the hundreds of billions the system has to absorb for treating millions of ILLEGAL Immigrants. Why do you think California is bankrupt ?

Btw, the Daily Kos is a total SEWER completely empty of anything remotely resembling basic journalistic ethics. They literally post ANYTHING no matter how false or libelous.

I guess I can see where she's coming from in that it looks like people lack compassion when they metaphorically shrug their shoulders and say 'tough' with respect to those in your country who lack health insurance. Whether or not you actually do lack compassion hasn't been proven one way or the other- for all we know, you could be giving half your income to various charities. However, appearing indifferent to those who can not afford medical care does tend to lead one to the opposite conclusion, whether or not that's grounded in fact.

SnakeBabe
10-14-2008, 09:10 AM
Feel free to present me with a contradictory quote if I'm wrong, but I noticed no epithets being tossed in your direction. Criticism, sure, but no name-calling.

Thanks, I do enjoy arguing a point that I believe in with people who disagree. It gives me a chance to learn.

Hugs and Hissessss,
Maria

Eric Stoner
10-14-2008, 09:38 AM
I guess I can see where she's coming from in that it looks like people lack compassion when they metaphorically shrug their shoulders and say 'tough' with respect to those in your country who lack health insurance. Whether or not you actually do lack compassion hasn't been proven one way or the other- for all we know, you could be giving half your income to various charities. However, appearing indifferent to those who can not afford medical care does tend to lead one to the opposite conclusion, whether or not that's grounded in fact.

I haven't shrugged my shoulders ; or waved off the problem and my compassion level is none of anyone else's business and completely irrelevant.

I've posted a proposal to provide health insurance for those who need it and can't afford it.

TheSexKitten
10-14-2008, 11:26 AM
FTR, I want to clarify that I meant SB's stance was underdeveloped (hence the shallow) and narrow (hence the selfish), definitely not her as a person.

Lucy in the Sky
10-14-2008, 12:01 PM
I guess I can see where she's coming from in that it looks like people lack compassion when they metaphorically shrug their shoulders and say 'tough' with respect to those in your country who lack health insurance. Whether or not you actually do lack compassion hasn't been proven one way or the other- for all we know, you could be giving half your income to various charities. However, appearing indifferent to those who can not afford medical care does tend to lead one to the opposite conclusion, whether or not that's grounded in fact.

:thanx:

UtahMike
10-14-2008, 07:15 PM
I was responding directly to UtahMike and his implication that waiting in Canada is comparable to the two hours he had to wait.

Oh, good grief.

UtahMike
10-14-2008, 07:22 PM
Look at public school teachers, who are underpaid but at least they only spent 4-5 years in education and training and still get three months vacation a year!

Scuze me, Diva, but I can't let that pass. Teachers do not get three months vacation. Teachers receive zero paid days off. Any vacation day is leave without pay. The pay earned over the usual 9.5 months of the school year is divided into twelve checks and paid year round, but they are not EARNING pay during vacation. Most teachers work a fifty to sixty hour week during the year when the time at home grading papers and developing lessons is added in, and also put in considerable unpaid time during the summer preparing their classroom for the next school year.

Now, everybody can return to arguing health care.

UtahMike
10-14-2008, 07:39 PM
The solution is obvious : Vouchers for parents and more charter schools within the public system. I understand why the NEA and teacher's union oppose these ideas. I've NEVER understood why those who represent areas with lots of poor people and lousy schools oppose them. Unless it's because they WANT to assure a steady future supply of poorly educated voters.

Well, here's the reason. All private schools are NOT better. Some elite schools certainly have superior students, but they are very picky about whom they admit. Your ghetto kid with a voucher is not going to get into one of these.

Regular good public schools APPEAR to be better because they have a higher percentage of affluent families and a higher percentage of involved parents. A real comparable study has been done where students in public schools were compared with students of the same ethnicity, language level, and affluence in private schools. Guess what? The apparent superiority of private schools vanished. A person's family is a far greater influence on their educational achievement than their school.

Next: Lots of private schools and home schools choose to NOT take state and national tests and be compared with public schools. This is their right. But this means that nobody knows how well the students in those schools are doing. There is a local private school run by a particular religion I will not name. It has eighty students and three unlicensed teachers. The students and parents are overjoyed with their school because they are can teach their religious doctrine during the school day. This is their right, but I do not wish to pay for it with my tax dollars via a voucher.

Next: Private schools are not distributed equally over the USA. For instance, in Utah, the highest level of poverty is in San Juan County where many native Americans live. There is one and only one private school in the county. It has fifteen students in grades K through 2, one unlicensed teacher, zero tuition, and is sponsored by a different particular religion I will not name. Give all the poor students in San Juan County vouchers, and where are they going to go to school?

Next: There ARE "good" private schools in the urban and suburban areas, the ones that have licensed teachers and are willing to give recognized tests to their students and publish the scores. But these all have waiting lists already. Give a bunch of students vouchers, and they will go on the waiting lists. There would have to be new construction to accommodate them, and then new teachers would have to be hired. Since private schools pay a salary slightly more than half what a teacher would earn in the public schools, only two types of teachers would be attracted: those with a missionary zeal to teach in a private school, and those not good enough to teach in a public school. There is already a teacher shortage. Where would the extra teachers come from?

Sorry, Eric, but Utah is the most conservative state in the country, and last year we citizens defeated vouchers in a referendum 60 percent to forty percent in spite of a mutlimillion dollar ad campaign by the pro voucher camp. The NEA is against vouchers because vouchers are poor use of public money in funding education.

Kellydancer
10-14-2008, 10:23 PM
Some of the comments regarding health care sadden me. I can't believe some of the hatred coming from certain people.

I am now one of those uninsured. I had a job with good benefits for almost three years. Then guess what? my department got eliminated in December and now I am out of a job. Even though I have experience, skills, and two degrees, I am unable as of yet to find a job with benefits. I've been offered a few jobs, but none have any benefits. And on top of this, two years ago precancerous cells were found. Because I had insurance at the time, they were removed, but I've been told they could always come back and become cancer.

For those who say I can go to a clinic or something like that, no I can't. I know because I checked into it. Illinois has a form of free healthcare, but in most of the cases you have to be a parent. Another program rejected me because eventually I'll find a job (or something like that). What if I don't? Do I deserve to die because I don't have healthcare?

I also resent those saying those without healthcare are "lazy". Excuse me, but I've NEVER been lazy. I've always worked since the age of 16. When I was dancing I was also uninsured, but at the time I didn't think healthcare was a big deal. I thought if I got sick I'd go to the emergency room. I realize now it's very serious.

Hopefully, I'll get a real job (or go back to some form of modeling/dancing where I can pay my insurance). What about others like me?

flickad
10-15-2008, 12:43 AM
Okay, I will.




Those quotes all referred to a person's opinions rather than the person themselves.

Eric Stoner
10-15-2008, 08:09 AM
Well, here's the reason. All private schools are NOT better. Some elite schools certainly have superior students, but they are very picky about whom they admit. Your ghetto kid with a voucher is not going to get into one of these.

Regular good public schools APPEAR to be better because they have a higher percentage of affluent families and a higher percentage of involved parents. A real comparable study has been done where students in public schools were compared with students of the same ethnicity, language level, and affluence in private schools. Guess what? The apparent superiority of private schools vanished. A person's family is a far greater influence on their educational achievement than their school.

Next: Lots of private schools and home schools choose to NOT take state and national tests and be compared with public schools. This is their right. But this means that nobody knows how well the students in those schools are doing. There is a local private school run by a particular religion I will not name. It has eighty students and three unlicensed teachers. The students and parents are overjoyed with their school because they are can teach their religious doctrine during the school day. This is their right, but I do not wish to pay for it with my tax dollars via a voucher.

Next: Private schools are not distributed equally over the USA. For instance, in Utah, the highest level of poverty is in San Juan County where many native Americans live. There is one and only one private school in the county. It has fifteen students in grades K through 2, one unlicensed teacher, zero tuition, and is sponsored by a different particular religion I will not name. Give all the poor students in San Juan County vouchers, and where are they going to go to school?

Next: There ARE "good" private schools in the urban and suburban areas, the ones that have licensed teachers and are willing to give recognized tests to their students and publish the scores. But these all have waiting lists already. Give a bunch of students vouchers, and they will go on the waiting lists. There would have to be new construction to accommodate them, and then new teachers would have to be hired. Since private schools pay a salary slightly more than half what a teacher would earn in the public schools, only two types of teachers would be attracted: those with a missionary zeal to teach in a private school, and those not good enough to teach in a public school. There is already a teacher shortage. Where would the extra teachers come from?

Sorry, Eric, but Utah is the most conservative state in the country, and last year we citizens defeated vouchers in a referendum 60 percent to forty percent in spite of a mutlimillion dollar ad campaign by the pro voucher camp. The NEA is against vouchers because vouchers are poor use of public money in funding education.

Utah has horrible private schools and most parents would not send their children to one except to get religious indoctrination. However in NYC; Chicago; Cleveland; Milwaukee; Miami and Washington D.C. there are plenty of private schools ( both religious and secular) that do a much better job of educating children at a fraction of the cost of public schools. Yes, they have waiting lists BUT increased demand will result in increased supply of such schools and expansion of existing ones. In New York and New Jersey, private schools have to meet minimal standards although teacher licensure is generally bullshit. All it means is that the teacher could regurgitate the nonsense they were "taught" sic. at a School of Education sic.

The NEA gets apoplectic over vouchers because everywhere a serious voucher program is tried, the private schools kick ass compared to the public schools. The public schools are exposed as cesspools of sinecure and incompetence. If the NEA and its members were remotely confident in their pedagogical superiority; they ought to welcome the competition instead of treating it like the plague.


Are there "bad" private schools ? Yes but they're bad at a fraction of the cost of bad public schools. Parents should at least be able to choose the least bad alternative.