Universal care

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

My univ tuition rose 20% during 8 years of Clinton, 100% during Bush.

Mine rose 100% during Bush/Clinton.

For UC, the state financial picture and governor matters a great deal more than the federal picture. For private schools, it's a different set of factors.

So you won't seperate the increase as I have....OK, not surprised.

What % rose under Clinton, what % under Bush for you, or are you not interested in the truth?

that was a long time ago. I recall the start and end points. My best recollection is that the increases were backloaded, which would be during the Clinton years, but I've already tried to explain to you that this is more about California. In the latter 90s fees were held steady after the 100% gain during my period, largely because the state enjoyed substantial growth during the tech boom, and it was done dealing with the decline in military spending in the state which plagued it in the late 80s and early 90s.

That's your recolection based upon what you interperet as what probably happened. I can cite university data, can you? What univ did you attend?

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

What took the brilliance so long to emerge? So then Canada is Communist? PURE FUCKING BRILLIANCE!!!! With us or against us, never got a job from a poor guy, better there than here..... any more brilliance you can post to enlighten us all?

All I did was list the definitions of your buzzwords. Not my fault it pissed you off. Redistribution of wealth is the basis of communism. Canada is not communist. Thanks for the update. We'll go over the definition again.

often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

Quote

What privatized med care does is to empower corporations, businesses. What socialization, universality of care does is to empower the person.... Republicans = fascists.

So empowering businesses, that employ citizens, is bad. Turning over health care to the government empowers the people.

Copy. Glad you cleared up the pure fucking brilliance.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

that was a long time ago. I recall the start and end points. My best recollection is that the increases were backloaded, which would be during the Clinton years, but I've already tried to explain to you that this is more about California. In the latter 90s fees were held steady after the 100% gain during my period, largely because the state enjoyed substantial growth during the tech boom, and it was done dealing with the decline in military spending in the state which plagued it in the late 80s and early 90s.

That's your recolection based upon what you interperet as what probably happened. I can cite university data, can you? What univ did you attend?

feel free, I couldn't find a history for it in the time I felt it warranted. Berkeley.

Note that it currently estimates annual costs at $26,000, tuition being about 8k of that.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

What took the brilliance so long to emerge? So then Canada is Communist? PURE FUCKING BRILLIANCE!!!! With us or against us, never got a job from a poor guy, better there than here..... any more brilliance you can post to enlighten us all?

All I did was list the definitions of your buzzwords. Not my fault it pissed you off. Redistribution of wealth is the basis of communism. Canada is not communist. Thanks for the update. We'll go over the definition again.

often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

Quote

What privatized med care does is to empower corporations, businesses. What socialization, universality of care does is to empower the person.... Republicans = fascists.

So empowering businesses, that employ citizens, is bad. Turning over health care to the government empowers the people.

Copy. Glad you cleared up the pure fucking brilliance.

How about a full citation with source, not half of some home-baked pos?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All I did was list the definitions of your buzzwords. Not my fault it pissed you off.

Not a buzzword, must piss you off with your response.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Redistribution of wealth is the basis of communism. Canada is not communist.

But they have wealth redistribution via social svs, esp uni care, so using your logic of wealth redistribution, Canada has to be Communist.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So empowering businesses, that employ citizens, is bad.


And that's the circular argument, trickle down (supply side) vs welfare. Show me in history where supply side has sustained viability? Supply side got us into the Great Depression, welfare got us out. Reaganomics/fascism preceded the 91 recession, Clinton welfare and taxation for the rich got us out. Altho your idea sounds better, don't give anything to poor people, when we test it it fails horribly. Reason is that corporations are smart and will hold teh capital until they are ready, poor people spend it immediately and thus spurring the economy.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Turning over health care to the government empowers the people. Copy. Glad you cleared up the pure fucking brilliance.


Yes, succeed or fail, the prople have medical care. Of course I don't expect a conservative like you to care about people. Hell, it took forever to get the child medical bill passed, that takes care of up to 7 year olds I think.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

that was a long time ago. I recall the start and end points. My best recollection is that the increases were backloaded, which would be during the Clinton years, but I've already tried to explain to you that this is more about California. In the latter 90s fees were held steady after the 100% gain during my period, largely because the state enjoyed substantial growth during the tech boom, and it was done dealing with the decline in military spending in the state which plagued it in the late 80s and early 90s.

That's your recolection based upon what you interperet as what probably happened. I can cite university data, can you? What univ did you attend?

feel free, I couldn't find a history for it in the time I felt it warranted. Berkeley.

Note that it currently estimates annual costs at $26,000, tuition being about 8k of that.

Time warranted = you don't need to research anything, just take your word for it.

http://wpcarey.asu.edu/seidman/reports/tuition.pdf

I couldn't find the exact site I was looking for, but I did find this above. Look at page 6, it illustrates a slight falling of tuition costs national at the end of the Clinton era, then a rapid rise as your boy took office. Inferrential? Sure.


http://media.www.dailytarheel.com/media/storage/paper885/news/2005/10/12/StateNational/Arizona.Universities.Live.With.Sharp.Tuition.Increases-1366845.shtml


A USA Today survey reported a 74.1 percent increase in tuition at the University of Arizona since 2002-03 and a 70.4 percent increase during the same span at Arizona State University.


Still not the site I was looking for, but it illustrates what I was talking about.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

OK, so that is so in some ways. I have recently spoken with Canadian citizens and they don't differ from that a lot, but they do like having it there. Emergency care is great, but referals do take time. As compared to zero, nothing? Come on.

Insurance you can't use because you die waiting is no deal at any cost.

Quote

A woman who had complained to her GP of severe headaches for almost a year collapsed and died of an undiagnosed brain tumour.

Jennifer Bell, 22, had been told she was suffering from stress but after months of illness had finally been referred to a neurologist.

She then faced a 13-week wait before a 'relatively urgent' MRI scan could be carried out.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23407657-details/Girl+dies+of+brain+tumour+after+doctor+tells+her+'headaches+are+caused+by+stress'/article.do

Quote

Canadian Medicine is Sick: MRI? Go to the Back of the 4 Mo. Line in Ontario, Even With Brain Tumor

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/09/canadian-medicine-is-sick.html

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Canadian Medicine is Sick

Theoretically Canada's public healthcare system is great. But Canada's Healthcare system has been broken for well over a decade now. Part of the problem is the system is wasteful and part of the problem is because the US is a "for profit" healthcare system and many of Canada's healthcare professionals tend to seek greener pastures south of the border (meaning many of our doctors and nurses have left the country).

Canada as a state (not the people) would be better off as a communist country versus the Liberal nanny state that exists now. At least under communism the government would get people to work for the betterment of the country. Under Canada's current liberal socialist ideals, the incentive to work does not exist for many and we are taxed to death by a system that delivers poor services. Yes in theory Canada has many great ideals, but in practice? Aiekarumba. Don't get me wrong I would much prefer the free markets for most industries versus communism. But I am in the minority here in Canada. Far too many lemmings in Canada are 100% reliant on their government masters to guide them through life from the craddle to the grave. Plus on top of that now we have a politician who is saying he can control Mother Nature by raising taxes when in reality it is nothing more than a scheme to steal money from the one bright spot on the Canadian economy to feed the socialist engine in the big inner cities.

No America, do not follow Canada's lead in regards to our healthcare system (it is broken, very very very broken). With the exception of ice hockey, beer and igloos we don't know what we are doing and are totally dependent on our nanny state government masters to wipe our rear ends every day of our lives.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

http://wpcarey.asu.edu/seidman/reports/tuition.pdf

I couldn't find the exact site I was looking for, but I did find this above. Look at page 6, it illustrates a slight falling of tuition costs national at the end of the Clinton era, then a rapid rise as your boy took office. Inferrential? Sure.

LOL- you promised to 'correct' my memory on Berkeley in the 90s, and your proof is ASU (the academic joke of the Pac10) a decade later?

Fucking weak, even for you.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Dude, what an awesome post.

*applause*


Totally freakin' awesome.

And they say Republicans are lock-stepped..... I won't hear of it

People can't agree with each other, or admire the way a point was made, without being "in lock-step."

I see...

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

http://wpcarey.asu.edu/seidman/reports/tuition.pdf

I couldn't find the exact site I was looking for, but I did find this above. Look at page 6, it illustrates a slight falling of tuition costs national at the end of the Clinton era, then a rapid rise as your boy took office. Inferrential? Sure.

LOL- you promised to 'correct' my memory on Berkeley in the 90s, and your proof is ASU (the academic joke of the Pac10) a decade later?

Fucking weak, even for you.

Well, he pushed you to the point of using profanity. That's something, anyway.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

I think you're just shooting off buzzwords to try and make your argument sound reasonable. Universal health care run by the government is fascist, socialist, marxist, and communist.

Well, if it doesn't work out, they can always starve a few million people like Stalin did in the Ukraine, and be done with the problem. Besides, they get to write the history, anyway.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Insurance you can't use because you die waiting is no deal at any cost.


Emergency operations are done immediately per my Canadian friend, the MRI's might take months. Nice try to build this picture where stroke victims die on the doorstep.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Canadian Medicine is Sick: MRI? Go to the Back of the 4 Mo. Line in Ontario, Even With Brain Tumor



http://members.aol.com/aleong1631/rainmake.html

The Rainmaker..... true story, HMO refuses to pay an insured clients bill, client dies.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

http://wpcarey.asu.edu/seidman/reports/tuition.pdf

I couldn't find the exact site I was looking for, but I did find this above. Look at page 6, it illustrates a slight falling of tuition costs national at the end of the Clinton era, then a rapid rise as your boy took office. Inferrential? Sure.

LOL- you promised to 'correct' my memory on Berkeley in the 90s, and your proof is ASU (the academic joke of the Pac10) a decade later?

Fucking weak, even for you.

Your response is typical for you, basically worthless. Show me where I, "promised" to correct your memory on Berkely. Since proof is a fool's word, I did not use it. A decade later, I showed the 90's and the current as for tuition, that was the argument, under Clinton it barely rose, under your crackhead it doubled. Hell, it went up here 43% in 1 year under your guy.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://wpcarey.asu.edu/seidman/reports/tuition.pdf

I couldn't find the exact site I was looking for, but I did find this above. Look at page 6, it illustrates a slight falling of tuition costs national at the end of the Clinton era, then a rapid rise as your boy took office. Inferrential? Sure.

LOL- you promised to 'correct' my memory on Berkeley in the 90s, and your proof is ASU (the academic joke of the Pac10) a decade later?

Fucking weak, even for you.

Well, he pushed you to the point of using profanity. That's something, anyway.

And you didn't spell check, that's oodles for you. As well, you just refered to lock-stepped, as in you agreeing with him when he is incorrect about his assertions.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Well, he pushed you to the point of using profanity. That's something, anyway.

And you didn't spell check, that's oodles for you. As well, you just refered to lock-stepped, as in you agreeing with him when he is incorrect about his assertions.

What are you talking about?

If you want to talk about spell-check, go look up "referred." You are one "r" short.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well, he pushed you to the point of using profanity. That's something, anyway.

And you didn't spell check, that's oodles for you. As well, you just refered to lock-stepped, as in you agreeing with him when he is incorrect about his assertions.

What are you talking about?

If you want to talk about spell-check, go look up "referred." You are one "r" short.

That's my point, you can't help yourself. I've written several 20-page legal documents and I spend hours checking the sequence and flow, syntax, and grammar. I'll be god damned if I'm going to spend time checking that to a T for a posting board. I saw a few errors in Lawrocket's post today, so what? You and you alone think perfect spelling somehow bodes to better content..... at least when you've lost the argument that is.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

http://wpcarey.asu.edu/seidman/reports/tuition.pdf

I couldn't find the exact site I was looking for, but I did find this above. Look at page 6, it illustrates a slight falling of tuition costs national at the end of the Clinton era, then a rapid rise as your boy took office. Inferrential? Sure.

LOL- you promised to 'correct' my memory on Berkeley in the 90s, and your proof is ASU (the academic joke of the Pac10) a decade later?

Fucking weak, even for you.

\

Here ya go, I found my universities tuition history, you find yours, or is it somehow my duty to "proove" your assertions?

http://www.abor.asu.edu/1_the_regents/reports_factbook/financial/6_tuitionhist.htm

96.9% under your guy in 8 years, 24.5% in 7 years when Clinton was president, the chart only goes back 7 years. So what does that mean? It's inferrential that Bush and the Repub Congress cut funding.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well, he pushed you to the point of using profanity. That's something, anyway.

And you didn't spell check, that's oodles for you. As well, you just refered to lock-stepped, as in you agreeing with him when he is incorrect about his assertions.

What are you talking about?

If you want to talk about spell-check, go look up "referred." You are one "r" short.

That's my point, you can't help yourself. I've written several 20-page legal documents and I spend hours checking the sequence and flow, syntax, and grammar. I'll be god damned if I'm going to spend time checking that to a T for a posting board. I saw a few errors in Lawrocket's post today, so what? You and you alone think perfect spelling somehow bodes to better content..... at least when you've lost the argument that is.

OK, so you attacked me for pointing out your misspelling of "referred"; but what was the INITIAL meaning of what you wrote BEFORE that?!

How are you getting this confused??

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

That's my point, you can't help yourself.

Nor can you help yourself. I have seen you pounce on people for a typo or spelling error but it is clear that you don't apply it to yourself.

You don't try and win people over to see your view but rather try and belittle them and beat them into submission. You are like one of those little yipping fear biting dogs. I have sat back and watched you post for a while now and the sad thing is that even when you have good points to present, the way you present the information takes away from your contribution.

Now you have two choices, you can in typical self proclaimed "nappy-headed ho" fashion shred this post like you do to everyone else or take it for the constructive criticism that it is intended and maybe change the way that you respond to people so that they want to be on your side and will value what you have to offer. The ball is in your court.

Stay safe and be well,
Mike

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well, he pushed you to the point of using profanity. That's something, anyway.

And you didn't spell check, that's oodles for you. As well, you just refered to lock-stepped, as in you agreeing with him when he is incorrect about his assertions.

What are you talking about?

If you want to talk about spell-check, go look up "referred." You are one "r" short.

That's my point, you can't help yourself. I've written several 20-page legal documents and I spend hours checking the sequence and flow, syntax, and grammar. I'll be god damned if I'm going to spend time checking that to a T for a posting board. I saw a few errors in Lawrocket's post today, so what? You and you alone think perfect spelling somehow bodes to better content..... at least when you've lost the argument that is.

OK, so you attacked me for pointing out your misspelling of "referred"; but what was the INITIAL meaning of what you wrote BEFORE that?!

How are you getting this confused??

It's your argument, you make it. My argument was that you constantly refer to spelling mistakes, fat-fingerring, etc. Posting baord posts typically have a few errors, I've seen legal docs and books with errors, which I find inexcusable. But posting boards are brief conversational boards where people don't spend that much time correcting errors..... live chat is obviously worse. The more permanent the document, the more precise the grammar. Try to put a little more effort into your substance, less on occassional grammatical errors.... or don't you look foolish pointing out simple fat-finger errrors. Lawrocket made a few today ina post, so what. He probably has more formalized credit education than both yoiu and me put together, so what if he doesn't spend an extra 10 mins a post making it Jefferey perfect?

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Now you have two choices, you can in typical self proclaimed "nappy-headed ho" fashion shred this post like you do to everyone else or take it for the constructive criticism that it is intended and maybe change the way that you respond to people so that they want to be on your side and will value what you have to offer. The ball is in your court.

Stay safe and be well,
Mike

Oh, come on, Mike -- how can anyone take your view seriously when you form it into such a run-on sentence?!

(you'd better know I'm kidding!)

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

It's your argument, you make it. My argument was that you constantly refer to spelling mistakes, fat-fingerring, etc. Posting baord posts typically have a few errors, I've seen legal docs and books with errors, which I find inexcusable. But posting boards are brief conversational boards where people don't spend that much time correcting errors..... live chat is obviously worse. The more permanent the document, the more precise the grammar. Try to put a little more effort into your substance, less on occassional grammatical errors.... or don't you look foolish pointing out simple fat-finger errrors. Lawrocket made a few today ina post, so what. He probably has more formalized credit education than both yoiu and me put together, so what if he doesn't spend an extra 10 mins a post making it Jefferey perfect?

Would you care to point out where I've been making typo attacks all over the place?

I recall a few sarcastic quips, but they were not originated with me, but instead were retaliations when I saw others pulling that kind of crap. What I mean is, like on Amazon, for example, I "jumped on" her case for attacking someone else's grammar or spelling or something but then in her own (short) post she missed an error of her own. (I'm not talking about proofreading a 20 page legal brief, here, dude. We're talking about maybe three to ten lines of text.)

You seem to be looking to get into it over nothing. I think I'm just gonna leave it alone. You have fun with it; but we are not getting anywhere, so I'll invest my time elsewise.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

That's my point, you can't help yourself.

Nor can you help yourself. I have seen you pounce on people for a typo or spelling error but it is clear that you don't apply it to yourself.

You don't try and win people over to see your view but rather try and belittle them and beat them into submission. You are like one of those little yipping fear biting dogs. I have sat back and watched you post for a while now and the sad thing is that even when you have good points to present, the way you present the information takes away from your contribution.

Now you have two choices, you can in typical self proclaimed "nappy-headed ho" fashion shred this post like you do to everyone else or take it for the constructive criticism that it is intended and maybe change the way that you respond to people so that they want to be on your side and will value what you have to offer. The ball is in your court.

Stay safe and be well,
Mike

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I have seen you pounce on people for a typo or spelling error but it is clear that you don't apply it to yourself.


Where?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You don't try and win people over to see your view but rather try and belittle them and beat them into submission.


Where?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.You are like one of those little yipping fear biting dogs.

And see I look at you as the shy little kid that wished he had the courage.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I have sat back and watched you post for a while now and the sad thing is that even when you have good points to present, the way you present the information takes away from your contribution.


And that's true, but I like to see the ADDers who get distracted by shiney keys.... altho you are right, I do let people off the hook, but they would avoid, misdirect by themselves anyway.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.Now you have two choices, you can in typical self proclaimed "nappy-headed ho" fashion shred this post like you do to everyone else or take it for the constructive criticism that it is intended and maybe change the way that you respond to people so that they want to be on your side and will value what you have to offer. The ball is in your court.


I really don't care what people think or people learn from me. I do learn things from people, esp Bill and a couple others, but when sopmeone is so ideologically closed that they, for example, can't address the obvious likelyhood that we've executed people, they just skirt it in chickenshit fashion, it really doesn't matter what they say or do, it's just for fun .

I could take them more seriously and address them more seriously if they didn't dodge the tough questions, but address them.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Now you have two choices, you can in typical self proclaimed "nappy-headed ho" fashion shred this post like you do to everyone else or take it for the constructive criticism that it is intended and maybe change the way that you respond to people so that they want to be on your side and will value what you have to offer. The ball is in your court.

Stay safe and be well,
Mike

Oh, come on, Mike -- how can anyone take your view seriously when you form it into such a run-on sentence?!

(you'd better know I'm kidding!)

Exactly my point, that's why you're here.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

It's your argument, you make it. My argument was that you constantly refer to spelling mistakes, fat-fingerring, etc. Posting baord posts typically have a few errors, I've seen legal docs and books with errors, which I find inexcusable. But posting boards are brief conversational boards where people don't spend that much time correcting errors..... live chat is obviously worse. The more permanent the document, the more precise the grammar. Try to put a little more effort into your substance, less on occassional grammatical errors.... or don't you look foolish pointing out simple fat-finger errrors. Lawrocket made a few today ina post, so what. He probably has more formalized credit education than both yoiu and me put together, so what if he doesn't spend an extra 10 mins a post making it Jefferey perfect?

Would you care to point out where I've been making typo attacks all over the place?

I recall a few sarcastic quips, but they were not originated with me, but instead were retaliations when I saw others pulling that kind of crap. What I mean is, like on Amazon, for example, I "jumped on" her case for attacking someone else's grammar or spelling or something but then in her own (short) post she missed an error of her own. (I'm not talking about proofreading a 20 page legal brief, here, dude. We're talking about maybe three to ten lines of text.)

You seem to be looking to get into it over nothing. I think I'm just gonna leave it alone. You have fun with it; but we are not getting anywhere, so I'll invest my time elsewise.

You'll run along, cool...... I think it's universally known that you are the one correcting grammar, Amazon pointed it out once, I've pointed it out. It's an escape for you when you're stuck; can't find error in the logic, go after the spelling/grammar.

I could look it up, I can even recall the thread, but what will that do, you simply aren't honest about that stuff.