Tuesday, September 20, 2011 5:24:04 PM
If I choose not to purchase insurance, I have chosen to assume the risk myself. F*ck you.
If you choose not to purchase insurance, end up hospitalized, and are unable to pay a massive bill, guess who ends up paying for it assh*le?
It's the same as regulating any other theft, because it`s the exact same consequences: if YOU can`t or don`t pay for it, then WE (or the insurance companies, which will end up raising prices on US) WILL have to pay for it, because the hospitals will end up raising their prices to cover the loss.
If people would`ve paid their bills in the first place, the system wouldn`t be f*cked up and this wouldn`t have had to happen.
Now they have no choice, and everyone wants to b*tch. It`s just like a classroom - one little idiot causes problems, everyone suffers.
And it all starts with people like you: The one little idiot.
Monday, September 19, 2011 6:43:12 AM
Just wait a few years until you are actually old enough to have experienced paying tax for any length of time and have benefitted from what they actually pay for. Then you might be in a position to say they are a bad thing. After all, taxation has been around in some form or other for 4000 years. You'd better get your argument for its abolition a little deeper than "It`s wrong for the government to take things from me by force", when you know damn well something is given back in return; services.
Monday, September 19, 2011 6:41:40 AM
Now, I am not saying all privatised entities are bad, far from it. What I do believe however is that there is a place for entities that exist for the good of the people who use them and not the people who own them. Why should someone profit from your illness? Should McDonalds be able to buy the school where my kids go? What's to stop them serving nothing but burgers for lunch? Will my local park be bought by someone who will charge me an entrance fee? What if there are no alternative parks to go to? Will people have to rely on charitable housing associations to provide comfortable affordable housing because council housing no longer exists?
Monday, September 19, 2011 6:16:06 AM
It sounds like you are talking about total capitalism, where everything is a commodity to be bought and sold, and there is no such thing as a public service. I'd be very wary of espousing a corporate-run future. I doubt there would be any elected leaders representing you, only people who have enough money to preside over everything you do for profit. Too poor to use my road? Find another one. That one too long? Tough. You want your child taught in this highly rated school? You`d better mortgage your kidney, because only the super rich can afford it. You only have enough money to scrape by? Bad luck, you`d better get used to having the worst of everything, and your kids had better get used to the idea of learning how to whittle wood at school. Sorry, but I prefer my services to be provided by people I elect.
Sunday, September 18, 2011 12:23:21 AM
Remember when I said that corporations would pay money to enforce contracts? Keep in mind that every single transaction you make that involves goods is a contract. When you hand money to a corner store owner, it is implied that he will give you cigarettes. If there was no government, there would be no implication that he would give you anything. If you didn't pay a little extra to the government to secure every transaction you make, your contract would not be legally secure. You use the government everyday; this is something that would be paid for, or the free-market would crash overnight.
You`re still in the mindset that the government is a ruler of the people. Thomas Jefferson made it clear that the government is a servant, not a ruler.
A servant still needs to be paid. If you don`t pay, you don`t get a servant. What`s so hard to understand?