I could sum up why you're just an altogether unlikeable person, but you seem to have done a pretty good job at that yourself.

Don't worry, it's just because you're too smart and ahead of the curve and whatnot.

oh, you got me! there's also investment, which they get a cut of from handling my money anyway. good job completely ignoring my point though, which is that I'm not stealing from my bank just by not paying 1 month late on all my credit card bills. The same can't be said for using a website's sole service while blocking their sole source of revenue. So no, it's not the same. Try harder.

if a company couldn't make any money through their website, there'd be no reason to have that website in the first place. Any website such as youtube, huffington post, hulu, and pretty much anything else that doesn't just act as a company's product-ordering site wouldn't exist.

Banks make money through loans, with our without the use of credit cards. That's their whole business. If i'm using their service (taking loans) then I'm already contributing.

this is the approach I take. I want websites to get revenue from my visits, but I'm not selfless enough to sit there while a giant auto-playing video ad slows down my browsing. I sympathize with people who hate THOSE ads, but that's no reason to hate the majority of ads that are reasonable and convenient, and it's definitely no reason to claim some ridiculous moral integrity based on your choice to go out of the way and deny money to the websites you visit.

Also, if you've ever dressed nicely before going out to a bar (or if you even have a job resume), then congratulations, you're an advertiser and a hypocrite.

If you're one of those weird people who visits more than 3 or 4 websites a month, that model would get very expensive very quickly.

Actually, your attitude IS pretty outrageous. Advertising != forcing you to buy it. It's still something businesses rely on so that people actually know they EXIST, and that's worth the occasional penis enlargement ad and the silly products you just listed.

Plus, like the OP said, if websites didn't get revenue from ads, they'd have to get it directly from you. Any website you visit with ".com" in it likely wouldn't exist or be the same.

$42k? That's disgusting. yeah, I left out the hospitals themselves but I don't disagree with you. Charging that kind of price just to get basic care would probably get you thrown in prison in most developed countries.

Good god, doesn't anyone know how to do a little reading on subjects before giving their lectures? As much as everyone hates insurance companies, they actually contribute very little overall to the cost of health care (less than 10%), and malpractice lawsuits contribute far less than even that. The BIGGEST contributor to the outrageous health care costs in the US is, by far, a lack of pricing regulations over pharmaceutical companies and manufacturers (which every other developed country in the world has) and a willingness by politicians (and insurance companies) to sign contracts with pharmaceutical businesses to meet their ridiculous prices. Why do you think people can go to Mexico to buy the same medicine for less than 1/10th of what they pay for it in the US? It's not like Mexico can afford to subsidize a wide variety of medicine; most of that stuff is completely unsubsidized. It's because pharmaceutical companies know they can charge outrageous prices for cheap medicine knowing that we'll buy it if we have to.

And "Obamacare" does indeed address this issue, although nowhere near as much as it should, and that was even before it got neutered by the corporate henchmen we know as (mostly Republican) Congressmen. If you seriously think "real" health care reform is just making it impossible for people to sue for botched operations (which can already take years in many states, if it's even permitted), you need to stop watching Fox Noise.

There seems to be a common misconception that no other country could POSSIBLY have better overall health care than the US. What makes you think that providing more coverage means lowering the average service quality? There are more choices than "good for a few" or "crappy for all"; just look at every other developed country in the world.

But let's just go by this stupid, arbitrary video-game rule where everything has to be balanced out to remain fair, and let's say that "good for a few" and "crappy for all" are the only choices. You know what would be best for most people? "Crappy for all", since crappy access to health care is better than no access to health care.

And last but not least, LOL at "best of breed health care." Americans seem to think that hospitals are as shiny and seamless as the one House works in, but who can blame them? It's not like they ever get to step inside one.

1960s or not, it wasn't engineered and run by soviets who answered (directly) to clueless tyrants.

I guarantee you that "journalists" were being paid to sensationalize the issue. And people are STILL comparing the fukushima plant to some 1970s Soviet power plant? Incidents like Chernobyl happened due to cheap building and cheaper maintenance; the Fukushima "incident" happened due to a giant tsunami and record seismic activity.

But just look at what's going on now. Japan's shutting down ALL their nuclear power plants so they can import oil from foreign companies, and several European politicians have been pushing for the same thing; meanwhile in the US, this sensationalism has just been cannon fodder for the mindless ranting made by people who own $100 in Exxon/Shell/etc stock.

And these people wouldn't be able to get away with it if it wasn't for the idiots who eat all this up. If you're one of those people who bought into the scare tactics, you share just as much blame as the companies behind it.

if so many of your students are apparently such bad programmers, I'm guessing it's due to a mutual problem they share (you), even though you clearly seem enthusiastic about your job.

Our $15.6 trillion public debt disagrees.

Pull whatever numbers out of your ass that you want, the tax is still covering the cost of the educational campaigns. I'd be thrilled if the tax revenues were high enough to be 100x the cost of the campaigns, but I seriously doubt it's that high.