C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
Of course you canSo how come they call ya the putergeek?? Does this mean I can send ya PMs to find out why my puter is running slooooooow nowdays?
Of course you canSo how come they call ya the putergeek?? Does this mean I can send ya PMs to find out why my puter is running slooooooow nowdays?
Actually home schooling / tutoring and HSAs/MSAs are some examples of what is available within the means of most folks. BUT, the Feds and the state gummints have all sorts of rules restricting those kinds of alternatives.Medical treatment and private education are outside of the means of a lot of people. Hence the desire to have the government tax business and wealthier citizens to provide those services. Right or wrong, it’s as simple as that.
Comparing food and shelter with healthcare is stupid. Most people can earn enough to afford food and shelter, However many have a hard time affording insurance, and certainly many could not privately educate several children.
I’m with you there buddy. I think we need freedom to choose, and only have the right kind of regulation (i.e. ensure that drug companies can’t sell me “snake oil”)Actually home schooling / tutoring and HSAs/MSAs are some examples of what is available within the means of most folks. BUT, the Feds and the state gummints have all sorts of rules restricting those kinds of alternatives.
Government regulations and frivolous lawsuits are driving many doctors out of practice and/or out of some locations.
The private sector WANTS to provide alternatives, but they are essentially forbidden from doing so.
Essentially, the government has caused alternative approaches to fail … and then said, “See, the alternative approaches don’t work.”
Not sure what the right word is for the government’s role in this restricting of people’s choices … not sure … sophistry? hypocrisy? something nasty and pejorative … something like that. But the government’s role in hurting people is pretty well established and the negative reputation of the government for hurting ordinary people is well deserved.
What the people need is the freedom to try alternative approaches.
Which government agency is going to be in charge of writing the definition of “snake oil”?I’m with you there buddy. I think we need freedom to choose, and only have the right kind of regulation (i.e. ensure that drug companies can’t sell me “snake oil”)
Which government agency is going to be in charge of writing the definition of “snake oil”?
Could also be HCFA … known as hic-fa
That’s a good question though. In theory, I’m guessing it would be the FDA.
However, we all know how effective government agencies can be.
And the citizenry will be the ones with egg salad smeared in their hair.Could also be HCFA … known as hic-fa
Maybe an inter-agency food fight!
What the private sector wants is as much profit as possible. The only thing limiting prices is competition. ‘Alternative practices’? How can an parent teach their children chemistry (for eg.) when they a) have a limited knowledge of the subject, cannot teach their child anything b) cannot afford the textbooks and other resources c) no hands on experiments. It seems like homeschooled children are already the bright kind that have a well educated parent (stay at home mum) with plenty of time to spare, ie not applicable to a lot of people..
The private sector WANTS to provide alternatives, but they are essentially forbidden from doing so.
.
Actually, it’s not much of a trick to design proven courses that basically only require the parent or teacher to provide motivation and discipline. I developed Computer-aided instruction in many fields, and there are some outstanding examples commercially available – the Rosetta Stone ™ series of computer-aided language courses are a good example of what can be done.What the private sector wants is as much profit as possible. The only thing limiting prices is competition. ‘Alternative practices’? How can an parent teach their children chemistry (for eg.) when they a) have a limited knowledge of the subject, cannot teach their child anything b) cannot afford the textbooks and other resources c) no hands on experiments. It seems like homeschooled children are already the bright kind that have a well educated parent (stay at home mum) with plenty of time to spare, ie not applicable to a lot of people.
So having a teacher around who has a comprehensive knowledge of the subject is actually irrelevant.Actually, it’s not much of a trick to design proven courses that basically only require the parent or teacher to provide motivation and discipline. I developed Computer-aided instruction in many fields, and there are some outstanding examples commercially available – the Rosetta Stone ™ series of computer-aided language courses are a good example of what can be done.
It’s a disgrace that we don’t have a comprehensive, national system. But of course, the teachers’ union vigorously opposes it.![]()
First, go here and read this brief section:What the private sector wants is as much profit as possible. The only thing limiting prices is competition. ‘Alternative practices’? How can an parent teach their children chemistry (for eg.) when they a) have a limited knowledge of the subject, cannot teach their child anything b) cannot afford the textbooks and other resources c) no hands on experiments. It seems like homeschooled children are already the bright kind that have a well educated parent (stay at home mum) with plenty of time to spare, ie not applicable to a lot of people.
First of all, public school teachers rarely have " a comprehensive knowledge of the subject." The teacher of physics is not really a rocket scientist. The teacher of health is not really a physician.So having a teacher around who has a comprehensive knowledge of the subject is actually irrelevant.
I sincerely hope you weren’t a teacher of English!thid infor about the teachers union opposing it is not NOT NOT true. asnd the information about their supposrt has been so pervasicver it is difficult to believe the writed hasnt seen it somewhere. that wopuld catagorized his response. i was a teacher for 33 years and i do rally know. the only other possibility is that i have been out of teaching for 15 years and perhaps thwey have changed their mind. if so please let me know youe sources.
And actually Canada ranked last for the longest wait to see a doctor. And arguing that there is a smaller pool to draw resources from is ridiculous because there should be less people who are also looking for hearts given the smaller population. unless they are the most unlucky people on the planet and have a disproprtionately unhealthy population.I think you have been listening to too much right wing talk radio. The problem with heart transplants is donors. Canada is a much smaller total population pool:
cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=media_22sep2004_e
Desite our bigger pool, our aging population makes the disparity in rates pretty small:
americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4588
There are undoubtedly waits for elective procedures, like hip transplants, but, again, it is a tiny population spending a fraction of what we spend, for better measurable outcome (access to care, approppriateness of care, longevity, etc.)
As much as I appreciate the chant “U S A” at the Olympics, there is nothing to back this up. The WHO ranks us 36th, essentially dead last among industrialized nations. The only thing we rank #1 in is expenditures.
Something that never seems to get mentioned on right wing outlets is that we are there, and have been so for decades. Medicare is single payer universal coverage, and basically props up the entire US medical system by taking on the most expensive segment of the population to care for. And it consistantly outperforms the private sector in cost of care and administrative overhead.
Health care is experiencing 10-18% annual inflation. That is unsustainable and a serious impediment to global competitiveness. We already ration care more aggressively than virtually any other industrialized nation, all while spending significantly more of our GDP.
No sale. Business needs to compromise a high commodity price with availability to a large enough market yes, but that is also about reducing the chance of being undercut and losing the market altogethor (as you stated). Not about fairness to the consumer.The notion described above: “What the private sector wants is as much profit as possible. The only thing limiting prices is competition.” presents a false negative.
Many companies deliberately keep their prices reasonable to attract the largest market possible. Not due to competition.
And very often due to altruism.
The private sector excels at providing exactly the desired service or product wanted by the public and at the price they want to pay. And they MUST do it or else go out of business … from lack of volume owing to someone else providing the product or service that they failed to provide.
That is the ESSENCE of free markets.
And it works.
to teach the sciences in the last 2 years of secondary school, teachers need a masters degree in the subject (where I’m from)First of all, public school teachers rarely have " a comprehensive knowledge of the subject." The teacher of physics is not really a rocket scientist. The teacher of health is not really a physician.
and if a student gets stuck, has trouble understanding something?Second, in CAI (Computer Assisted Instruction) the teacher really is someone with “a comprehensive knowledge of the subject” – you hire real scientists, physicians, mathematicians, native speakers, and so on as your Subject Matter Experts (SMEs.)
Third, in the development process you prove the lesson teaches. You have a standard going in, and the lesson is not released until you demonstrate bringing a stratified sample of the target audience to the standard.
Curiosity… I have normal questions anyone would ask…Now, I have two graduate degrees in Education and many years in this field. What are your credentials?