On October 08 2013 07:08 Rumpus wrote: Lol I don't think anyone got my joke? Listen I draw the line where this law has not been good for me and my family and don't see it being beneficial to us. Sure, those without health insurance totally should have better means of obtaining it but not like this...
Deciding on how good a law is based only on how it effects you and your interests is incredibly self centered. I don't need foodstamps and having them available costs me money via taxes. Does that mean it's a bad law?
You must not pay attention to a lot of politics. When a law becomes a detriment, yeah it isn't good for me. When it affects my families quality of life, yeah I'm not gonna be to into it. You know there is a way to make laws without screwing those who don't need it?
You should look up the concept of externalities.
So that is suppose to justify hurting some to help some?
On October 08 2013 07:08 Rumpus wrote: Lol I don't think anyone got my joke? Listen I draw the line where this law has not been good for me and my family and don't see it being beneficial to us. Sure, those without health insurance totally should have better means of obtaining it but not like this...
Deciding on how good a law is based only on how it effects you and your interests is incredibly self centered. I don't need foodstamps and having them available costs me money via taxes. Does that mean it's a bad law?
You must not pay attention to a lot of politics. When a law becomes a detriment, yeah it isn't good for me. When it affects my families quality of life, yeah I'm not gonna be to into it. You know there is a way to make laws without screwing those who don't need it?
You should look up the concept of externalities.
So that is suppose to justify hurting some to help some?
So slavery should still be a thing? minimum wage gone? Women shouldn't be allowed to vote? We should still be a colony of britain?
On October 08 2013 07:08 Rumpus wrote: Lol I don't think anyone got my joke? Listen I draw the line where this law has not been good for me and my family and don't see it being beneficial to us. Sure, those without health insurance totally should have better means of obtaining it but not like this...
Deciding on how good a law is based only on how it effects you and your interests is incredibly self centered. I don't need foodstamps and having them available costs me money via taxes. Does that mean it's a bad law?
You must not pay attention to a lot of politics. When a law becomes a detriment, yeah it isn't good for me. When it affects my families quality of life, yeah I'm not gonna be to into it. You know there is a way to make laws without screwing those who don't need it?
How does this directly affect your quality of life?
And that's an incredibly stupid way of thinking. What if a law affects you and your family badly but someone else in a good way or vice-versa? How do you judge which it is in that case?
Like what if there was a bill that said we kill everyone who is poor and give their money to you. Wouldn't that be a great bill by your standards?
Read my other posts, my family is littered with people in the medical field, the ACA does NOT bode well for their pockets in the slightest. So yes, it directly affects my parents. Your argument is extremely situational, we're talking about getting people a service they deserve, which is totally different than weaseling them in at the cost of others, or making laws that directly benefit me like say....a politician.
...so you decide what services people "deserve" based on how it directly affects your parents...?
Wtf? Totally not true, did not say that at all. I made it very clear that everyone deserves the service of healthcare. But doesn't it stand to reason that while it is made more accessible to others less fortunate, it should have no recourse on those that don't need the help?
Bro fight the republicans on that one. I don't think a single one of them would have voted for a bill which forced providers to keep their employees on the same plan for x amount of time during implementation of the act. QQ more, that's what would be called 'socialist' round this here parts.
On October 08 2013 07:08 Rumpus wrote: Lol I don't think anyone got my joke? Listen I draw the line where this law has not been good for me and my family and don't see it being beneficial to us. Sure, those without health insurance totally should have better means of obtaining it but not like this...
Deciding on how good a law is based only on how it effects you and your interests is incredibly self centered. I don't need foodstamps and having them available costs me money via taxes. Does that mean it's a bad law?
You must not pay attention to a lot of politics. When a law becomes a detriment, yeah it isn't good for me. When it affects my families quality of life, yeah I'm not gonna be to into it. You know there is a way to make laws without screwing those who don't need it?
How does this directly affect your quality of life?
And that's an incredibly stupid way of thinking. What if a law affects you and your family badly but someone else in a good way or vice-versa? How do you judge which it is in that case?
Like what if there was a bill that said we kill everyone who is poor and give their money to you. Wouldn't that be a great bill by your standards?
Read my other posts, my family is littered with people in the medical field, the ACA does NOT bode well for their pockets in the slightest. So yes, it directly affects my parents. Your argument is extremely situational, we're talking about getting people a service they deserve, which is totally different than weaseling them in at the cost of others, or making laws that directly benefit me like say....a politician.
...so you decide what services people "deserve" based on how it directly affects your parents...?
Wtf? Totally not true, did not say that at all. I made it very clear that everyone deserves the service of healthcare. But doesn't it stand to reason that while it is made more accessible to others less fortunate, it should have no recourse on those that don't need the help?
On October 08 2013 07:08 Rumpus wrote: Lol I don't think anyone got my joke? Listen I draw the line where this law has not been good for me and my family and don't see it being beneficial to us. Sure, those without health insurance totally should have better means of obtaining it but not like this...
Deciding on how good a law is based only on how it effects you and your interests is incredibly self centered. I don't need foodstamps and having them available costs me money via taxes. Does that mean it's a bad law?
You must not pay attention to a lot of politics. When a law becomes a detriment, yeah it isn't good for me. When it affects my families quality of life, yeah I'm not gonna be to into it. You know there is a way to make laws without screwing those who don't need it?
How does this directly affect your quality of life?
And that's an incredibly stupid way of thinking. What if a law affects you and your family badly but someone else in a good way or vice-versa? How do you judge which it is in that case?
Like what if there was a bill that said we kill everyone who is poor and give their money to you. Wouldn't that be a great bill by your standards?
Read my other posts, my family is littered with people in the medical field, the ACA does NOT bode well for their pockets in the slightest. So yes, it directly affects my parents. Your argument is extremely situational, we're talking about getting people a service they deserve, which is totally different than weaseling them in at the cost of others, or making laws that directly benefit me like say....a politician.
Shouldn't it be better for medical professionals if everyone has insurance so it's guaranteed that every bill will get paid and you won't ever have patients not being able to pay?
On October 08 2013 04:20 BillGates wrote: I wish, No more deficits, debt, patriot act, NDAA, federalization of police, no more FDA, CIA, FBI, etc...
Reality is, its all fake. There is no shutdown. It would be great if the federal government just shut down, they are useless anyways, just destroying the economy, going into war, spying, you name it.
Yeah, the government does a really shitty job of making sure the drinking water is safe and warning you of when it isn't, responding to accidents and clearing the roads when an accident occurs, etc.
Successful government is invisible. You only ever notice the problem parts.
The government makes sure the water is safe? That is a great joke.
Police respond to accidents, but they do not clear anything up, private companies do. The community funded and voluntary based firefighters may help if there is a need.
There is some small legitimate use of government like courts, police, military and that's where it ends.
Everything else can be community based and voluntary, based on contracts, charity, private business.
You forgot healthcare in that list. And your tacit suggestion that volunteer firefighters are better than local government employed ones is simply wrong.
In regards to firefighters, there are seemingly odd situations where many volunteers (or paid on call) FFs are actually more experienced/proficient than many full time "professional" firefighters in the US. For example there's a small city near me of around 50k people that has a full time department that responds to about 10 structure fires a year, which means any given member runs around three or four actual fires a year, whereas thanks to mutual aid agreements some of our local volunteer departments run far more than that a year. It's really only in large cities that you full time FFs actually see a significant amount of actual fires in a year.
Additionally, fire departments not directly run by a local government are a fairly common thing but most people don't realize it, although they are still generally funded by tax dollars and just contracted out.
I'm so confused. Firefighters are better the more fires they fight per year? Do you not realize that paid, full-time firefighters train pretty much the whole time during their downtime? This makes them infinitely better equipped to fight fires when the time actually arrives, rather than volunteer firefighters. In fact this is the reason tax-payed fire fighters were created in the first place, volunteer firefighters weren't fast enough or well-equipped enough (both skill- and actual equipmentwise) to effectively fight fires.
The only thing I can concede is that volunteer firefighters may be a cheaper option, especially for small, rural US towns.
On October 08 2013 07:08 Rumpus wrote: Lol I don't think anyone got my joke? Listen I draw the line where this law has not been good for me and my family and don't see it being beneficial to us. Sure, those without health insurance totally should have better means of obtaining it but not like this...
Deciding on how good a law is based only on how it effects you and your interests is incredibly self centered. I don't need foodstamps and having them available costs me money via taxes. Does that mean it's a bad law?
You must not pay attention to a lot of politics. When a law becomes a detriment, yeah it isn't good for me. When it affects my families quality of life, yeah I'm not gonna be to into it. You know there is a way to make laws without screwing those who don't need it?
You should look up the concept of externalities.
So that is suppose to justify hurting some to help some?
So slavery should still be a thing? minimum wage gone? Women shouldn't be allowed to vote? We should still be a colony of britain?
Maybe you should think before you speak?
You're taking this waaayyyy overboard, yikes calm down. This law helps some, hurts some. Yeah, I'm caught in the tail end of it, I'm a part of that externality. But does that no entitle me to be upset? What you are saying it so far off and insane. In no way what so ever at any point did I say anything like forgetting those uninsured or something remotely resembling the garbage you just spewed, but I have every right to be annoyed with a law that I didn't need and it is costing me and my family money and time.
On October 08 2013 07:08 Rumpus wrote: Lol I don't think anyone got my joke? Listen I draw the line where this law has not been good for me and my family and don't see it being beneficial to us. Sure, those without health insurance totally should have better means of obtaining it but not like this...
Deciding on how good a law is based only on how it effects you and your interests is incredibly self centered. I don't need foodstamps and having them available costs me money via taxes. Does that mean it's a bad law?
You must not pay attention to a lot of politics. When a law becomes a detriment, yeah it isn't good for me. When it affects my families quality of life, yeah I'm not gonna be to into it. You know there is a way to make laws without screwing those who don't need it?
How does this directly affect your quality of life?
And that's an incredibly stupid way of thinking. What if a law affects you and your family badly but someone else in a good way or vice-versa? How do you judge which it is in that case?
Like what if there was a bill that said we kill everyone who is poor and give their money to you. Wouldn't that be a great bill by your standards?
Read my other posts, my family is littered with people in the medical field, the ACA does NOT bode well for their pockets in the slightest. So yes, it directly affects my parents. Your argument is extremely situational, we're talking about getting people a service they deserve, which is totally different than weaseling them in at the cost of others, or making laws that directly benefit me like say....a politician.
Shouldn't it be better for medical professionals if everyone has insurance so it's guaranteed that every bill will get paid and you won't ever have patients not being able to pay?
Not the way it works. Little more complex than that. Insurance yeah is good obviously when walking into the office but insurance that hands out far less to doctors (which will be a consequence of the ACA) isn't so awesome.
On October 08 2013 07:08 Rumpus wrote: Lol I don't think anyone got my joke? Listen I draw the line where this law has not been good for me and my family and don't see it being beneficial to us. Sure, those without health insurance totally should have better means of obtaining it but not like this...
Deciding on how good a law is based only on how it effects you and your interests is incredibly self centered. I don't need foodstamps and having them available costs me money via taxes. Does that mean it's a bad law?
You must not pay attention to a lot of politics. When a law becomes a detriment, yeah it isn't good for me. When it affects my families quality of life, yeah I'm not gonna be to into it. You know there is a way to make laws without screwing those who don't need it?
You should look up the concept of externalities.
So that is suppose to justify hurting some to help some?
So slavery should still be a thing? minimum wage gone? Women shouldn't be allowed to vote? We should still be a colony of britain?
Maybe you should think before you speak?
You're taking this waaayyyy overboard, yikes calm down. This law helps some, hurts some. Yeah, I'm caught in the tail end of it, I'm a part of that externality. But does that no entitle me to be upset? What you are saying it so far off and insane. In no way what so ever at any point did I say anything like forgetting those uninsured or something remotely resembling the garbage you just spewed, but I have every right to be annoyed with a law that I didn't need and it is costing me and my family money and time.
And when it's raining I can get pissed off at a brick wall for not being a roof but it ain't gonna do me any good. And it won't do me any good to kick the wall down because if I do that my house will never get finished.
On October 08 2013 07:08 Rumpus wrote: Lol I don't think anyone got my joke? Listen I draw the line where this law has not been good for me and my family and don't see it being beneficial to us. Sure, those without health insurance totally should have better means of obtaining it but not like this...
Deciding on how good a law is based only on how it effects you and your interests is incredibly self centered. I don't need foodstamps and having them available costs me money via taxes. Does that mean it's a bad law?
You must not pay attention to a lot of politics. When a law becomes a detriment, yeah it isn't good for me. When it affects my families quality of life, yeah I'm not gonna be to into it. You know there is a way to make laws without screwing those who don't need it?
How does this directly affect your quality of life?
And that's an incredibly stupid way of thinking. What if a law affects you and your family badly but someone else in a good way or vice-versa? How do you judge which it is in that case?
Like what if there was a bill that said we kill everyone who is poor and give their money to you. Wouldn't that be a great bill by your standards?
Read my other posts, my family is littered with people in the medical field, the ACA does NOT bode well for their pockets in the slightest. So yes, it directly affects my parents. Your argument is extremely situational, we're talking about getting people a service they deserve, which is totally different than weaseling them in at the cost of others, or making laws that directly benefit me like say....a politician.
Shouldn't it be better for medical professionals if everyone has insurance so it's guaranteed that every bill will get paid and you won't ever have patients not being able to pay?
Not the way it works. Little more complex than that. Insurance yeah is good obviously when walking into the office but insurance that hands out far less to doctors (which will be a consequence of the ACA) isn't so awesome.
Well, half the problem with your healthcare system is that it's ridiculously bloated and extremely expensive. So you're in an extremely small percentage that gets screwed over because you're profiting from a bloated system.
For anyone else other than you, the system should become a vast improvement...provided it isn't bogged down by insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, etc. all being allowed to game it.
There is some small legitimate use of government like courts, police, military and that's where it ends
How did this get on your list? If stuff like drinking water is too much bureaucracy for you, then how is spending billions sending thousands of people across the globe to fight fair game?
There is still going to be underground waters, rivers, etc... without government. Some of the water is already delivered by private businesses. The bottled water you purchase so cheap is all private, its collected, packaged, sold, transported and then resold to you by shops, all that while the price is still low enough.
Doesn't mean it can't be community run either, isn't that what socialism is ultimately, community based ownership? You can have that in a libertarian system, because libertarianism isn't a geo-political system, its an idea whose time has come. Where you can have all sorts of systems and formations as long as they are voluntary.
Oh and military does have a defense purpose and it doesn't' have to be hundreds of thousands of troops either.
Let me just say that anarcho-capitalism is one of the dumbest concepts I've ever heard. You should probably go read "The Jungle"
I haven't mentioned that oven once, have I? I've mentioned socialism, libertarianism, voluntarism, etc... thing is these are all concepts that work as long as they are voluntary.
Government is not voluntary, people are forced by it to oblige by its rules, but no one ever signed up for it. Why shouldn't I be able to leave the system of government?
I'm ultimately talking about free human interaction, people voluntarily forming and cooperating, not being forced to, so that you can take my money or I take your money, and then fight over who gets what. How about we each keep our money and decide how to spend them, I'm sure all you collectivist are very charitable and you'll willingly give over half of your income to charity to help poor people and people in need.
I'm sure you are not charitable only when its not your money, I'm sure you are charitable with your own money, I'm sure you've volunteered in the firefighting squad, I'm sure you've given your clothes when you were young to a parentless children home, I'm sure you've given your old clothes to some homeless organization, I'm sure you've volunteered in a church or community to help the elderly and with disabilities and I'm sure you've given thousands of dollars to charities to help poor people. Because I'm sure you are not just charitable on word to take other's people's money and energy, I'm sure you really are a humanitarian kind and do all the above mentioned charity stuff on a regular basis.
On October 08 2013 07:08 Rumpus wrote: Lol I don't think anyone got my joke? Listen I draw the line where this law has not been good for me and my family and don't see it being beneficial to us. Sure, those without health insurance totally should have better means of obtaining it but not like this...
Deciding on how good a law is based only on how it effects you and your interests is incredibly self centered. I don't need foodstamps and having them available costs me money via taxes. Does that mean it's a bad law?
You must not pay attention to a lot of politics. When a law becomes a detriment, yeah it isn't good for me. When it affects my families quality of life, yeah I'm not gonna be to into it. You know there is a way to make laws without screwing those who don't need it?
How does this directly affect your quality of life?
And that's an incredibly stupid way of thinking. What if a law affects you and your family badly but someone else in a good way or vice-versa? How do you judge which it is in that case?
Like what if there was a bill that said we kill everyone who is poor and give their money to you. Wouldn't that be a great bill by your standards?
Read my other posts, my family is littered with people in the medical field, the ACA does NOT bode well for their pockets in the slightest. So yes, it directly affects my parents. Your argument is extremely situational, we're talking about getting people a service they deserve, which is totally different than weaseling them in at the cost of others, or making laws that directly benefit me like say....a politician.
Shouldn't it be better for medical professionals if everyone has insurance so it's guaranteed that every bill will get paid and you won't ever have patients not being able to pay?
Not the way it works. Little more complex than that. Insurance yeah is good obviously when walking into the office but insurance that hands out far less to doctors (which will be a consequence of the ACA) isn't so awesome.
Well, half the problem with your healthcare system is that it's ridiculously bloated and extremely expensive. So you're in an extremely small percentage that gets screwed over because you're profiting from a bloated system.
For anyone else other than you, the system should become a vast improvement...provided it isn't bogged down by insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, etc. all being allowed to game it.
Don't worry, when the system damages the quality and availability of health care in the US, liberals will be quick to explain that is was bogged down by insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, etc. You may depend on that!
Likewise, criticizing a bloated system is not helped by proposing instead to make it more expensive but spread those expenses forcibly over more people. You only increase the percentage of people that gets screwed over, as you put it.
On October 08 2013 07:08 Rumpus wrote: Lol I don't think anyone got my joke? Listen I draw the line where this law has not been good for me and my family and don't see it being beneficial to us. Sure, those without health insurance totally should have better means of obtaining it but not like this...
Deciding on how good a law is based only on how it effects you and your interests is incredibly self centered. I don't need foodstamps and having them available costs me money via taxes. Does that mean it's a bad law?
You must not pay attention to a lot of politics. When a law becomes a detriment, yeah it isn't good for me. When it affects my families quality of life, yeah I'm not gonna be to into it. You know there is a way to make laws without screwing those who don't need it?
How does this directly affect your quality of life?
And that's an incredibly stupid way of thinking. What if a law affects you and your family badly but someone else in a good way or vice-versa? How do you judge which it is in that case?
Like what if there was a bill that said we kill everyone who is poor and give their money to you. Wouldn't that be a great bill by your standards?
Read my other posts, my family is littered with people in the medical field, the ACA does NOT bode well for their pockets in the slightest. So yes, it directly affects my parents. Your argument is extremely situational, we're talking about getting people a service they deserve, which is totally different than weaseling them in at the cost of others, or making laws that directly benefit me like say....a politician.
Shouldn't it be better for medical professionals if everyone has insurance so it's guaranteed that every bill will get paid and you won't ever have patients not being able to pay?
I doubt they even treat patients withoiut insurance. They probably just let them die or something like that. And even if they help them, they have to pay so much stuff that they wish they were dead because if something happens you are screwed. I think thats basically the system the americans are used to.
There is some small legitimate use of government like courts, police, military and that's where it ends
How did this get on your list? If stuff like drinking water is too much bureaucracy for you, then how is spending billions sending thousands of people across the globe to fight fair game?
There is still going to be underground waters, rivers, etc... without government. Some of the water is already delivered by private businesses. The bottled water you purchase so cheap is all private, its collected, packaged, sold, transported and then resold to you by shops, all that while the price is still low enough.
Doesn't mean it can't be community run either, isn't that what socialism is ultimately, community based ownership? You can have that in a libertarian system, because libertarianism isn't a geo-political system, its an idea whose time has come. Where you can have all sorts of systems and formations as long as they are voluntary.
Oh and military does have a defense purpose and it doesn't' have to be hundreds of thousands of troops either.
Let me just say that anarcho-capitalism is one of the dumbest concepts I've ever heard. You should probably go read "The Jungle"
I haven't mentioned that oven once, have I? I've mentioned socialism, libertarianism, voluntarism, etc... thing is these are all concepts that work as long as they are voluntary.
Government is not voluntary, people are forced by it to oblige by its rules, but no one ever signed up for it. Why shouldn't I be able to leave the system of government?
I'm ultimately talking about free human interaction, people voluntarily forming and cooperating, not being forced to, so that you can take my money or I take your money, and then fight over who gets what. How about we each keep our money and decide how to spend them, I'm sure all you collectivist are very charitable and you'll willingly give over half of your income to charity to help poor people and people in need.
I'm sure you are not charitable only when its not your money, I'm sure you are charitable with your own money, I'm sure you've volunteered in the firefighting squad, I'm sure you've given your clothes when you were young to a parentless children home, I'm sure you've given your old clothes to some homeless organization, I'm sure you've volunteered in a church or community to help the elderly and with disabilities and I'm sure you've given thousands of dollars to charities to help poor people. Because I'm sure you are not just charitable on word to take other's people's money and energy, I'm sure you really are a humanitarian kind and do all the above mentioned charity stuff on a regular basis.
Everything you've said is anarchy, and it doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say this, but whenever someone starts talking about government in terms of monopoly on force and such nonsense, I pretty much immediately tune them out. Calling us 'collectivist' pretty much makes it obvious what you are and what you stand for. And yeah, people like Bill Gates (whom I've met in person and had the opportunity to talk to) who you shamelessly use as your tag who are good people and wealthy actually do give away more than half their income to charity, but at the end of the day, most of us can't afford that, which is why the wealth gap is such an issue and why we need the ACA in the first fucking place.
On October 08 2013 07:08 Rumpus wrote: Lol I don't think anyone got my joke? Listen I draw the line where this law has not been good for me and my family and don't see it being beneficial to us. Sure, those without health insurance totally should have better means of obtaining it but not like this...
Deciding on how good a law is based only on how it effects you and your interests is incredibly self centered. I don't need foodstamps and having them available costs me money via taxes. Does that mean it's a bad law?
You must not pay attention to a lot of politics. When a law becomes a detriment, yeah it isn't good for me. When it affects my families quality of life, yeah I'm not gonna be to into it. You know there is a way to make laws without screwing those who don't need it?
How does this directly affect your quality of life?
And that's an incredibly stupid way of thinking. What if a law affects you and your family badly but someone else in a good way or vice-versa? How do you judge which it is in that case?
Like what if there was a bill that said we kill everyone who is poor and give their money to you. Wouldn't that be a great bill by your standards?
Read my other posts, my family is littered with people in the medical field, the ACA does NOT bode well for their pockets in the slightest. So yes, it directly affects my parents. Your argument is extremely situational, we're talking about getting people a service they deserve, which is totally different than weaseling them in at the cost of others, or making laws that directly benefit me like say....a politician.
Shouldn't it be better for medical professionals if everyone has insurance so it's guaranteed that every bill will get paid and you won't ever have patients not being able to pay?
I doubt they even treat patients withoiut insurance. They probably just let them die or something like that. And even if they help them, they have to pay so much stuff that they wish they were dead because if something happens you are screwed. I think thats basically the system the americans are used to.
If you do not have health insurance, or are in this country illegally, the rule of thumb is to wait until you have to go to the emergency room. The hospital cannot legally turn you away if you go to the ER.
On October 08 2013 07:08 Rumpus wrote: Lol I don't think anyone got my joke? Listen I draw the line where this law has not been good for me and my family and don't see it being beneficial to us. Sure, those without health insurance totally should have better means of obtaining it but not like this...
Deciding on how good a law is based only on how it effects you and your interests is incredibly self centered. I don't need foodstamps and having them available costs me money via taxes. Does that mean it's a bad law?
You must not pay attention to a lot of politics. When a law becomes a detriment, yeah it isn't good for me. When it affects my families quality of life, yeah I'm not gonna be to into it. You know there is a way to make laws without screwing those who don't need it?
How does this directly affect your quality of life?
And that's an incredibly stupid way of thinking. What if a law affects you and your family badly but someone else in a good way or vice-versa? How do you judge which it is in that case?
Like what if there was a bill that said we kill everyone who is poor and give their money to you. Wouldn't that be a great bill by your standards?
Read my other posts, my family is littered with people in the medical field, the ACA does NOT bode well for their pockets in the slightest. So yes, it directly affects my parents. Your argument is extremely situational, we're talking about getting people a service they deserve, which is totally different than weaseling them in at the cost of others, or making laws that directly benefit me like say....a politician.
Shouldn't it be better for medical professionals if everyone has insurance so it's guaranteed that every bill will get paid and you won't ever have patients not being able to pay?
I doubt they even treat patients withoiut insurance. They probably just let them die or something like that. And even if they help them, they have to pay so much stuff that they wish they were dead because if something happens you are screwed. I think thats basically the system the americans are used to.
If you do not have health insurance, or are in this country illegally, the rule of thumb is to wait until you have to go to the emergency room. The hospital cannot legally turn you away if you go to the ER.
But there is also a limit to how much and how long they will care for you, even after you've brought yourself to the brink of death.
On October 08 2013 07:08 Rumpus wrote: Lol I don't think anyone got my joke? Listen I draw the line where this law has not been good for me and my family and don't see it being beneficial to us. Sure, those without health insurance totally should have better means of obtaining it but not like this...
Deciding on how good a law is based only on how it effects you and your interests is incredibly self centered. I don't need foodstamps and having them available costs me money via taxes. Does that mean it's a bad law?
You must not pay attention to a lot of politics. When a law becomes a detriment, yeah it isn't good for me. When it affects my families quality of life, yeah I'm not gonna be to into it. You know there is a way to make laws without screwing those who don't need it?
You should look up the concept of externalities.
So that is suppose to justify hurting some to help some?
You clearly did not, in fact, look up the concept of externalities.
On October 08 2013 04:20 BillGates wrote: I wish, No more deficits, debt, patriot act, NDAA, federalization of police, no more FDA, CIA, FBI, etc...
Reality is, its all fake. There is no shutdown. It would be great if the federal government just shut down, they are useless anyways, just destroying the economy, going into war, spying, you name it.
Yeah, the government does a really shitty job of making sure the drinking water is safe and warning you of when it isn't, responding to accidents and clearing the roads when an accident occurs, etc.
Successful government is invisible. You only ever notice the problem parts.
The government makes sure the water is safe? That is a great joke.
Police respond to accidents, but they do not clear anything up, private companies do. The community funded and voluntary based firefighters may help if there is a need.
There is some small legitimate use of government like courts, police, military and that's where it ends.
Everything else can be community based and voluntary, based on contracts, charity, private business.
You forgot healthcare in that list. And your tacit suggestion that volunteer firefighters are better than local government employed ones is simply wrong.
In regards to firefighters, there are seemingly odd situations where many volunteers (or paid on call) FFs are actually more experienced/proficient than many full time "professional" firefighters in the US. For example there's a small city near me of around 50k people that has a full time department that responds to about 10 structure fires a year, which means any given member runs around three or four actual fires a year, whereas thanks to mutual aid agreements some of our local volunteer departments run far more than that a year. It's really only in large cities that you full time FFs actually see a significant amount of actual fires in a year.
Additionally, fire departments not directly run by a local government are a fairly common thing but most people don't realize it, although they are still generally funded by tax dollars and just contracted out.
I'm so confused. Firefighters are better the more fires they fight per year? Do you not realize that paid, full-time firefighters train pretty much the whole time during their downtime? This makes them infinitely better equipped to fight fires when the time actually arrives, rather than volunteer firefighters. In fact this is the reason tax-payed fire fighters were created in the first place, volunteer firefighters weren't fast enough or well-equipped enough (both skill- and actual equipmentwise) to effectively fight fires.
The only thing I can concede is that volunteer firefighters may be a cheaper option, especially for small, rural US towns.
Especially when there is major disaster such as forest fire, chemical blaze, volunteer firefighters wouldn't have enough training nor the equipments to deal these type of things. That is why when everyone pool money together, you can buy better things, and go around to help whose in need.
Are you suggesting that the military's sole purpose is offensive? Be serious.
Sole practice purpose? Basically, yes. America hasn't had anything even resembling a threat to their actual country in ages.
What's more, maintaining an "active" military seems pretty unnecessary in peacetime, unless one is expecting to be attacked sooner or later. Either way, whatever minimal military would exist if one accepts the argument that one is required would be nothing like the one which presently exists.
If you think that deterrence isn't a thing then you're wrong. Having our active military is what gives us influence in areas outside our own borders to protect american interests. Farvacola and sam!zdat might come tell you that doing so is a bad thing, but the US military absolutely serves a purpose.
Okay, yes, it tautologically serves whatever purpose it is employed for. But if influencing areas outside one's borders and trying to "protect american interests" (whatever that means) is bad (and it is, at least in the sense one means when talking about the US military) then this isn't exactly a shining example of why militaries get a free pass while everything else gets cut (which was the original question).
On October 08 2013 04:20 BillGates wrote: I wish, No more deficits, debt, patriot act, NDAA, federalization of police, no more FDA, CIA, FBI, etc...
Reality is, its all fake. There is no shutdown. It would be great if the federal government just shut down, they are useless anyways, just destroying the economy, going into war, spying, you name it.
Yeah, the government does a really shitty job of making sure the drinking water is safe and warning you of when it isn't, responding to accidents and clearing the roads when an accident occurs, etc.
Successful government is invisible. You only ever notice the problem parts.
The government makes sure the water is safe? That is a great joke.
Police respond to accidents, but they do not clear anything up, private companies do. The community funded and voluntary based firefighters may help if there is a need.
There is some small legitimate use of government like courts, police, military and that's where it ends.
Everything else can be community based and voluntary, based on contracts, charity, private business.
You forgot healthcare in that list. And your tacit suggestion that volunteer firefighters are better than local government employed ones is simply wrong.
In regards to firefighters, there are seemingly odd situations where many volunteers (or paid on call) FFs are actually more experienced/proficient than many full time "professional" firefighters in the US. For example there's a small city near me of around 50k people that has a full time department that responds to about 10 structure fires a year, which means any given member runs around three or four actual fires a year, whereas thanks to mutual aid agreements some of our local volunteer departments run far more than that a year. It's really only in large cities that you full time FFs actually see a significant amount of actual fires in a year.
Additionally, fire departments not directly run by a local government are a fairly common thing but most people don't realize it, although they are still generally funded by tax dollars and just contracted out.
I'm so confused. Firefighters are better the more fires they fight per year? Do you not realize that paid, full-time firefighters train pretty much the whole time during their downtime? This makes them infinitely better equipped to fight fires when the time actually arrives, rather than volunteer firefighters. In fact this is the reason tax-payed fire fighters were created in the first place, volunteer firefighters weren't fast enough or well-equipped enough (both skill- and actual equipmentwise) to effectively fight fires.
The only thing I can concede is that volunteer firefighters may be a cheaper option, especially for small, rural US towns.
My source for this discussion is years of experience working with a variety of volunteer and "professional" fire fighters in and around a couple smaller (sub 100k population) cities. I freely admit that major cities are a completely different animal.
Real experience world experience is huge for building competence, especially for commanders. No training can ever fully recreate the experience of an actual incident. And no, they do not train during all their down time (again, there are exceptions). All the full time departments I know of spent relatively small amounts of time training. Quality of volunteers probably has a higher variance of quality of full time staff, but the average difference is far less than would probably be expected by someone that doesn't have familiarity with the industry, and even smaller for paid on call and combination (part paid, part volunteer/paid on call) departments.
A reasonably equipped volunteer department has more actual experience for their FFs and equal equipment. A very large percentage of "professional" fire fighters actually have little interest in fighting fires, but just want an easy job with great pay (which most fire departments offer, with the exception of major metropolitan departments)
EPT
