As to Paul, he isn't crazy on this point. You allow students to take on more debt and colleges will raise tuition because they can. It's really that simple.
Government gives people access to loan money, colleges then raise tuition because they can, and the cycle repeats. Only each time around students carry more debt.
Ron Paul and others like him aren't being mean. They are trying to break the cycle.
If you limit the student loans, the colleges feel the pressure and can't pass along the costs because they can't bear the costs. If they can't pass along costs, they have to tackle those problems.
The government helps students take on loans -> colleges increase tuition because students can afford more thanks to the loans -> there is societal and economic pressure to help people go to college -> the government helps students take on loans...
The three sectors that increased much faster than inflation (housing, health care, higher ed) all have their cost subsidized by government. Is this a coincidence?
Intelligent Design basically looks at things and gives a positive answer to teleology. Darwinism looks at things and gives a negative answer.
If Intelligent Design isn't science, neither is Darwinism because they are just the opposing sides of the same question.
Frankly, many Intelligent Design proponents believe in evolution and common descent, which won't be considered. As another posted, I doubt very seriously Intelligent Design will be accurately represented.
I forgot where Heritage commented on their past support of the idea, but so what?
There's two things we need to take note of.
1) Do we see the individual mandate bringing down costs in MA? No, we don't. It increases coverage, but it doesn't lower costs. We didn't know that then.
2) It is unconstitutional to do at the federal level. Feel free to do it at the state level if you think it is such a great idea.
I always thought the problem with not getting the single payer is that liberals wouldn't realize they were wrong.
The problem is that costs are hidden from those who demand services. So either the government or HMOs or insurance companies have to deny coverage to contain costs. And when HMOs tried to contain costs in the 1990s the public raised hell. They will do the same if the government tries to contain costs in a brute force fashion.
There really are no easy answers like "single payer" or "let everyone fend for themselves."
Medicare pays above the marginal costs but not the average cost, so putting everyone into Medicare wouldn't work without controlling costs. In other words, everyone else subsidizes Medicare.
It's like the jerk driver who cuts in front of everybody at the last second waiting for an exit. If everyone engaged in that behavior, it wouldn't work.
Not only does Congress not have the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate inactivity, but I have the freedom of associate. If I don't want to buy something from any private entity, I still retain that right.
Slashdot Mirror
Mind of God
Kudos to you.
As to Paul, he isn't crazy on this point. You allow students to take on more debt and colleges will raise tuition because they can. It's really that simple.
Government gives people access to loan money, colleges then raise tuition because they can, and the cycle repeats. Only each time around students carry more debt.
Ron Paul and others like him aren't being mean. They are trying to break the cycle.
Still going with the math is discovered camp. It's part of nature, in a sense.
There's capitalism and then there is "crony capitalism" where governments tilt the playing field. There's a huge difference between the two.
Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.
If you limit the student loans, the colleges feel the pressure and can't pass along the costs because they can't bear the costs. If they can't pass along costs, they have to tackle those problems.
They could cut. But they don't need to because student loans enable them.
I didn't say it was wrong. It's the unintended consequences of their actions.
The government helps students take on loans -> colleges increase tuition because students can afford more thanks to the loans -> there is societal and economic pressure to help people go to college -> the government helps students take on loans ...
The three sectors that increased much faster than inflation (housing, health care, higher ed) all have their cost subsidized by government. Is this a coincidence?
And this is the relative size of the higher education bubble: http://www.di.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/tuition-housing-cpi1.jpg
I would think their brand of their religion, given that it is a theocracy, has a good bit of bearing on their conditions.
Then Darwinism in respect to teleology isn't falsifiable either.
I don't mean to be callous at a man's death, but that's the first thing that came to mind.
Intelligent Design basically looks at things and gives a positive answer to teleology. Darwinism looks at things and gives a negative answer.
If Intelligent Design isn't science, neither is Darwinism because they are just the opposing sides of the same question.
Frankly, many Intelligent Design proponents believe in evolution and common descent, which won't be considered. As another posted, I doubt very seriously Intelligent Design will be accurately represented.
Open standards are more important anyway. It helps you avoid lock-in and it provides an environment in which open source can do well.
You are correct.
Yes, but I don't suspect that Firefox funnels detailed usage data over to Google.
Through Firefox... see it's still fast. Unless someone got here first. Then it was through IE.
That's fine. But that doesn't seem to be the same as saying logic itself is broken.
I forgot where Heritage commented on their past support of the idea, but so what?
There's two things we need to take note of.
1) Do we see the individual mandate bringing down costs in MA? No, we don't. It increases coverage, but it doesn't lower costs. We didn't know that then.
2) It is unconstitutional to do at the federal level. Feel free to do it at the state level if you think it is such a great idea.
I always thought the problem with not getting the single payer is that liberals wouldn't realize they were wrong.
The problem is that costs are hidden from those who demand services. So either the government or HMOs or insurance companies have to deny coverage to contain costs. And when HMOs tried to contain costs in the 1990s the public raised hell. They will do the same if the government tries to contain costs in a brute force fashion.
There really are no easy answers like "single payer" or "let everyone fend for themselves."
Medicare pays above the marginal costs but not the average cost, so putting everyone into Medicare wouldn't work without controlling costs. In other words, everyone else subsidizes Medicare.
It's like the jerk driver who cuts in front of everybody at the last second waiting for an exit. If everyone engaged in that behavior, it wouldn't work.
The 21st amendment and 10th amendment gives states the leeway to do what they will with alcohol. It isn't a federal matter.
Not only does Congress not have the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate inactivity, but I have the freedom of associate. If I don't want to buy something from any private entity, I still retain that right.
Could you explain why their profit margins compared to other industries are so low?