patth@ccnysci.UUCP (Patt Haring) (05/03/89)
Ported to UseNET from UNITEX Network
201-795-0733
via Rutgers FidoGATEway
*U.S. FAR BEHIND IN HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION, PANEL FINDS
Although Americans spend 50% more on health care, as a percentage of their
economy, than any of the 22 principal industrialized countries, the United
States ranks 20th in infant mortality and in the bottom third with respect to
life expectancy at birth. This was one of the disturbing conclusions of a
bipartisan report by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, the first in
nine years to be approved by all committee members. But the committee singled
out education as ``perhaps the most prominent area where our nation's
shortcomings threaten to impose enormous long-term costs,'' noting that
``approximately 13% of 17-year-old Americans cannot read, write, or count''
and that many are members of a ``widening underclass'' of the homeless and the
very poor who live outside of the mainstream. ``The United States spends more
per student than other industrialized nations,'' according to the report,
``but it is still falling behind. . . in promoting literacy, job skills, and
educational achievement. . . ,'' with a dropout rate for blacks of 40% and
more than 55% for Hispanic students. The decline in college enrollment,
especially among minorities, was described as another cause for concern. A
contributing factor, the committee indicated, may be the finding that while
family income rose 6.4% in the 1980s, the cost of public colleges rose 32% and
of private institutions, 51%, at the same time that government grants to
students declined. The result was a 17% increase in student loans since the
1970s. ``Increased public outlays for education should be viewed as a
necessary and vital investment,'' the report said. Finally, in describing a
sharp increase in poverty, especially among the young, in the past decade, the
committee said that ``the puzzle is that poverty is still so much higher than
in the l970s even though unemployment is significantly lower.'' ``A most
urgent concern,'' the committee concluded, ``is the insulation of the current
generation of underclass children from the dispiriting effects of their
environment.'' THE NEW YORK TIMES April 19, 1989 p.A16.
(Compiled from Newspapers and Medical Journals for IMTS's Healthweek In
Review.)
--- ConfMail V3.31
* Origin: UNITEX --> Toward a United Species (1:107/501)
FAX your news bulletins to UNITEX at: 1-212-787-1726
or send email to:
--
unitex - via FidoNet node 1:107/520
UUCP: ...!rutgers!rubbs!unitex
ARPA: unitex@rubbs.FIDONET.ORG
--
Patt Haring
rutgers!cmcl2!ccnysci!patth
patth@ccnysci.BITNETcramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/04/89)
In article <1843@ccnysci.UUCP#, patth@ccnysci.UUCP (Patt Haring) writes:
#
# Ported to UseNET from UNITEX Network
# 201-795-0733
# via Rutgers FidoGATEway
#
#
# *U.S. FAR BEHIND IN HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION, PANEL FINDS
#
# Although Americans spend 50% more on health care, as a percentage of their
# economy, than any of the 22 principal industrialized countries, the United
# States ranks 20th in infant mortality and in the bottom third with respect to
That the infant mortality statistics are comparing apples and oranges
has been long known. Doesn't anyone ever bother to check these things?
# life expectancy at birth. This was one of the disturbing conclusions of a
# bipartisan report by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, the first in
# nine years to be approved by all committee members. But the committee singled
# out education as ``perhaps the most prominent area where our nation's
# shortcomings threaten to impose enormous long-term costs,'' noting that
# ``approximately 13% of 17-year-old Americans cannot read, write, or count''
# and that many are members of a ``widening underclass'' of the homeless and the
# very poor who live outside of the mainstream. ``The United States spends more
# per student than other industrialized nations,'' according to the report,
# ``but it is still falling behind. . . in promoting literacy, job skills, and
# educational achievement. . . ,'' with a dropout rate for blacks of 40% and
Does this suggest to you that MORE money is needed? Or a better
educational system? If we doubled the spending, would we also
double the illiteracy rate? California schools have been IMPROVING
since funding declined in the late 1970s. Money isn't the answer --
it may even be the problem.
# more than 55% for Hispanic students. The decline in college enrollment,
# especially among minorities, was described as another cause for concern. A
# contributing factor, the committee indicated, may be the finding that while
# family income rose 6.4% in the 1980s, the cost of public colleges rose 32% and
# of private institutions, 51%, at the same time that government grants to
# students declined. The result was a 17% increase in student loans since the
# 1970s. ``Increased public outlays for education should be viewed as a
# necessary and vital investment,'' the report said. Finally, in describing a
Absolutely. If students can't justify borrowing money to pay for their
education, why should the rest of us?
# sharp increase in poverty, especially among the young, in the past decade, the
# committee said that ``the puzzle is that poverty is still so much higher than
# in the l970s even though unemployment is significantly lower.'' ``A most
The word is LAZINESS.
# urgent concern,'' the committee concluded, ``is the insulation of the current
# generation of underclass children from the dispiriting effects of their
# environment.'' THE NEW YORK TIMES April 19, 1989 p.A16.
# (Compiled from Newspapers and Medical Journals for IMTS's Healthweek In
# Review.)
#
# Patt Haring
As the noted social reformer Jacob Riis observed at the turn of the
century, "Some people bring their slums with them."
--
Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
Governments that don't trust most people with weapons, deserve no trust.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!mathon@tekbspa.UUCP (John D. Mathon ) (05/04/89)
In article <1843@ccnysci.UUCP>, patth@ccnysci.UUCP (Patt Haring) writes: > But the committee singled > out education as ``perhaps the most prominent area where our nation's > shortcomings threaten to impose enormous long-term costs,'' noting that > ``approximately 13% of 17-year-old Americans cannot read, write, or count'' > and that many are members of a ``widening underclass'' of the homeless and the > very poor who live outside of the mainstream. ``The United States spends more > per student than other industrialized nations,'' according to the report, > ``but it is still falling behind. . . in promoting literacy, job skills, and > educational achievement. . . ,'' with a dropout rate for blacks of 40% and > more than 55% for Hispanic students. I find it amazing that you point out that we are already spending more money than anyone else and yet the committee seems to think more money is the answer. If anything is clear, MORE MONEY IS NOT THE ANSWER! The real answer is to more effectively use the money we already spend. We already spend more money than everyone else. More money is not the answer. What could be more obvious? A good analogy would be: saying that we already spend more money for each foot of steel, and we make vastly inferior steel. So we need to spend MORE money on each foot of steel. All we will have is very expensive steel that nobody will buy since we haven't addressed the issue of why our steel is low quality in the first place and now it will cost even more. How stupid. Let's stop talking about money and start talking solutions.
carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) (05/05/89)
In article <1303@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >In article <1843@ccnysci.UUCP#, patth@ccnysci.UUCP (Patt Haring) writes: > >#sharp increase in poverty, especially among the young, in the past decade, the >#committee said that ``the puzzle is that poverty is still so much higher than >#in the l970s even though unemployment is significantly lower.'' ``A most > >The word is LAZINESS. Maybe you oughtta take a look at the definition of unemployment. Those who have given up registering @ the unemployment office are no longer counted. You oughtta look at the difference between percents and aggregate sums. You oughtta look at people who want to work but lose their welfare/WIC if they do, not to mention who can't get subsidized daycare. This is already a flame. I knew I should have ignored this dopey poster. > >As the noted social reformer Jacob Riis observed at the turn of the >century, "Some people bring their slums with them." Uh=huh. >Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer >Governments that don't trust most people with weapons, deserve no trust. This .sig sentence is truly disgusting. -- Alix' Dad ( Carl Witthoft @ Adaptive Optics Associates) " Axis-navigo, ergo sum." {harvard,ima}!bbn!aoa!carl 54 CambridgePark Drive, Cambridge,MA 02140 617-864-0201 "disclaimer? I'm not a doctor, but I do have a Master's Degree in Science!"
sears@tove.umd.edu (Andrew Sears) (05/06/89)
In article <784@aoa.UUCP> carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) writes: >In article <1303@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >Maybe you oughtta take a look at the definition of unemployment. Those who >have given up registering @ the unemployment office are no longer counted. >"disclaimer? I'm not a doctor, but I do have a Master's Degree in Science!" I think you may have the wrong definition too. As far as I've heard, from Economics classes and text books, this is not the case. There is supposed to be some government agency that actually calls people to gather this information. They ask questions like a) Are you currently working? If you answer no to the first question (actually they ask about working at least X hours a week), then they ask you b) Have you looked for work in the last N weeks? If you answer no to the first, and yes to the second then you are unemployed (and trying to work). If you answer no to the first and no to the second, then you are considered a 'discouraged' worker, or something like that. They are supposed to do this every so often with a 'representative' sample, and extrapolate to the actual numbers. Andy ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Sears sears@tove.umd.edu Human-Computer Interaction Laboratory {...}!mimsy!tove.umd.edu!sears University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/07/89)
In article <784@aoa.UUCP#, carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) writes: # In article <1303@optilink.UUCP# cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: # #In article <1843@ccnysci.UUCP#, patth@ccnysci.UUCP (Patt Haring) writes: # # # ##sharp increase in poverty, especially among the young, in the past decade, the # ##committee said that ``the puzzle is that poverty is still so much higher than # ##in the l970s even though unemployment is significantly lower.'' ``A most # # # #The word is LAZINESS. # Maybe you oughtta take a look at the definition of unemployment. Those who # have given up registering @ the unemployment office are no longer counted. # You oughtta look at the difference between percents and aggregate sums. You ought to look at how many jobs are going begging at $6/hour. # You oughtta look at people who want to work but lose their welfare/WIC # if they do, not to mention who can't get subsidized daycare. You ought to look at how many fathers refuse to provide child care because it interferes with more important activities -- like the pursuit of drugs. # This is already a flame. I knew I should have ignored this dopey poster. # # # #As the noted social reformer Jacob Riis observed at the turn of the # #century, "Some people bring their slums with them." # # Uh=huh. Someone obviously has only a very remote connection to poverty. No one is so poor that they can't pick up their front yard. # #Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer # #Governments that don't trust most people with weapons, deserve no trust. # This .sig sentence is truly disgusting. Of course it's disgusting. It's a reminder that the people and the liberal/fascist government are light-years apart. # Alix' Dad ( Carl Witthoft @ Adaptive Optics Associates) -- Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer Governments that don't trust most people with weapons, deserve no trust. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!
denbeste@bbn.com (Steven Den Beste) (05/07/89)
In article <17323@mimsy.UUCP>, sears@tove.umd.edu (Andrew Sears) writes: > I think you may have the wrong definition too. As far as I've heard, from > Economics classes and text books, this is not the case. There is supposed to > be some government agency that actually calls people to gather this information. > They ask questions like a) Are you currently working? If you answer no to the > first question (actually they ask about working at least X hours a week), then > they ask you b) Have you looked for work in the last N weeks? If you answer > no to the first, and yes to the second then you are unemployed (and trying to > work). If you answer no to the first and no to the second, then you are considered > a 'discouraged' worker, or something like that. They are supposed to do this every > so often with a 'representative' sample, and extrapolate to the actual numbers. About 10 years ag I was part of this. A lady called and asked if our house-hold would like to be part of this study, and we said we would. She showed up and spent quite a while asking us census-type questions. Then every month or so, for 6 months, she called to ask if we were still working, and we both always were. (Rather boring, I guess.) She said that participants always are in for 6 months. (Not like the Nielsen families...)
trish@brillig.umd.edu (Tricia Jones) (05/08/89)
In article <17323@mimsy.UUCP> sears@tove.umd.edu.UUCP (Andrew Sears) writes: >In article <784@aoa.UUCP> carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) writes: >>In article <1303@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >>Maybe you oughtta take a look at the definition of unemployment. Those who >>have given up registering @ the unemployment office are no longer counted. > >I think you may have the wrong definition too. As far as I've heard, from >Economics classes and text books, this is not the case. There is supposed to >be some government agency that actually calls people to gather this information >They ask questions like a) Are you currently working? If you answer no to the >first question (actually they ask about working at least X hours a week), then >they ask you b) Have you looked for work in the last N weeks? > ... > They are supposed to do this every >so often with a 'representative' sample, and extrapolate to the actual numbers. > The government agency in question is the Census Bureau. How do I know? We were part of the statistics at the beginning of the year! Actually, everyone in our stairwell was (same street address). I'm sure they use standard random sampling techniques. The first time you are included, they send out a census worker to your humble home, who sits on your couch and asks you lots of fun questions. After that, they call you on the phone. We were called for 3 or 4 months; we will also be used as data sometime next year. They had a hard time figuring out which slot to put me in : I'm on a fellowship, so I get money, but I'm not required to "produce output", like a regular teaching assistant or research assistant is. (My husband asked the woman who interviewed us if there was a category for free-loaders.) Tricia Jones +----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Tricia Jones | For all I know, these might not even | | University of Maryland | be MY opinions... (my fingers have | | Department of Computer Science | a mind of their own sometimes!) | +----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+