No, I put in that part specifically because some places do not have trash disposal via taxes. In my town there are at least 4 private haulers that most people have contracts with. I'm sure there are a few people who choose to haul their own trash to a landfill on an as needed basis.
But there is no municipal (or pseudo municipal) trash service.

Good luck getting requirements that are written in law revised or waived.

Ever have a requirement that you could point to and say: "Strike that requirement and I can cut the schedule in half" Yet it is still a challenge getting everyone to agree on changing it. Now imagine the people you are negotiating with is Congress.... and they have to pass a law in order to agree with the changes... and any attempt to re-open the requirements attracts hundreds of lobbyists trying to figure out how to change the requirements in order to get their paymasters a bigger share of the profit.

That shipped sailed long ago.

Everyone has to pay for trash disposal. You have no choice. You can't burn it, you can't pile it on your property.

You either haul it to a private landfill and pay them. Or you pay a private hauler to take it away. Or you pay taxes that pay a private hauler with a government contract to haul it away.

Anything else is illegal.

Spoken like someone without much imagination.

When the power goes out, the odds of needing to make a 911 call go way up.

The fusion of heavier elements actually liberates less energy, and above some point (iron?) fusion of nuclei is a net loss of energy, which is why heavy elements are so much rarer than the lighter elements. They are all 'parasitic' losses of energy that are only produced during supernova.

A "binding energy" chart shows that light elements should be fused to release energy and heavy elements should be split to release energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Binding_energy_curve_-_common_isotopes.svg

No, this is not true.

Once a car starts burning there's a lot of fuel that has a high ignition point so is unlikely to start burning, but once lit is almost impossible to put out, which is why cars tend to burn down to scorched patches of pavement.

The tires are fuel, the plastic dashboard is fuel, the foam in the seats is fuel, the rubber hoses in the engine compartment is fuel, lots of rubber and plastic material, all flammable fuel.

... now that sounds more than a little bit fishy.

So... all words that can take the role of multiple parts of speech should be banned? or what?

In many cases government inefficiency is caused by Congress. Congress funneling money to their districts, to their contributors, etc.

Just look at the difficulties when they were trying to close military bases. Congressmen always wanted to keep "their" base open.

The same thing with prohibitions on the government from using its size to negotiate contracts to its benefit (i.e. drive down the prices of drugs that it buys). These are inefficient transfers of public money to private industry mandated by Congress.

So, there was no Bonus Army? no Hooverville? no Food Riots in 1931?

I guess the New Deal was just something that sprang from no where for no reason at all.

No, I'm implying that the sensationalist stories are easy to find, but are comparing apples and bowling balls.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that "non-essential" means 'surplus' or 'extra' or 'not needed'

"essential employee' is defined by statute (i.e. a law passed by congress) and is typically used when closing offices for events like Hurricane Katrina. "non-essential" employees are sent home or told not to come in.

You are most likely considered a "non-essential" employee by your own employer.

"Essential employees" typically have jobs related to safety or security. Non-essential do not.

If government shutdowns weren't political theater, then ALL employees would gone. The borders would be open, the airports would be closed, etc.

"The biggest problem you're facing down the road is when some bureaucrat decides that keeping you alive is not cost-effective"

Can you clarify your position?
Are you saying that you believe in spending money in a non cost effective manner, i.e. wasting it on ineffective end-of-life care?
Or are you saying that not only should we spend money ineffectively on futile end of life care that actually makes dying people miserable and suffer by inflicting invasive care upon them that actually doesn't accomplish much except waste their last days on God's good earth, but also we should spend *every* dollar of medical expenses ineffectively by by wasting large amounts of each medical dollar on grossly inflated industry 'profits' that occur due to the huge market inefficiencies, the intrinsic in-elastic demand curve for urgent and emergency medicine, and the opaqueness of medical pricing (aka 'trade secrets')?

It's easy to find someone who had a plan that didn't actually cover anything (but it was cheap! oh so cheap! only $x a month in exchange for a nebulous nothing) and now can only find plans that meet the minimum coverage requirements and therefore costs more.

Yes and No.

Drugmakers, Insurance Companies and Medical Device makers all are forgoing some of their profits (e.g. the medical device tax) in exchange for the larger volume of people with coverage.

It's just one of several mechanisms in the law to shift costs and benefits around in our broken health care 'market' via regulation.