[Djshakes]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=andymajumder]If teacher salary was based purely on supply and demand, their salaries would be much lower.[/quote]

Exactly how does one quantify “demand” for a teacher?

The demand for any labor skill is ultimately based upon the expected return on investment.

Local company is considering developing a new cell phone. They need 20 engineers to do it. Estimate the manufacturing costs and the expected revenue, etc. and they can estimate how much they can pay the engineers and still make a profit.

The model for just about every job involving engineers is the same:Company makes an investment, in facilities, and labor, and company sees a direct financial return in a few years.

That’s what sets the market price for engineers.

Education has some very unique economic characteristics.

What’s the return on investment for teaching a 6 year-old kid how to read (it’s not zero, but what is it?)

When do we actually see that return?

Who realizes that return? (who benefits? – is it just the kid?)

The economic models for public education and private enterprise are very different.[/quote]

Test results. I am not a huge standardized test fan because I think teachers tend to teach to the test but mathematical and grammar tests don’t lie when looked at on an individual basis.

[Djshakes]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=andymajumder]If teacher salary was based purely on supply and demand, their salaries would be much lower.[/quote]

Exactly how does one quantify “demand” for a teacher?

The demand for any labor skill is ultimately based upon the expected return on investment.

Local company is considering developing a new cell phone. They need 20 engineers to do it. Estimate the manufacturing costs and the expected revenue, etc. and they can estimate how much they can pay the engineers and still make a profit.

The model for just about every job involving engineers is the same:Company makes an investment, in facilities, and labor, and company sees a direct financial return in a few years.

That’s what sets the market price for engineers.

Education has some very unique economic characteristics.

What’s the return on investment for teaching a 6 year-old kid how to read (it’s not zero, but what is it?)

When do we actually see that return?

Who realizes that return? (who benefits? – is it just the kid?)

The economic models for public education and private enterprise are very different.[/quote]

Test results. I am not a huge standardized test fan because I think teachers tend to teach to the test but mathematical and grammar tests don’t lie when looked at on an individual basis.

[Djshakes]

[quote=ninaprincess]I think mid career Engineers get around 100k for the same training, so 80k is not too much for teachers.

From the article, the higher range salaries are much higher than the mid career number. So mid career is not the MAX. “The highest salaries offered range from $91,144 at Fountain Valley Elementary to $111,701 at Laguna Beach.”

1 week spring break
2 weeks winter break
11 weeks summer break[/quote]

If an engineer makes $100k there is no way in hell a teacher should make $80K. Engineering majors fall on the harder end of the education spectrum where teachers fall on the liberal arts easier side of the education spectrum. Period. No way in hell are they even comparable.

This opinion is coming from a licensed education major with 3 years of public high school experience under my belt before I changed career paths. From my experience and interaction with other teachers, you don’t have to be extremely brilliant to be a teacher like the Hollywood movies may portray. I seldom took work home and it wasn’t a difficult career. I was in an elective department and our FTEs were based on enrollment unlike the core courses. So you had to be a good teacher with good courses in order to justify your position. Others in core departments had a lot more job security.

It has been proven time and time again that money dumped into the education system doesn’t produce test results. In fact, doesn’t CA spend more per student than any other state with the worst results?

Also, it is almost impossible to fire a teacher because of the unions. They just shift the bad teachers around to different districts. It is called “the turkey trot”.

[Djshakes]

[quote=ninaprincess]I think mid career Engineers get around 100k for the same training, so 80k is not too much for teachers.

From the article, the higher range salaries are much higher than the mid career number. So mid career is not the MAX. “The highest salaries offered range from $91,144 at Fountain Valley Elementary to $111,701 at Laguna Beach.”

1 week spring break
2 weeks winter break
11 weeks summer break[/quote]

If an engineer makes $100k there is no way in hell a teacher should make $80K. Engineering majors fall on the harder end of the education spectrum where teachers fall on the liberal arts easier side of the education spectrum. Period. No way in hell are they even comparable.

This opinion is coming from a licensed education major with 3 years of public high school experience under my belt before I changed career paths. From my experience and interaction with other teachers, you don’t have to be extremely brilliant to be a teacher like the Hollywood movies may portray. I seldom took work home and it wasn’t a difficult career. I was in an elective department and our FTEs were based on enrollment unlike the core courses. So you had to be a good teacher with good courses in order to justify your position. Others in core departments had a lot more job security.

It has been proven time and time again that money dumped into the education system doesn’t produce test results. In fact, doesn’t CA spend more per student than any other state with the worst results?

Also, it is almost impossible to fire a teacher because of the unions. They just shift the bad teachers around to different districts. It is called “the turkey trot”.

[Djshakes]

[quote=ninaprincess]I think mid career Engineers get around 100k for the same training, so 80k is not too much for teachers.

From the article, the higher range salaries are much higher than the mid career number. So mid career is not the MAX. “The highest salaries offered range from $91,144 at Fountain Valley Elementary to $111,701 at Laguna Beach.”

1 week spring break
2 weeks winter break
11 weeks summer break[/quote]

If an engineer makes $100k there is no way in hell a teacher should make $80K. Engineering majors fall on the harder end of the education spectrum where teachers fall on the liberal arts easier side of the education spectrum. Period. No way in hell are they even comparable.

This opinion is coming from a licensed education major with 3 years of public high school experience under my belt before I changed career paths. From my experience and interaction with other teachers, you don’t have to be extremely brilliant to be a teacher like the Hollywood movies may portray. I seldom took work home and it wasn’t a difficult career. I was in an elective department and our FTEs were based on enrollment unlike the core courses. So you had to be a good teacher with good courses in order to justify your position. Others in core departments had a lot more job security.

It has been proven time and time again that money dumped into the education system doesn’t produce test results. In fact, doesn’t CA spend more per student than any other state with the worst results?

Also, it is almost impossible to fire a teacher because of the unions. They just shift the bad teachers around to different districts. It is called “the turkey trot”.

[Djshakes]

[quote=ninaprincess]I think mid career Engineers get around 100k for the same training, so 80k is not too much for teachers.

From the article, the higher range salaries are much higher than the mid career number. So mid career is not the MAX. “The highest salaries offered range from $91,144 at Fountain Valley Elementary to $111,701 at Laguna Beach.”

1 week spring break
2 weeks winter break
11 weeks summer break[/quote]

If an engineer makes $100k there is no way in hell a teacher should make $80K. Engineering majors fall on the harder end of the education spectrum where teachers fall on the liberal arts easier side of the education spectrum. Period. No way in hell are they even comparable.

This opinion is coming from a licensed education major with 3 years of public high school experience under my belt before I changed career paths. From my experience and interaction with other teachers, you don’t have to be extremely brilliant to be a teacher like the Hollywood movies may portray. I seldom took work home and it wasn’t a difficult career. I was in an elective department and our FTEs were based on enrollment unlike the core courses. So you had to be a good teacher with good courses in order to justify your position. Others in core departments had a lot more job security.

It has been proven time and time again that money dumped into the education system doesn’t produce test results. In fact, doesn’t CA spend more per student than any other state with the worst results?

Also, it is almost impossible to fire a teacher because of the unions. They just shift the bad teachers around to different districts. It is called “the turkey trot”.

[Djshakes]

[quote=ninaprincess]I think mid career Engineers get around 100k for the same training, so 80k is not too much for teachers.

From the article, the higher range salaries are much higher than the mid career number. So mid career is not the MAX. “The highest salaries offered range from $91,144 at Fountain Valley Elementary to $111,701 at Laguna Beach.”

1 week spring break
2 weeks winter break
11 weeks summer break[/quote]

If an engineer makes $100k there is no way in hell a teacher should make $80K. Engineering majors fall on the harder end of the education spectrum where teachers fall on the liberal arts easier side of the education spectrum. Period. No way in hell are they even comparable.

This opinion is coming from a licensed education major with 3 years of public high school experience under my belt before I changed career paths. From my experience and interaction with other teachers, you don’t have to be extremely brilliant to be a teacher like the Hollywood movies may portray. I seldom took work home and it wasn’t a difficult career. I was in an elective department and our FTEs were based on enrollment unlike the core courses. So you had to be a good teacher with good courses in order to justify your position. Others in core departments had a lot more job security.

It has been proven time and time again that money dumped into the education system doesn’t produce test results. In fact, doesn’t CA spend more per student than any other state with the worst results?

Also, it is almost impossible to fire a teacher because of the unions. They just shift the bad teachers around to different districts. It is called “the turkey trot”.

[Djshakes]

I understand and can agree with your points. Essentially, you are taking mine a step further. Yes, the shift to first dollar coverage is a problem and pretty much feeds the theory of overuse of medical care. That is one issue. I also agree with your point regarding improvements in technology and drugs. Naturally, in any other field of consumerism, if a product is improved upon, it normally costs more. After all, isn’t that why there is the saying, “you get what you pay for”? The problem is that we live in an entitled society. A lot of this entitlement comes from the Santa Claus government telling people they deserve this or that regarding health care and making promises they can’t keep. So now we all feel entitled to Cadillac health care without paying for it, totally disregarding the fact there is a direct correlation between price and quality increases. People don’t step back and think ‘how much would I pay (from my own money) to live another 10 years?’ They just know that a cure could be out there and they are entitled to it..regardless of the cost. Now, I am not saying that people should go uninsured for catastrophic medical emergencies or be dropped for pre-existing conditions. There is a gap that needs to be closed. But if people think they are going to get the best health care on earth for the lowest price or prices similar to other countries with less quality care…they are dreaming and truly have an entitlement mentality. That in itself is one of the problems with health care, which ultimately isn’t really a problem with health care but with the individual.

Insurance companies and the individual need to meet in the middle. As much as I hate saying it, if government can facilitate that..fine. However, I don’t have much faith in government facilitating anything because they are driven by special interests and their ability to prolong their political career by giving us things that are politically palatable based on our societies desire to be politically correct. Until they prove me otherwise, I will hold onto that belief.

[Djshakes]

I understand and can agree with your points. Essentially, you are taking mine a step further. Yes, the shift to first dollar coverage is a problem and pretty much feeds the theory of overuse of medical care. That is one issue. I also agree with your point regarding improvements in technology and drugs. Naturally, in any other field of consumerism, if a product is improved upon, it normally costs more. After all, isn’t that why there is the saying, “you get what you pay for”? The problem is that we live in an entitled society. A lot of this entitlement comes from the Santa Claus government telling people they deserve this or that regarding health care and making promises they can’t keep. So now we all feel entitled to Cadillac health care without paying for it, totally disregarding the fact there is a direct correlation between price and quality increases. People don’t step back and think ‘how much would I pay (from my own money) to live another 10 years?’ They just know that a cure could be out there and they are entitled to it..regardless of the cost. Now, I am not saying that people should go uninsured for catastrophic medical emergencies or be dropped for pre-existing conditions. There is a gap that needs to be closed. But if people think they are going to get the best health care on earth for the lowest price or prices similar to other countries with less quality care…they are dreaming and truly have an entitlement mentality. That in itself is one of the problems with health care, which ultimately isn’t really a problem with health care but with the individual.

Insurance companies and the individual need to meet in the middle. As much as I hate saying it, if government can facilitate that..fine. However, I don’t have much faith in government facilitating anything because they are driven by special interests and their ability to prolong their political career by giving us things that are politically palatable based on our societies desire to be politically correct. Until they prove me otherwise, I will hold onto that belief.

[Djshakes]

I understand and can agree with your points. Essentially, you are taking mine a step further. Yes, the shift to first dollar coverage is a problem and pretty much feeds the theory of overuse of medical care. That is one issue. I also agree with your point regarding improvements in technology and drugs. Naturally, in any other field of consumerism, if a product is improved upon, it normally costs more. After all, isn’t that why there is the saying, “you get what you pay for”? The problem is that we live in an entitled society. A lot of this entitlement comes from the Santa Claus government telling people they deserve this or that regarding health care and making promises they can’t keep. So now we all feel entitled to Cadillac health care without paying for it, totally disregarding the fact there is a direct correlation between price and quality increases. People don’t step back and think ‘how much would I pay (from my own money) to live another 10 years?’ They just know that a cure could be out there and they are entitled to it..regardless of the cost. Now, I am not saying that people should go uninsured for catastrophic medical emergencies or be dropped for pre-existing conditions. There is a gap that needs to be closed. But if people think they are going to get the best health care on earth for the lowest price or prices similar to other countries with less quality care…they are dreaming and truly have an entitlement mentality. That in itself is one of the problems with health care, which ultimately isn’t really a problem with health care but with the individual.

Insurance companies and the individual need to meet in the middle. As much as I hate saying it, if government can facilitate that..fine. However, I don’t have much faith in government facilitating anything because they are driven by special interests and their ability to prolong their political career by giving us things that are politically palatable based on our societies desire to be politically correct. Until they prove me otherwise, I will hold onto that belief.

[Djshakes]

I understand and can agree with your points. Essentially, you are taking mine a step further. Yes, the shift to first dollar coverage is a problem and pretty much feeds the theory of overuse of medical care. That is one issue. I also agree with your point regarding improvements in technology and drugs. Naturally, in any other field of consumerism, if a product is improved upon, it normally costs more. After all, isn’t that why there is the saying, “you get what you pay for”? The problem is that we live in an entitled society. A lot of this entitlement comes from the Santa Claus government telling people they deserve this or that regarding health care and making promises they can’t keep. So now we all feel entitled to Cadillac health care without paying for it, totally disregarding the fact there is a direct correlation between price and quality increases. People don’t step back and think ‘how much would I pay (from my own money) to live another 10 years?’ They just know that a cure could be out there and they are entitled to it..regardless of the cost. Now, I am not saying that people should go uninsured for catastrophic medical emergencies or be dropped for pre-existing conditions. There is a gap that needs to be closed. But if people think they are going to get the best health care on earth for the lowest price or prices similar to other countries with less quality care…they are dreaming and truly have an entitlement mentality. That in itself is one of the problems with health care, which ultimately isn’t really a problem with health care but with the individual.

Insurance companies and the individual need to meet in the middle. As much as I hate saying it, if government can facilitate that..fine. However, I don’t have much faith in government facilitating anything because they are driven by special interests and their ability to prolong their political career by giving us things that are politically palatable based on our societies desire to be politically correct. Until they prove me otherwise, I will hold onto that belief.

[Djshakes]

I understand and can agree with your points. Essentially, you are taking mine a step further. Yes, the shift to first dollar coverage is a problem and pretty much feeds the theory of overuse of medical care. That is one issue. I also agree with your point regarding improvements in technology and drugs. Naturally, in any other field of consumerism, if a product is improved upon, it normally costs more. After all, isn’t that why there is the saying, “you get what you pay for”? The problem is that we live in an entitled society. A lot of this entitlement comes from the Santa Claus government telling people they deserve this or that regarding health care and making promises they can’t keep. So now we all feel entitled to Cadillac health care without paying for it, totally disregarding the fact there is a direct correlation between price and quality increases. People don’t step back and think ‘how much would I pay (from my own money) to live another 10 years?’ They just know that a cure could be out there and they are entitled to it..regardless of the cost. Now, I am not saying that people should go uninsured for catastrophic medical emergencies or be dropped for pre-existing conditions. There is a gap that needs to be closed. But if people think they are going to get the best health care on earth for the lowest price or prices similar to other countries with less quality care…they are dreaming and truly have an entitlement mentality. That in itself is one of the problems with health care, which ultimately isn’t really a problem with health care but with the individual.

Insurance companies and the individual need to meet in the middle. As much as I hate saying it, if government can facilitate that..fine. However, I don’t have much faith in government facilitating anything because they are driven by special interests and their ability to prolong their political career by giving us things that are politically palatable based on our societies desire to be politically correct. Until they prove me otherwise, I will hold onto that belief.

[Djshakes]

Well, you can argue on the other side of the aisle that the dems are just as guilty as pushing funny numbers and offering solution that will not work…and therefore, according to you, are not solutions…which I agree. This is going to be long so I am going to to say it once. Most people want to look at the numbers (presented to us) to determine if the health care legislation is going to reduce the debt/deficit. It won’t and here is why.

The argument about our current healthcare situation is that it costs too much. One of the biggest reason the cost are high is because someone else is paying those costs. Specifically the government and insurance companies. What is the government’s answer, to have these two entities pay more. When people were the single payer they were selective on what they spent their money on. A cold, no. A broken bone, yes. When someone else is paying, people tend to use medical care more. Rationing by the individual now becomes rationing by the government. Lines grow longer as people with minor issues take time away from doctors to see patients with serious issues.

Country after country grossly underestimate government medical costs. Even when they use the current numbers they are underestimated because the numbers are based off of the individual paying, not the government. As stated, having someone else pay will always guarantee more use.

One of the biggest costs that affect most hospitals is the government mandate to treat anyone that walks into an emergency room, whether they pay or not. Those people that talk about bringing down the cost actually want more mandates like this. If this is such a good policy, why doesn’t the government pay for it instead of forcing the hospital to?

Often what is called lowering costs is actually refusing to pay the costs with lower prices set by the government. They think there will be no repercussions until doctors eventually stop taking medicare as payment which is already happening. If it costs 1 million to produce a drug we are going to pay 1 million or not get the new drug. Nothing is free.

All these mandates are only going to increase costs. Why are the insurance companies not already including these mandates in their packages if they are so great? Because those things raise costs that by an amount people are unwilling to pay for the benefit. If people wanted the extra mandates the insurance companies would gladly add them for a profit. Instead, government requires them to add them and when they increase the price they look like the bad guys. I’m not saying insurance companies are innocent…but they are not the only ones to blame like this administration would like you to believe.

We rarely look to see how government medical care actually turns out…or we chose to ignore it. British newspapers often talk about the horrible conditions. No other country has as high tech medical equipment and short waits as the US. You can always bring costs by having a lower quality of product.

Much of HEALTH CARE depends on how people live their lives. Eating habits, exercise, drugs and alcohol and homicide. When you don’t do a lot of things that shorten your life, you live longer. Look at Mormons. They tend to live a decade longer. Is that because Mormon doctors are better? No. Our country tends to have higher rates of the above…what are doctors suppose to do about it?
A lot of proponents of government healthcare love to compare metrics that involve these stats…when they should be comparing stats like cancer survival rates. Things hospitals actually can make a difference on. Americans have some of the highest survival rates…because it is detected earliest.

Medical insurance should simply cost risk, which is what insurance is about. It would be far cheaper this way as opposed to covering everything to a checkup. However, there are political incentives for people in government to create mandates that increase costs. This way the politicians look like the good guys and the insurance companies the bad. Politicians claim to want to keep the insurance companies honest. The fact that this is coming from a politician in itself is a joke.

We can reduce insurance by putting an end to state regulation of insurance companies. This will immediately remove all those mandates from marriage counseling to hair transplants based on special interests of the state. Nationwide competition will bring down prices.

[Djshakes]

Well, you can argue on the other side of the aisle that the dems are just as guilty as pushing funny numbers and offering solution that will not work…and therefore, according to you, are not solutions…which I agree. This is going to be long so I am going to to say it once. Most people want to look at the numbers (presented to us) to determine if the health care legislation is going to reduce the debt/deficit. It won’t and here is why.

The argument about our current healthcare situation is that it costs too much. One of the biggest reason the cost are high is because someone else is paying those costs. Specifically the government and insurance companies. What is the government’s answer, to have these two entities pay more. When people were the single payer they were selective on what they spent their money on. A cold, no. A broken bone, yes. When someone else is paying, people tend to use medical care more. Rationing by the individual now becomes rationing by the government. Lines grow longer as people with minor issues take time away from doctors to see patients with serious issues.

Country after country grossly underestimate government medical costs. Even when they use the current numbers they are underestimated because the numbers are based off of the individual paying, not the government. As stated, having someone else pay will always guarantee more use.

One of the biggest costs that affect most hospitals is the government mandate to treat anyone that walks into an emergency room, whether they pay or not. Those people that talk about bringing down the cost actually want more mandates like this. If this is such a good policy, why doesn’t the government pay for it instead of forcing the hospital to?

Often what is called lowering costs is actually refusing to pay the costs with lower prices set by the government. They think there will be no repercussions until doctors eventually stop taking medicare as payment which is already happening. If it costs 1 million to produce a drug we are going to pay 1 million or not get the new drug. Nothing is free.

All these mandates are only going to increase costs. Why are the insurance companies not already including these mandates in their packages if they are so great? Because those things raise costs that by an amount people are unwilling to pay for the benefit. If people wanted the extra mandates the insurance companies would gladly add them for a profit. Instead, government requires them to add them and when they increase the price they look like the bad guys. I’m not saying insurance companies are innocent…but they are not the only ones to blame like this administration would like you to believe.

We rarely look to see how government medical care actually turns out…or we chose to ignore it. British newspapers often talk about the horrible conditions. No other country has as high tech medical equipment and short waits as the US. You can always bring costs by having a lower quality of product.

Much of HEALTH CARE depends on how people live their lives. Eating habits, exercise, drugs and alcohol and homicide. When you don’t do a lot of things that shorten your life, you live longer. Look at Mormons. They tend to live a decade longer. Is that because Mormon doctors are better? No. Our country tends to have higher rates of the above…what are doctors suppose to do about it?
A lot of proponents of government healthcare love to compare metrics that involve these stats…when they should be comparing stats like cancer survival rates. Things hospitals actually can make a difference on. Americans have some of the highest survival rates…because it is detected earliest.

Medical insurance should simply cost risk, which is what insurance is about. It would be far cheaper this way as opposed to covering everything to a checkup. However, there are political incentives for people in government to create mandates that increase costs. This way the politicians look like the good guys and the insurance companies the bad. Politicians claim to want to keep the insurance companies honest. The fact that this is coming from a politician in itself is a joke.

We can reduce insurance by putting an end to state regulation of insurance companies. This will immediately remove all those mandates from marriage counseling to hair transplants based on special interests of the state. Nationwide competition will bring down prices.

[Djshakes]

Well, you can argue on the other side of the aisle that the dems are just as guilty as pushing funny numbers and offering solution that will not work…and therefore, according to you, are not solutions…which I agree. This is going to be long so I am going to to say it once. Most people want to look at the numbers (presented to us) to determine if the health care legislation is going to reduce the debt/deficit. It won’t and here is why.

The argument about our current healthcare situation is that it costs too much. One of the biggest reason the cost are high is because someone else is paying those costs. Specifically the government and insurance companies. What is the government’s answer, to have these two entities pay more. When people were the single payer they were selective on what they spent their money on. A cold, no. A broken bone, yes. When someone else is paying, people tend to use medical care more. Rationing by the individual now becomes rationing by the government. Lines grow longer as people with minor issues take time away from doctors to see patients with serious issues.

Country after country grossly underestimate government medical costs. Even when they use the current numbers they are underestimated because the numbers are based off of the individual paying, not the government. As stated, having someone else pay will always guarantee more use.

One of the biggest costs that affect most hospitals is the government mandate to treat anyone that walks into an emergency room, whether they pay or not. Those people that talk about bringing down the cost actually want more mandates like this. If this is such a good policy, why doesn’t the government pay for it instead of forcing the hospital to?

Often what is called lowering costs is actually refusing to pay the costs with lower prices set by the government. They think there will be no repercussions until doctors eventually stop taking medicare as payment which is already happening. If it costs 1 million to produce a drug we are going to pay 1 million or not get the new drug. Nothing is free.

All these mandates are only going to increase costs. Why are the insurance companies not already including these mandates in their packages if they are so great? Because those things raise costs that by an amount people are unwilling to pay for the benefit. If people wanted the extra mandates the insurance companies would gladly add them for a profit. Instead, government requires them to add them and when they increase the price they look like the bad guys. I’m not saying insurance companies are innocent…but they are not the only ones to blame like this administration would like you to believe.

We rarely look to see how government medical care actually turns out…or we chose to ignore it. British newspapers often talk about the horrible conditions. No other country has as high tech medical equipment and short waits as the US. You can always bring costs by having a lower quality of product.

Much of HEALTH CARE depends on how people live their lives. Eating habits, exercise, drugs and alcohol and homicide. When you don’t do a lot of things that shorten your life, you live longer. Look at Mormons. They tend to live a decade longer. Is that because Mormon doctors are better? No. Our country tends to have higher rates of the above…what are doctors suppose to do about it?
A lot of proponents of government healthcare love to compare metrics that involve these stats…when they should be comparing stats like cancer survival rates. Things hospitals actually can make a difference on. Americans have some of the highest survival rates…because it is detected earliest.

Medical insurance should simply cost risk, which is what insurance is about. It would be far cheaper this way as opposed to covering everything to a checkup. However, there are political incentives for people in government to create mandates that increase costs. This way the politicians look like the good guys and the insurance companies the bad. Politicians claim to want to keep the insurance companies honest. The fact that this is coming from a politician in itself is a joke.

We can reduce insurance by putting an end to state regulation of insurance companies. This will immediately remove all those mandates from marriage counseling to hair transplants based on special interests of the state. Nationwide competition will bring down prices.

[Author]

Posts