Naw, we can't do that. That would mean taking personal responsibility and we know that's an evil concept which shall never be mentioned.
Clearly you don't understand the purpose of 3D printing. As Raj and Howard showed, you can print your own whistle. In only 3 hours!
Considering the courts have said it's perfectly legal for the government to force people to hand over their money to private companies or have the money extracted from their bank accounts, I can't see a scenario where these same courts would say it's illegal for a community to put taxpayers on the hook for the lost taxes.
If you call a nanny state advanced, then Myanmar must be the height of advanced society.
HAHAHA! Thanks for the laugh.
I speak from experience when I tell you you're dreaming if you think government has training procedures. We have a training group and my area (the IT side) does more to train end users than they do. We keep wondering why we're paying these people when everyone comes to us with training questions.
Yeah, but don't tell that to the people who marked me flamebait for stating the obvious.
How many cars are on the road compared to how many Teslas?
If you have tens of millions of cars and trucks (pickup trucks) on the U.S. roads, you are bound to have many fires for various reasons.
When you only have a few thousand of a specific car on the road and several catch fire, you need to ask questions and investigate.
Anti-freeze, I've been told, has a slightly sweet taste. You can add it to someone's drink without them knowing it. Until they have kidney failure.
So if they find I'm a good driver, never getting in any accidents, maintain a good distance between myself and other vehicles, don't get any tickets, they'll give me a huge discount, at least 50%, from what I'm paying now, right?
Insurance company: We're sorry, we don't operate that way.
Me: Yeah, thought so. Just another scam to hand over my money to a private company.
There is no alleging about it. People who deliberately break into someone else's systems are criminals. By your logic if I leave my door unlocked and you walk in and steal my stuff, I'm the one at fault. Nice way to blame the victim. Do I need to drag out the rape example?
Such as turning off your phone when in a meeting, dinner date or at the movies, not trying to get one car ahead by jamming your vehicle into the six foot space, not walking across the middle of the street and expecting traffic to stop on a dime, not using a curse word every three seconds because you think it's cool or being edgy, answering a question with "Read the fucking manual!"
You steal my personal data, sell it to someone else who uses that data to commit crimes, you are a dangerous person.
Stop trying to make excuses when people commit crimes. They're a criminal, pure and simple.
No, it's not. If I am perfectly healthy (which I am) and able to pay my medical bills from my own savings, why should I have to have the added financial burden of paying for YOUR medical bills? That is what medical insurance is about after all, and something this administration has repeatedly said in the form of, "We need as many healthy people as possible to sign up so they can pay for the sick."
Health insurance is a cost which is never recovered. Ever. It's actually worse than car insurance because the insurance companies are betting you will stay healthy while you are betting you will get sick or injured.
That's not reasoning; that's manipulation.
No, it is reasoning by illustrating one of many reasons the colonists broke away from England. They were tired of BEING manipulated by government. They were tired of having to send the product of their labors back to England and then being told they had to buy finished products, made from their labors, only from England. They were tired of having their taxes go to expand the British Empire, tired of being used as pawns against the French, and so on. Their lives, to use your example, existed solely for the benefit of someone else. What they wanted did not matter. Thus, revolution and independence.
The rest of the world sees through these political and corporate planted "opinions" as nothing more than a way to protect profits.
Corporate planted? How is arguing AGAINST giving my money to a company a corporate planted opinion? I'm arguing against giving companies free money. If anything, I should be heralded by the Slashdot crowd for fighting against corporate governance and greed. The only one who is protecting profits is the Obama administration who gave insurance companies this windfall.
Your government tells you what to do and buy all the time you twit
Really? Explain how that works. Do they tell me I must buy my cable service from a specific company? Phone/cell service? Broadband (local government yes, but not Federal)? How about what food I must buy? The car I drive? Name one item the government tells me I must buy. Remember, this is on the Federal level we're talking about.
You don't oppose health care for "freedom" and you know it. You oppose it because you are told to.
No, I oppose being told I have to pay for your health insurance while you can continue to smoke, be obese, be an alcoholic or do drugs without having to change your ways. I oppose being told I must give up the fruit of my labors to people who won't take personal responsibility for their lives (going back to your original comment). I oppose having the government reach into my bank account and forcibly extracting my money and handing it over to a private company because I didn't "voluntarily" hand over the money to the company.
Health care and unhealthy American food are pretty much as far apart as things can get.
No, they're not. Americans eating junk food has a very high correlation to bad health. Witness the most recent result which shows why medical costs are so high in the U.S.: The reason what you think. Diabetes and heart disease come from two main issues: regularly eating food which is bad for you and not having an active lifestyle.
But if you would care to explain how keeping society healthy and productive, doing it cheaper than the American system and reducing crime is not a good thing
Considering UACA doesn't keep costs down or make people productive, it's a moot point. Nowhere in the bill are costs contained. The only thing this bill does is force people like me to pay for those who can't, or won't, take care of themselves. That is all. There will be no cost reduction and as we've seen from the early results, insurance costs are going up.
As to the crime issue, if you mean people who deliberately commit a crime so they can go to jail to get medical help, that goes directly back to personal responsibility. Apparently they can figure out how to get what they need by committing a crime but are unwilling to go out and get even a menial job which may offer health benefits. At the very least they can work at the job and be able to pay for their own insurance.
So tell me, how much money have you given to your neighbors, or random strangers for that matter, who needed medical help? I don't mean through a third party, I mean you, personally, coughing up money and giving it to someone? If the answer is zero, fuck off. If you can't walk the walk, don't expect me to do what you won't.
Maybe, maybe not. In some states you can opt not to have insurance if you provide proof you have a certain amount of assets or put up a certain amount of money.
Further, the car analogy fails because there is no government requiring you to own a car. There are many people in this country how don't own a car and never will. That is their choice.
Contrast that with this Un-ACA where the federal government has dictated everyone must hand over their money to a private company or face having that same government reach into their personal bank account and forcibly extract money because one didn't hand over money to a private company.
How can you continue to assert the awfulness of these systems when they've proven themselves highly successful?
The difference between here and elsewhere is we don't consider a nanny state a good thing. We don't (well, most rational people at least) expect the government to insinuate itself into every minute aspect of ones life. One of the contributing reasons to our revolt from Britain was the fact that the Crown was dictating to the colonists in the form of who they could buy products from (only England), how they should worship (The Church of England), and so on.
When our Constitution was written it was deliberately worded so the power of the central government was limited in scope. While one can argue its reach has significantly expanded over the centuries, never has the central government been granted the power to tell people what they must buy. Ever. Under any circumstance. Until now.
I realize looking in from a country where your every need is taken care seems like a good thing, but we don't see it that way. We like to make our lives on our own terms without the government saying, "You must do this, or else." Some take this notion to the extreme but most people just want as little government interference in their lives as possible with the understanding there will always be a need for some government.
Just because something is successful doesn't necessarily make it a good thing. By that logic the success of McDonald's hamburgers is a good thing for the food industry.
Bullshit, bullshit, BULLSHIT! Your problem is your problem, not mine, unless you are saying because it's your problem I get to solve it in which case I get to yank the cigarette from your mouth when you're walking down the street because it's known to significantly raise the risk of getting cancer. By doing so, I will be getting a better bang for my buck since I'm the one who has to pay for your medical care (based on your false assumption).
If your premise were true, that would also mean I get to harangue you when I see you at a restaurant shoveling high fat, high cholesterol food into your 300+ lb gullet, put up signs at bars and package stores notifying them not to sell you alcohol because you're an alcoholic and when you're busted for using drugs, force you into treatment, no matter how severe as well as have you tell me where you get the stuff so they can be prosecuted.
That is what you meant when you said your individual problem is everyone else's problem, right? Or did you mean everyone gets to pay, and pay, and pay some more so you don't have to have any personal responsibility for your actions?
That's what got us into this mess in the first place.
No, what got us into this mess is people like you believing everyone else should pay for your lifestyle choices. You want to smoke, go for it. Just don't expect me to pay for your replacement lung or cancer treatment. You want to be obese, fine. You pay for lapband or other surgeries, not to mention paying for your diabetes treatments. You think doing drugs is cool and doesn't hurt anyone, then don't expect people to revive you when you OD or care for you when your brain is fried. You made the choice, you pay for it. You're not my responsibility.