GeorgiaDon

I hope that was the end of your squad leader's career, and that he spent some time in the brig before his dishonorable discharge with loss of pension and VA benefits. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That's one possibility, though not the only one as I made clear. However, if that's the one you prefer to go with, have fun with that. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

The article you linked made it clear that "charity" is not the motivation behind Senator Paul performing these surgeries. He needs to perform a certain number of surgeries each year to keep his license to practice, yet he is forbidden by senate rules from having another paying job in addition to his senate responsibilities. He asked Senator Reid for an exception, and was denied. So, he has to choose between doing some surgeries for free or giving up his medical license, and he wants to keep his license as he wants to return to medical practice after his political career. It is possible that Senator Paul would perform some surgeries for free anyway, of course. To determine that, we would need to know if he did surgeries pro bono before he became a senator. His history in the senate would seem to indicate his general position is that people who can't pay should not get treatment, but that doesn't necessarily prohibit doctors from volunteering their services. [edited to add] Another thing, my recent experience suggests that paying the surgeon is just part of the cost of a medical procedure. I had very minor surgery (~a 10 minute procedure) for a trigger finger. I got separate bills from the surgeon, the anesthesiologist, the clinic for use of their facilities, and other things I can't remember right now. All in all I was billed by 6 or 8 different entities, and it was difficult to figure out what each bill was for. I even got re-billed, with late charges, after I had paid a bill and had a cancelled check to prove it. This is one of my pet peeves about the US medical system, because it makes it impossible to anticipate what anything will actually cost. I did ask before the surgery, and was told a number, but it turns out that was only for the surgeon, and no-one volunteered the information that I would be billed in addition by all these other entities. Now I know, but before you go through it how are you supposed to know about all the different people who will send you a bill? The point wrt Senator Paul is, it's great for the patients that he did not bill them, but they can still anticipate being billed by the hospital, the anesthesiologist, and on and on. If the procedures were really done as charity for people who otherwise could not afford the procedure, were these other bills also waived? If not, they could still easily be bankrupted by the charges. Also, do you really believe senators should expect to get more press coverage day-to-day than the president? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Some time back in this thread (post 117) I responded to Kennedy, and asked the following question. He never responded, which suggests he had perhaps not really thought through the implications of his position on the matter. Perhaps you can do better: "So, which do you find least offensive (given that there are no perfect options)? 1. Everybody gets medical care for injury or severe illness, and the bill run up by the uninsured largely gets shifted to those with insurance (i.e. the system in place up until the ACA, and apparently still preferred by the GOP). 2. Nobody gets treated, ever, no matter how dire their circumstances, until they prove adequate insurance coverage or they pay in advance. This will, of course, require hospitals to literally refuse treatment to people and send them home, sometimes to die, untreated. This will also necessitate that people with communicable diseases such as TB either be allowed to walk around in public, exposing us all to disease, or require the law to confine those people. But at least you (and I) won't have to pay a dime for those slackers! 3. Require everybody to be insured. I'd be OK with exempting people who could post a bond sufficient to pay for any care out of pocket, say $500,000 or so. Which one would be your preference?" Don Remarkable how a straightforward question causes all the right wing types to disappear. To tough a question for y'all? I hope everybody has a fun and safe Christmas, and that no-one ends up needing that health insurance they thought they didn't need. Best wishes to all! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Some time back in this thread (post 117) I responded to Kennedy, and asked the following question. He never responded, which suggests he had perhaps not really thought through the implications of his position on the matter. Perhaps you can do better: "So, which do you find least offensive (given that there are no perfect options)? 1. Everybody gets medical care for injury or severe illness, and the bill run up by the uninsured largely gets shifted to those with insurance (i.e. the system in place up until the ACA, and apparently still preferred by the GOP). 2. Nobody gets treated, ever, no matter how dire their circumstances, until they prove adequate insurance coverage or they pay in advance. This will, of course, require hospitals to literally refuse treatment to people and send them home, sometimes to die, untreated. This will also necessitate that people with communicable diseases such as TB either be allowed to walk around in public, exposing us all to disease, or require the law to confine those people. But at least you (and I) won't have to pay a dime for those slackers! 3. Require everybody to be insured. I'd be OK with exempting people who could post a bond sufficient to pay for any care out of pocket, say $500,000 or so. Which one would be your preference?" Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That's because it was a stealth thread, of course. I wonder if it was really riggerrob who resurrected this one. I recall someone else, who hasn't been active for a while (as far as I know), who made a practice of spoofing other posters and digging up ancient threads. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I see what you did there.

There are lots of 20-30 years olds that do not need insurance. They even have a term for them "Invincibles". I'm curious how they can know for certain that they will never be injured in an accident, or be exposed to an infectious disease, or discover that they have some sort of a congenital condition. Or could it just possibly be that they have "other priorities", and plan to fuck over the doctors, nurses, hospitals, and people like me who actually pay for insurance, and stick us with the bill, should they ever need medical care? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So, "Jesus is the reason for the seasoning"? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

At first I thought this was just you being paranoid again. But just this afternoon I got this email from the President: "Dear Don, The NSA has informed me that you may be acquainted with some characters who go by the names of "RonD1120", "rickjumps1", "turtlespeed", and "rushmc". These people are dangerous, as they refuse to submit to my koolaid. If you encounter them, I would appreciate it very much if you would smack them upside the head for me. And by "smack them upside the head" I mean clock them in face, so as to render them unconscious with a single blow. You may be concerned about legal repercussions if you do this favor for me. Don't worry, if you are arrested I'll send the best council my administration has to offer to assist you. By "best council" I of course mean Michelle; I'm certain that that "voluntary disbarment" issue will not be a problem. You can certainly pursue an insanity defense, as between being an immigrant, being highly educated, and being an octaroon (Native American is almost as good as black in this regard) it would be obvious to any jury that you are powerless to resist me. If that should not work, I will have Eric Holder handle the appeal; he can simply bribe the judge and jury with a lifetime supply of unmarked guns. No true American would be able to resist that! Again, I appreciate you doing this little favor for me. The future of the USA, and indeed the world, depends on it. Sincerely, your Facebook friend and Overlord, B. HUSSAIN Obama, President of the United States, FWD (Future World Dictator), and Ambassador for Hades" _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Perhaps, but if so it is poorly phrased, and I still can't see that meaning to it. Ron wrote: "The point is that murder of innocent people is justifiable for some travesties of freedom and justice." In my experience "for" in this context means "to achieve", not "against". As an example, if I was to say "I am willing to fight for freedom" I doubt that you (or anyone) would read my meaning as "I am willing to fight against freedom". Note also that Ron already branded Mandella a murderer (post #19), so it seems more logical to me to read Ron's sentence as a statement that innocent people were murdered in order to achieve a travesty of freedom and justice. However, I will concede that it is possible that Ron's sentence is so garbled that his meaning cannot be understood. Then we are left with his previous statements that Mandella was a murderer, and the fact that he thought it appropriate to "honor" Mandella's death by starting a thread to post links condemning the struggle for freedom by black South Africans, condemning Mandella for actions taken by the ANC while he was locked up in prison, linking Mandella to crimes committed by his wife while he was in prison, and branding de Klerk an "appeaser". He does seem to have a certain "theme" going. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

An Internet forum is an interactive entertainment medium. But, I just agreed with Meso. What did I get wrong about SA history? Are you saying he is ignorant as well?You called the struggle against apartheid a "travesty of freedom and justice." There are only three possible explanations for that. Either you are completely ignorant of what apartheid meant for the lives of the non-white South African population, you are posting crap just to get a rise (which you have admitted to doing before), or you actually believe that non-whites had no right to rebel against their white "masters". None of these options paint you in a very favorable light. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Some forms of insurance serve a dual purpose, protecting the purchaser and protecting the public. You are required to purchase auto insurance if you wish to own a vehicle and drive it on a public road. [I realize you can escape this by not ever driving your own vehicle, but that is an option available to relatively very few people.] There are two types of auto insurance, comprehensive, which covers your own losses, and liability, which covers people you may damage by your actions while driving. You are only required to carry liability, so the public is protected at least to some extent; it's entirely up to you if you want to insure yourself or your own vehicle. When it comes to health insurance there is also both private risk and public risk, but they are more confounded than is the case with driving. People in emergency situations often must be treated immediately, not waiting until their check clears the bank or their insurance is verified. More often, either the rules that used to apply (such as not covering people with preexisting conditions, or lifetime limits) or expense excluded many people from obtaining privately purchased insurance. When they got sick, they would pay what they could, but often that meant a lifetime of impoverishment or bankruptcy, and the bill still didn't get paid so the balance was shifted to you and me. Of course, some people then figured out that they could skip the insurance and the bills, and just go straight to bankruptcy if they ever got seriously sick/injured. I have even heard skydivers say they would rather buy jumps than insurance, and would just declare bankruptcy if they got hurt. The only way to prevent cost shifting to you and me is to require that people pay full freight, which means they must either be insured or pay out of pocket in advance of any treatment. So, which do you find least offensive (given that there are no perfect options)? 1. Everybody gets medical care for injury or severe illness, and the bill run up by the uninsured largely gets shifted to those with insurance (i.e. the system in place up until the ACA, and apparently still preferred by the GOP). 2. Nobody gets treated, ever, no matter how dire their circumstances, until they prove adequate insurance coverage or they pay in advance. This will, of course, require hospitals to literally refuse treatment to people and send them home, sometimes to die, untreated. This will also necessitate that people with communicable diseases such as TB either be allowed to walk around in public, exposing us all to disease, or require the law to confine those people. But at least you (and I) won't have to pay a dime for those slackers! 3. Require everybody to be insured. I'd be OK with exempting people who could post a bond sufficient to pay for any care out of pocket, say $500,000 or so. Which one would be your preference? As far as "other products" are concerned, I am not at risk of being forced to pay for your jumps, your computer, television, etc. There is no reason for the government to mandate anything of the sort, because there is no need to protect me from having to pay your way. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well, there's that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. If they're convicted, I'm pretty sure they'll be expelled. If they're acquitted, but expelled just for being accused (as you insinuate you would prefer) then they'd be punished for something they didn't do. On the whole, I prefer to have the trial first, and punish after that if convicted. YMMV. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That's true, but it seems there's no good solution. If politicians cannot vote what they actually believe without being stripped of their committee memberships or otherwise risk being marginalized by their own party, there is no hope that the senate will ever be able to fulfill it's theoretical role of sober consideration and thoughtful debate. On the other hand, if votes have to be secret to protect members from their own party bosses, how can the electorate know they haven't been bamboozled by a Democrat in Republican clothing, or vice vera? Which is the worse evil? My experience has been that most people are pretty reasonable most of the time. When time is taken to actually discuss things, there isn't all that much distance politically; there are "true believer" outliers for sure but they are actually a small % of the population. Yet it seems we have created a political system that forces people to the extremes, and tars and feathers any politician who will even give the other side the time of day. The primary system ensures that candidates have to pass muster with the most extreme elements of their party first, then somehow have to triangulate back somewhat closer to the middle for the general election, then head for the extremes again after the election to fund raise for the next cycle. Of the politicians who do get elected, it's the ones who are most driven by their own quest for power that rise to senior positions in their party, and they are the very ones who are least likely to look at the big picture of what is good for the country. The person who honestly wants to go to Washington to fix problems doesn't stand much of a chance. The best thing would be to abolish political parties, I think. Let everyone vote their conscience every time, on every issue. If there's no "Hammer" to crush people when they step out of line, we might see some actual creative problem solving out of Washington. But I know, it'll never happen. Power is too addictive, to some people. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well, the fundamental issue is how can you write a rule that says you need a stronger vote than 50% + 1 to confirm someone in one of these positions where they do have a lot of power, yet at the same time don't create a mechanism to sabotage the whole working of government? If politicians could just find it in themselves to put their own power aside and actually attend to the issue at hand, we wouldn't even need any such rules. As a matter of principle I dislike the practice of using totally unrelated matters to drive a personal agenda, whether it be holding up nominations to force kangaroo-court hearings on Bengazi, or the practice of attaching completely unrelated spending amendments to popular or essential bills. I think 60% would be reasonable, as part of a system where nominees actually have to come up for a vote in a reasonable amount of time. I would think 3 months, for example, would be adequate to investigate a nominees history, present the argument for and against, and vote. I also think the vote should be secret, to get away from block voting by one party or another or both. Perhaps. But then the GOP would just change it to whatever they want. Anyway, with the White House still in Democratic hands for another two years, what would be the point? If the GOP takes the Senate they would have 50% + 1 vote, and they could go back to their policy of blocking everything Obama does whatever the rule may be. It would be a different matter if a Republican was in the White House, then the Democrats might want the 60% rule back so they could block the President's nominees with only 40% + 1. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

You say "most things", but my understanding is that this rule change applies only to executive appointments other than supreme court nominees. It does not apply to legislation, for example. Only to filling positions such as judgeships, ambassadors, or very senior bureaucrats needed to actually make things work. It seems inappropriate to me that either party should be able to paralyze whole departments, or mess with diplomatic relations with other countries, just to blackmail the government over some completely unrelated matter. What is wrong with having a discussion of the merits of the nominee, and then actually voting? If enough people don't like the nominee, she/he won't be confirmed. But the opponents should have to actually make their case (if there is even a case to be made), not just threaten some "filibuster" when all they have to offer is a bad rendition of "cat in a hat". In the meantime if you don't like a law, the old rules still apply, or at least that's how I understand it. Am I wrong? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I have no doubt that capitalism is vastly more efficient than any centralized system (such as communism) at responding to markets to provide goods and services. I also believe that most people want to be honest in their dealings with customers and the communities they operate in. Obviously flat-out fraud/theft (failure to deliver promised goods or services after they have been paid for) must be punished. Beyond that, though, I think there are 2 things that need to be considered: 1. Regulations that establish a minimum standard of conduct. The point here is that we don't want people who want to be honest/ethical to be forced out of business, or to be forced to behave unethically, in order to be able to compete. For example, if we didn't have regulations regarding pollution, someone would cut costs by dumping their waste in the river, and everyone else would have to follow suit or find some other way to cut costs, such as employee pay or the quality of raw materials used to make their product. 2. Regulations to ensure consumers actually have access to enough information to make an informed decision. While there is always going to be a conflict between the need to protect propriety information and the need for transparency, there is no way to be an informed customer if the information you need is concealed. This is a big problem with medical costs, for example, where everything is either a "trade secret" or is (perhaps deliberately) made so complex that there is no way for a patient to figure out what the costs will be at the end of the day. When it comes to the "doubtfully honest", I think that being an informed consumer is key. If you're planning to spend a lot of money on something, get lots of references. Talk to people who have dealt with that contractor/car dealership/whatever. Check with the Better Business Bureau. These days there are also lots of online resources. Just beware of bad reviews posted by business competitors. Completely unregulated capitalism, especially in a global market, provides too many incentives to cut corners. If you are polluting in China but selling in the US, it isn't realistic to expect US customers to find out that you are a bad citizen and then refuse to buy from you, so simple market forces (such as "the marketplace will reward good actors and punish bad ones") doesn't always work. On the other hand completely centralized economies fail spectacularly, partly because no one person or agency can plan for everything (for example, toilet paper shortages in Russia in the 70s), and partly because no personal reward for effort means no-one will make the effort. One more thing, "socialism" is not the same as "communism", which it seems is not obvious to some of our "conservative" colleagues in Speaker's Corner. Every modern society has some element of socialism, because there are some services that need to be provided but are inherently not profitable, or that we don't want to be driven entirely by a profit motive. Hence, the truism that the military is the biggest socialist program in the US. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Except with beluga blood in his veins, to judge from his photo. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I don't. Most are tasty.

From this source: "HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES In 1986 and 1987, 2 articles appeared in the literature by physicians from Cook County Hospital in Chicago detailing the extent of patient dumping to that facility (1, 2). The authors defined dumping as “the denial of or limitation in the provision of medical services to a patient for economic reasons and the referral of that patient elsewhere” (1). The majority of such transfers to Cook County Hospital involved patients who were minorities and unemployed. The reason given for the transfer by the sending institution was lack of insurance in 87% of the cases. Only 6% of the patients had given written informed consent for their transfer. Medical service patients who were transferred were twice as likely to die as those treated at the transferring hospital, and 24% of the patients were considered to have been transferred in an unstable condition. It was concluded that this practice was done primarily for financial reasons and that it delayed care and jeopardized the patient's health. This practice was not limited to Chicago but occurred in most large cities with public hospitals. In Dallas, such transfers increased from 70 per month in 1982 to more than 200 per month in 1983 (1)." and (my bolding for emphasis): "The ironic twist to this story is that safeguards for indigent patients already existed; however, most were guidelines without the force of law that were being ignored by private hospitals and doctors. The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals stated that “individuals shall be accorded impartial access to treatment or accommodations that are available or medically indicated, regardless of race, creed, sex, nationality, or sources of payment for care” (3). The American College of Emergency Physicians had similar language in its bylaws (4). The Hospital Survey and Construction Act of 1946 (commonly called the Hill-Burton Act) had established federal guidelines for emergency medical care at certain hospitals, and many state laws were also on the books mandating nondiscriminatory access to emergency care (1)." So no, people were not being left in highway intersections as food for crows, but they were being put at the back of the line, behind insured patients with more minor complains, and they were being shifted from hospital to hospital or dumped back on the street before they were stable, and people died as a result. EMTALA was a response to public outcry over these practices. Is EMTALA perfect? Clearly not. But what reason is there to believe the problems that led to its enactment won't return, but even worse (given that there are fewer facilities available to treat people now than there was back when the law was first enacted)? Rather than simply repealing EMTALA and trusting that everything will return to a Norman Rockwell version of America that never really existed, it would be more useful to consider approaches that replace EMTALA with a system that would function better. Of course to do that we would have to define "function better", and that would necessarily involve a discussion of ethical values we would want reflected in our society. Can we agree as a society that people have intrinsic worth, and should not be left to die or suffer unnecessarily because of a circumstance of the size of their bank balance? Or should we choose to embrace a vision in which people are commodities to be exploited for labor or profit, but are otherwise disposable (our own immediate families excepted, of course)? Personally, I would favor funding emergency and trauma centers, and clinics to provide basic non-emergency care, out of a sales tax. None of us are immune from risk of needing emergency or trauma care, and none of us are benefited by having people with infectious disease such as TB walking around untreated. Everyone pays sales taxes, as everyone buys stuff. At the same time insurance premiums could (and should) decrease if the risk of huge ER bills went away, so those of us who pay for insurance would have the sales tax at least in part offset by reduced premiums. A network of publicly funded ER and trauma clinics could eliminate the need for EMTALA without returning us to the days of patient dumping. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

According to a former student of mine who is now an EMT, it is not uncommon for patients to be transported to the hospital without their wallet/purse/proof of insurance or bank account. When a patient is having a heart attack or has been in a serious wreck, seconds count (ever hear of the "golden hour"?). EMTs don't waste time looking for the purse or wallet that flew out the car window in the wreck, or searching the house for proof of insurance before transporting the patient. When that patient gets to the hospital, medical staff evaluate the patient and begin treatment as soon as is necessary to have a shot at saving their life. Police or family will bring in the ID/insurance info when they can. Do you really want a system where people are left to die because their purse flew out the window in the wreck, or because the EMTs don't know where to look for an unconscious heart attack victims wallet? Where people who have paid for insurance are denied care just when they most need it because of a circumstance beyond their control. Lawrocket, I've asked you this before when you brought up the "get rid of EMTALA" line, and you never answer. Perhaps you are thinking solely of the person who walks into the emergency clinic and demands care they have no intention or ability to pay for, but there are lots of ways for an unresponsive patient to arrive at the hospital without ID. If you advocate getting rid of EMTALA, how do you think hospitals should deal with such patients? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

And would you think it fair if a guy that has had 4 DUI's got to pay the same car insurance rate as you....... Even if that meant your rate went up? Odd that you would equate a pre-existing medical condition, which is often (admittedly not always) due to circumstances beyond a person's control, with a completely voluntary criminal act. What crime did a person who is born with sickle cell anemia commit, that would justify lifetime disqualification from medical insurance? I disagree as well with equating medical insurance with car insurance. Driving is a voluntary activity, if you don't want to pay for insurance you don't have to drive (although I admit that would be highly inconvenient). On the other hand merely being alive means you have a likelihood approaching certainty that you will need access to medical care at some point. Only in the US is it the case that that care will be likely to bankrupt you, particularly if you find yourself uninsurable due to some pre-existing condition. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

In hindsight, sure. The problem was he directly and indirectly brought a lot of money into the program, and they were seduced by that into fooling themselves that they wouldn't be called on their behavior. Money and evil and all that. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Don't know, that might depend on laws in your state and the mood of a jury. However, if you were to do that I'd hope screwworm maggots would infest your scrotum. However, in your analogy a car flipping a guardrail is not a crime. I think a better analogy to the Penn State situation would be if you were to witness someone raping a child, and after that you hid them in your house where you run a daycare and made a habit of leaving them alone with the kids. And I do believe it is a crime to be an accessory to a crime, either before or after the fact. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)