We have a win!
I think the argument goes democratic government is by it’s very nature inefficient and so the less of it the better.
And they aren’t all wrong.
Well then I expect you’ll pay their medical bills whether Medicare goes away or not. *Be *the change, Crafter_Man!
No, just mostly wrong.
Arguing that government is inefficient is meaningless when you look at the vast wasteland the free market has created in healthcare.
That’s just stupid. I trust you will be flying to Somalia to make your fortune soon? Please?
Healthy workers are necessary for widget factories to work. As are roads to deliver the widgets, fiber optic lines to receive the orders and trade agreements with other countries to buy the refined widgeterium ore necessary to make the widgets. The government makes all those things possible. For the same reason that the government fights pandemics. The government creates the field that allows profit to be had by business.
Oh, you’re just a moron. Sorry, I thought you may have just been misguided. No, you’re just an idiot. Do you agree with public police departments? Do you believe in public fire departments? Do you agree with public schools? Do you agree with water being freely available? You’re an imbecile. 
Here, my friends, is the point where RR takes the step from being a mere sociopath into the realm of full-scale psychopathy. He has not only dismissed the needs of those other than himself, but has equated them with the price of a movie ticket. He is no longer some cute, annoying loser. He is now mentally hanging out with serial killers.
Yeah. Socialist hellholes. Like all of these.
Perhaps you can settle a bet: I have a friend who thinks you’re Sasha Baron Cohen trying out a new character while I think you’re Andy Kaufman returned from the dead. Obviously you need to work on the satire since nobody could be as simultaneously stupid, paranoid, ill-informed, and provincial as your character is and still use a computer, but I think you’ve definitely been around American wingnuts enough to get some mannerisms, hence I’m going Kaufman.
And “I’ll gladly pay for my elderly parents’ healthcare” sounds a lot like “I wish that 300 pound bodybuilding son of a bitch in that bar would have come up and started something with me, I’d have punched his ass out in two seconds”.
If my house catches fire, I should be charged for any and all expenditures incurred by the FD. If my neighbor’s house catches fire, he should be charged for any and all expenditures incurred by the FD. As for fixed costs (fire house, engines, salaries, training, etc.) I have no problem contributing to them on a voluntary basis. If someone chooses not to help fund the FD, they will simply have to watch their house burn when it catches fire.
It is socialism when the federal government takes control over something that is a personal responsibility. Health care is a personal responsibility, not a social responsibility.
They’re not right, either. I will say that democratic government in conjunction with deficit spending is by its nature inefficient. Voters want more spending, but they don’t want taxes, so they get spending, but not taxes. I think we need a federal balanced budget amendment to guarantee the long-term viability of the US economy.
shrug I still remember, long ago, a right-leaning poster on this very board saying:
So it’s a very real political feeling; a hardcore libertarianism, perhaps? Not sure how common it is, though.
Do you think government serves any legitimate function, then?
So you’re going to forego Medicare when the time comes, then? And if your house DOES catch on fire, you’re going to reimburse the local fire department?
Live your beliefs, man!
Yeah; I decided a long time ago, after one of his similar rants, that he’s either trolling us (very successfully, too, I might add) or he’s really, really, really fucked up. Either way, I don’t really see much point in engaging him. There’s just enough rationality/believability in his posts to keep people going, but then he throws out a nugget like that movie ticket thing, and…well, like I said. Fucked up.
…Anyway, carry on. (If you must.)
Worked well in Rome, or at least made Crassus rich.
So if an apartment catches on fire then the neighboring apartments better be by god paid up on their fire department payments and hope that the fire department doesn’t have a glitch in their records or it’s burn baby burn.
No, it is not. Even somebody who is militantly antisocialist but actually knows what the fuck socialism is will tell you that is not a definition of socialism. You are embarassing yourself. Now stop trying to make words, you are outputting when you should be intaking.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess you think Glenn Beck is a genius, don’t you?
There’s too much government control. It should be a market-driven system.
It does not bother me that some people do not have life insurance, home insurance, etc. Health care is a luxury. You can choose to make the sacrifices to buy it, or you can choose not to.
In a market-driven system, customers would fire those companies and purchase insurance from a better company. Same as people do with cellular service.
Follow-up: In a “market-driven system” as you envision it, do you believe that it would ever be unprofitable to insure/treat certain people? If so, do you believe that any company would step up to the plate and swallow that loss? If not, do you believe that this would be a bad thing? What options would those people have? Would your ideal system have anything in place to avoid such situations?
Finally, something that may not be fully related, but I think is relevant: how much control do you believe insurance companies should have in determining a customer’s medical care?
I believe the governing philosophy at work here is “Poor people; Fuck 'em”.
It needs to be voluntary; each person or homeowner should have the liberty to choose whether or not to support the fixed costs incurred by each service. And then they should be charged a fee when they actually use it.
Because I have a different opinion that you, I am an “imbecile”? :rolleyes:
Hypothetically, under such a system, could someone safely get away with murder by killing someone who couldn’t afford the police fee? Or would police services make an exception for such crimes?
Actually I think it’s more a reference to your subnormal intelligence and deficient reasoning ability. I can see why you’d misunderstand though.