Oh, I see. You don't understand the term "ballot initiative". Should have figured.
Confirmed ...vouchers were a handout to wealthy.
- Thread starter MitchLL
- Start date
There no requirement for the general public to use a public hospital. You don’t know what you are talking about or who you are talking to on this subject.
Of course the people supporting it are the ones benefiting. JFC.
Wow you’ve managed to single handedly solve the politics equation. All politicians do things that benefit their donors. It may be a tad unsavory but it’s the way of the world. Vote her out if you don’t like it. Good luck with that. She is well liked no matter if you don’t.
Sorry. Nope.
“Of those students, 16,757 used the state's recently created education savings accounts to pay for their school expenses, the department's news release states” see my DMR reference.
16757 x 7500. This isn’t hard. Well I guess it is for you.
I gave your side the benefit of the math. I included all students that used the funds even if they were already enrolled prior to the law. Since this money was now diverted from the public school funding. If you wanna use 2135x 7500 that makes the decrease in actual dollars from the public school funding even lower. And less consequential.
There are requirements from insurance companies to use an in network hospital vs an out of network hospital. Completely unsurprised that you are ignorant of this fact.
The point is the minority of people supporting this are doing so for selfish reasons. Not because it's the right thing to do. There are many who could benefit from this that see it as wrong.
That will happen, but damage will have been done. Unless she appoints herself to the Senate first. That's the point.
This was touted as a way to allow those poor students in public schools to get a better education in private schools (a sham on it's own merits). There are less than 1% of public school students taking this route, that's almost $60K per transferred student.
46% of the private school population is now being subsidized - and that's with income limits (if you can call them that). That number will increase dramatically while the number of transfers will increase modestly.
All of these monies could be used to improve the education for 480,000 public school students but instead it's going to a very select few who the schools deem worthy. It's an absolute travesty.
They get to decide where to go and where their money should go. Don't have any problem with it.
Who is "they"? If you mean religious institutions then you are correct. If you mean parents, you are wrong.
But it's not just their money. Do you know anyone that pays the equivalent of $7,600 per school age child in Iowa state taxes?
LOL...no they don't. That's complete bullshit. They get to let schools pick and choose. If the school they "choose" says no, they have no "choice".
What now? Buying insurance is a voluntary choice. You always have the option of which insurance to buy. Obamacare, employer provided, open market etc. Those that are of age or cant afford it can choose Medicare or Medicaid. You are really bad at this.
Your example of out of network etc is a concept only present in the private market. So one cannot complain as they have other options to choose from if they do not like being constrained to one health system by their insurance. Not the same.
If you were to be given Medicaid or Medicare that is money that the taxpayers pay for your policy. It does not restrict which hospitals are in network. Providers in offices can refuse to accept Medicare or Medicaid but hospital do not or cannot afford to. No one accept VA patients, are forced into one system by a publically funded, taxpayer paid, health plan. If this were the case, that state or federally funded healthcare payments were restricted to certain hospitals, the public would be apoplectic.
No. I that isn't the reason people aren't taking advantage. They may like their public school, they may not have a close parochial school or they may not like the religious aspect of parochial school. These are all reasons not everyone takes advantage of the program They don't decline to participate because they see it as unfair.
I seriously doubt that any one that currently attends parochial school and qualifies for the funds OR recently decided to enroll in parochial school and qualifies for the funds, has refused to accept them because they don't like the program or its goals.
You quite simply don't like taxpayer money going to parochial schools no matter the reason, no matter who benefits, no matter how this gives everyone choice, no matter that the teachings fit in better with some parents beliefs, no matter how little it affects public schools, and no matter how little it affects you. This is a dogmatic position you have taken because you are a secular progressive. Period.
She will never lose. As long as she choose to desire the governors seat she will win it.
She may choose to take a cabinet position, run for senate or run for something else but if she runs for statewide seat for any office, she wins.
What? Your math sucks. You clearly went to public school. Each student that qualifies and chooses to attend parochial school, gets 7600 towards it. There is no way to get to 60k with any math. Sorry.
Not only is the 60k wrong, as I have stated, the 7600 each student receives to attend parochial school, on a pure cost basis removes that 7600 from the public funding. But....104 M of the potential loses in 2023 were offset by Reynolds by a concomitant increase in public school funding. That 104M nearly pays for the 2023 cost of the program. Sure, this 104M in money comes from public funds but one cannot argue that it removes the entire 127M from school funding for that reason.
I wish I could like this more than once. You could post this in 80% of the threads on here and it would apply.
If wealthy citizens pay the majority of taxes (and they do), then rebating a portion of those taxes to allow those taxpayers to send their children to schools they choose, seems like a rationale, reasonable and fair thing to do. You may not be aware of this, but taxes are not intended to be a redistribution of wealth scheme, they are supposed to pay for needed services.
I was not expecting this legislation to pass. I didn't see a need for it, this is coming from a parent that will benefit from it. I'll be able to participate in an ESA for 6 years. I have only one child. The remaining 36 years of me working can have funds directed to public schools.
At this point, it is what it is. This is the law. As private schools increase tuition well above the $7600 threshold, the ability to take it away could cause other significant issues to the education system. I don't see how this ever goes away.
I've heard that teachers of private schools will receive a pay increases and come close to what public teachers are paid. I assume many on this board would be happy to hear that part of it.
At this point, it is what it is. This is the law. As private schools increase tuition well above the $7600 threshold, the ability to take it away could cause other significant issues to the education system. I don't see how this ever goes away.
I've heard that teachers of private schools will receive a pay increases and come close to what public teachers are paid. I assume many on this board would be happy to hear that part of it.
Man, are we effed when there are people like this guy who believes this shit.
Wow - you do a great job of arguing against your position. You're just too stupid to realize it.
Employers determine the policies offered to their employees which, in turn, determines where someone can go. Those getting their insurance through the ACA have limited offers of insurance companies they can sign up with. You alluded to the limitations those with Medicare, Medicaid and CA insurance have. Those with no insurance are limited as well. You're simply ignorant on this matter.
You undermine your own argument again by acknowledging that people will take this money whether they believe it is fair or not. It's a windfall for them. Many acknowledge that they are getting a handout that they don't need, but they aren't going to refuse it. Likewise, not all who qualify can take advantage of this even if they wanted to. It doesn't give "everyone choice" it gives religious entities the choice of who to accept.
You're God Damned right I don't approve of taxpayer money going to parochial schools. This country was founded on the principles of separation of church and State. I fully support private schools for those who choose to attend them but public funds should not be footing the bill. You support this monstrosity because you're a selfish religious shill.
I'm not when it's grifted off the backs of kids in poverty and special needs kids.
Careful. You don’t know who you’re talking to with good ol’ Gus!
I'll respond one last time. Id support these schools if they were called ACME education corp. If all was the same except the religious angle. So nope. The religion is a added bonus but not the main one.
Now you and I are done. I don't have time for this kinda debate with someone that is bitter and cant post without insult. I've never enjoyed your presence here but I've tried to have an honest debate anyway. Too bad actually.
You're an idiot. I've spelled this out for you a couple of times already. This policy was sold on the promise to provide a "better education" for those students who are suffering in the public school system. There are only 2135 students doing that yet 16,757 students are being subsidized. $7600 * 16,757 = $127,353,200 to fund this in the first year. $127,353,200 divided by the 2135 students this was sold to us as aiding is $59,650 per transferred student. My guess is you still won't get it, but the math doesn't lie.
Also, that $104M you're claiming as an increase to public schools pales in comparison to the $127M Reynolds is giving to the religious schools. It amounts to $215 per public school student vs. $3518 per private school student. Over 15X more into the coffers of private school students than public school students this year. If you need me to walk you through this math I can do that as well.
You and the people who support this are selfish bastards.
Are you saying public schools aren't needed? Are you also saying that only wealthy people should be afforded this rebate?
Why haven't they been paid at market rate prior? Are they all certified? Are they required to meet the same standards as public school teachers?
I'll answer for you. Either because they don't have the qualifications to earn that much or they are willing to take less money. No. No.
No one believes that. If that were the case you would be pushing for charter schools. Instead you support the sham that lines the pockets of your parish.
Your arguments have been shot down time after time. To call it a debate is comical. You're a shill.
So what's your point? I pay for tons of things I don't use through my taxes.
If your product is so good that people want to choose to use it over an option currently available to you at no extra cost, they should pay for it rather than asking big government to give them a hand out. Freaking free loading pieces of shit.
Just for the hell of it, I looked on the CR Xavier website trying to find the listed tuition cost.
They advertise the voucher program and other info.. E$A
Truer words have never been spoken.
They advertise the voucher program and other info.. E$A
Truer words have never been spoken.
They are licensed through the state the same as every other teacher. You should remove yourself from this conversation if you don't have a clue about the basics.
No, I never said either of those things. I said that giving citizens a voucher or money to send their children to the parent's chosen school whether that school be private or public, seems like a good idea. Why should parents and taxpayers at large be required to support schools that don't educate their children?
My point is your previous post was false. It's not their money, it's our money and private schools can still refuse to educate anyone they want. I want my taxes to support equal education for all students. Only one party truly has a choice with the Iowa voucher system and it's not parents/students, it's the individual private schools.
So what is the percentage of private schools not allowing kids to enroll? I'm honestly asking as I don't know.
On the flip side, why would a parent want to send their kid to a school that they know wasn't equipped to handle their child when they already have an option?
You can state this however you would like. The truth is that the vouchers have given parents more choices than they had before, which in the end, has to be a good thing.
All those private school students already have a place that is equipped to educate them, why does the state need to provide them another option?
Private schools aren't required to provide information about how many children they refuse to serve, but if it's 1 or 10,000 the choice remains theirs not the parent/student's.
Parents always had the option to open enroll or send their child to a private school.
So what public school IS equipped to handle the students that public schools are REQUIRED to serve? Students who speak no English. Students with emotional/mental issues. Students with a stuffed folder IEP.
A public school has to serve them. By law. A private school just says, "No. But thanks for considering us".
If a parent wants their child served through a private resource rather than the publicly funded resource, that's fine. Pay for it.
