The government is at least potentially answerable to the people it serves.
Hahahaha, thanks for the laugh:) How is Government "answerable" to the people when the political parties get to draw the election districts in such a way as to maximize their chances of winning re-election? Go take a look at the number of incumbents who are re-elected (or even the number who run unopposed) and then tell me that Government is "accountable".
Corporations are only answerable to their share holders (and often not even that)
No, corporations are answerable to their customers, because barring Governmental bailouts they can't stay in business without them.
Government run services are also run for the common good
No they aren't. They are run for the good of whatever special interest happens to be favored by the political party that's currently in power. Public education reform is held hostage by the teacher unions. Financial reform is held hostage by the banks. Entitlement reform is held hostage by the AARP. Energy reform is held hostage by the extremist environmentalists on the left and big business on the right. Our foreign policy is at the mercy of AIPAC.
Our Government hasn't operated for the "common good" for quite some time. If your issue isn't backed by a loud and well financed lobbying group it's basically dead on arrival in Washington. Given all that, you'll forgive my skepticism of new Governmental programs.....
One poverty-stricken and grilled-planet coming up for you sir. Would you like a little laissez-faire dressing on your dish sir...?
The history of socialism suggests that it will be the leftists who turn it into a poverty-stricken planet. As far as "grilled" goes, we are already fucked on that one anyway -- unless you purpose to go to war with China and India to stop their development.
Oh, did you mean the big bad american boogie-man, the liberal who's coming for your guns and wants to give all your money to poor, gay minorities?
That's a nice way to try and stereotype me, but was I was specifically referring to was the spend spend spend attitude that is personified by the Democratic Party in the United States. It doesn't really have anything to do with "gay minorities". The President ran on a platform of hard choices but hasn't made any. He ran on a platform of bipartisanship and a "new kind" of politics but has turned his domestic agenda over to the most partisan element of his party in the Congress. Nothing has changed -- we've replaced a far-right ideologically driven government with a far-left one.
The Democrats are acting in the exact same manner as the GOP did in 2000 and are only too happy to pretend that the 47% of the country that didn't vote for them doesn't exist. They seem to think the election was a mandate for every leftist idea that's been collecting dust on the shelf at Berkley for the last few decades. Those of us in the middle know better -- the election was the final rejection of Bush'ism, not a mandate for the left.
I wasn't even thinking of gun rights when I made that remark but that's another issue that I could raise -- though thankfully it seems that the Democrats from moderate/conservative districts are placing political-survival ahead of the party agenda on that particular issue. There's actually a few that believe in gun rights too (Tester, Webb and Baucus come to mind) so I'm really not worried about that issue on the Federal level. Here in the People's Republic of New York is another matter of course......
To be fair it should be noted that the GOP wasn't any better on spending/hard choices -- but beating that dead horse doesn't really seem to serve any purpose now that they aren't in power, does it?
Yeah, that's about as much to do with liberalism as the abstinence-only, fundamentalist, intelligent-design teaching US christian right is conservative.
What it's supposed to be and what it actually is in our body politic are two different things. Personally at this point I'll vote for whomever seems to have the political capital to place reality ahead of ideology. I didn't vote for him but I had assumed that was going to be President Obama. Unfortunately he last few months have thoroughly dispelled that illusion. It seems the best we can hope for under our broken system is divided Government -- I think I'd like Obama much more if the GOP took back Congress and we had some checks and balances on partisan power.
Libertarianism rarely survives ones first graduate job.
Liberalism rarely survives ones first paycheck and the discovery of how much of your money the Government is taking from you. To borrow a quote, "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain."
And for the record, fuck yes I am anti-business. Corporations are, from my personal experience, a completely malignant form of social and economic organisation. I have found them to be places that stifle creativity, individuality, hope and happiness.
Got a better suggestion? For all it's flaws our capitalist system has produced much of the wealth and technology that we take for granted. I've yet to see a system that I'd rather live under.
There is no anti-business sentiment on slashdot. There is an anti-getting-screwed-over sentiment. I don't know when we started equating "not buying their bullshit" with "anti-business", but it's a pretty scary trend.
I'm not a big fan of getting screwed over either. I just don't advocate governmental intervention to deal with companies/industries that have screwed me over. I just don't do business with them. I don't buy music from RIAA labels, I don't do business with credit card companies that have mandatory arbitration agreements, I don't do business with American Airlines (a rather long story but suffice it to say they screwed me over once too), etc, etc.
If you've never worked in a corporate environment, it would be hard to believe how twisted some people are.
I've worked in corporate environments for the last 15 years and my main observation is that they are infested with bureaucracy (too much management), indecision/inertia (we've always done it THIS WAY...) and Dilbert stereotypes (particularly the PHB, marketing guys, and Wally). I don't think most of them are really "twisted" though. I think it's a side effect of any large organization. Take a look at any Governmental agency and you'll see the same thing -- except in those agencies you'll find more Wally's because they know that they have lifetime employment if they don't screw up too bad.
As much as I know this is heated topic in slashdot -- and i probably get modded down for it
Yeah, you will. Evidently 'flamebait' and 'troll' are the new 'I disagree with this person and am too lazy to write a good rebuttal' mods.
the big label records AREN'T there to fuck everyone over.
See, I was with you until you said that. I find the anti-business sentiment around here to be annoying and naive but I can likewise find no redeeming value from the big record labels. Their specialty seems to be litigation and lobbying, not music. They've run their business into the ground with a series of stupid decisions and if it wasn't for their lobbying clout and deep pockets would probably have been replaced by more nimble competitors a long time ago.
But I think record labels are needed to support the artists.
I would agree with that to a certain extent -- but I still refuse to give any RIAA member a penny of my money. I also agree with you that it's not really fair to pirate their product just because you don't like their business model. I've done my share of filesharing in my younger days but nowadays it's just not worth the hassle -- particularly when better stuff is available for a fair price from non-RIAA record labels.
That's certainly a win-win for the cops -- if they delay treatment and the guy dies, their investigation has gone from attempted murder to murder, a plus
I don't think most members of law enforcement would view that as a "plus"......
Have we really come to a point where someone is a troll simply for taking the Constitution at face value?
Yes, we have. You should have seen the moderation in the recent discussions about health care reform. Every single person that was skeptical of more governmental involvement got modded down to -1. Every single post in favor of it got modded up to at least 4.
It wouldn't have bothered me as much if they had all been modded -1 offtopic (the comments were in a story about RIAA) but I find it particularly infuriating that there seems to be a large contingent of leftists around here whom are willing to use their mod points to silence opposing viewpoints. The problem of people modding down opposing viewpoints isn't a new one around here but lately it seems to have gotten completely out of control.
On the astronomically rare occasion when they do malfunction, replacing them is literally a plug-and-play swap out that takes under 60 seconds.
To be fair, it should be noted that would also require dispatch/drive time of an employee that is presumably well paid (around here they are all union guys)......
You'll need to come up with another justification for their greed
*shrug*, you call it greed, I call it a basic service charge. It's not free for them to provide you with a connection to their network even if you don't use any energy. What the heck is up the recent upturn in anti-business sentiment around here, anyway? Where'd all the/. libertarians go?
power company apologist!;)
Oh yeah? Well at least I know how to use one of these: </b>;)
You were always screwed if you don't have your machine physically secured. There's really nothing new here other than an interesting implementation of a concept that's been around for awhile. If you care about the privacy of your information then your PC had better be secured at least as well as you would secure your other valuables. If someone can gain physical access to your machine then it's effectively game over.
Yeah, I remember reading about all those debates the Founding Fathers had about electrical generation when drafting the constitution. Franklin thought that the Bill of Rights should include the right the fly kites in thunderstorms and Jefferson thought the 2nd amendment should protect his right to shoot said kite out of the sky. They eventually settled on a compromise whereby the House would be based on the number of electrical consumers in a given area and the Senate would be based on the number of electric companies in the whole country.
Even at high voltage the loss with DC would be much greater than with AC
Says who? Ever heard of HVDC? Ever heard of the skin effect? With modern technology DC may very well prove to be more efficient for long distance transmission than AC.
Your original story was interesting and informative. Now you're just trying to win an ideological discussion - can't be done.
Regardless of what you think of the ideological discussion I'm disappointed that I don't see anybody besides one AC calling out the complete bullshit that is the moderation in this thread. Every single one of my posts that spoke out against socialized health care got modded -1 troll but every single post in favor of them got modded up to at least 4.
I wouldn't care if they had all been modded -1 offtopic but to use moderation points to punish those who disagree with your political ideology is complete bullshit. It's pretty pathetic that I'd get a fairer hearing on Daily Kos speaking out against Obama-care (they only down-mod for insults/trolling over there) than I do on a neutral site like/.
I hope they pay for it during meta-mod but have little faith that will happen either.
Really, you think a single person on "the dole" is taking down $15,000?
By the time you combine the benefits they get from welfare, SSI, food stamps, WIC, free medical insurance, housing assistance, blah, blah, blah, yes they are taking down at least $15,000 or more.
Thanks for ignoring my main point though. Evidently you think it's ok for the Government to steal nearly half of your income.
Here's an important one: you can't just make shit up.
What did I make up? The last half of the 20th century has seen a continual expansion of Governmental power at the expense of individual liberty. Sin taxes, the criminalization of victimless crimes, the expansion of the nanny state in areas ranging from your automobile (seat belt laws) to your internet connection (laws against pornography). Do you honestly believe that this trend is going be reversed when the Government takes over health care?
More charitably, you just demonstrated a particular variant of the logical fallacy known as the "slippery slope argument."
If the slippery slope argument lacked validity then we'd all still have SSN cards that were stamped "Not for identification" and it wouldn't be a unique key for everything from college admissions to credit card applications.
If you're spending money on healthcare insurance anyway why do you care? Either way you're spending the money so that's not a valid argument.
Because I get to choose which insurance company I do business with. Because I can walk away from them anytime I wish. Because if I miss a payment with them they don't have the power to take me out of my house at gunpoint and throw me in jail.
You can't even argue on price because with socialised healthcare you're cutting out the insurance companies meaning more money actually gets spent on/in hospitals rather then ending on up in insurers pockets.
No, it means more money will get on spent on the hospitals in the district of whichever Congress-critter has the most seniority on the appropriations committee. It means more money will get on spent on hospitals that picked the right horse back in November when they were writing campaign contribution checks.
I fail to see why you're have such a problem with this but happily have a socialised police force and fire service
Actually, around these parts the fire service is a volunteer one. The police I don't have a problem with because as I said earlier it is a proper role for Government to resolve disputes between the citizenry and stop my neighbor from murdering me. I don't think running the health care system is a proper role for the Government. It's going to wind up being held hostage to special interests and political considerations.
Health care is a basic human right however you're treating it as luxury for only those that can afford it?
What of my basic human right to enjoy the fruits of my own labor? I make ~$32,000 and my combined tax burden (federal/FICA/state/local/school/gasoline/sales/etc) is close to 45% of my income. That means I'm working for someone else 18 hours a week. Why should I even continue to bother? I'd have almost the same standard of living if I quit my job and started mooching off the system like the rest of the bottom feeders.
Every single thing the Government touches eventually becomes mired in corruption and dominated by special interests that care only for themselves. Take a good long look at the sad state of public education in the United States. Now tell me why I should expect health care to come out any differently?
The NHS would be doing great if they just ignored the patents on US made drugs and fabricated them locally.
Do that and the rest of your economy will go down the shitter when we stop trading with you.
Paying drug companies 21,000 USD per injection is stupid and I don't care how research costs factor into it.
If it wasn't for that research there wouldn't be any drug to inject. I'd be interested to know which drug goes for $21,000 per dose too.
There wouldn't be any rationing if it weren't for your damn country overcharging us.
And that's the whole problem with socialized anything. It's based on the assumption that the people providing the service don't have the right to charge what they want. I'd like to see how you'd respond if you had a Government bureaucrat sitting in the payroll office at your employer, telling you that you are making too much money and it isn't fair to everybody else.
Judgments can be executed against personal property in most (probably all) American jurisdictions.
Most personal property up to a certain dollar value is exempt from seizure. The remaining personal property generally isn't worth seizing. Yeah, they can theoretically come into your house and seize your couch and second TV. Tell me, what does a used TV generally fetch at auction? Hint: Not enough to make it worth their while.
Having a substantial portion of your wages garnished for 20 years is also hardly a laughing matter.
Actually wage garnishment is a joke in most instances. They can't garnish your wages if they don't know where you work. You aren't obligated to help them find out where you work. That's problem number one for them. Problem number two is that a civil judgment is generally last in the priority list for wage garnishment. Child support, alimony and taxes come ahead of it -- and if they exceed a certain percentage of your income (garnishments are generally limited to 10-15% depending on state) then there's nothing left for the civil judgment to garnish.
There's also at least four states that don't allow civil wage garnishment. Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina and Pennsylvania. Yet other states have extremely broad exemptions in other areas. Flordia for example has an unlimited homestead exemption. You could own a ten million dollar house and your creditors can't touch it. Why do you think OJ Simpson moved there after he lost the civil suit?
The bottom line is that if you know what you are doing you can avoid paying a civil judgment indefinitely. They aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
Simply put, taxing healthcare allows people to get on with their jobs rather then worry at all about finance in an emergency situation.
Yes, now we can worry about our finances all the time instead.
So what happens when someone takes your wallet and stabs you
He would have been filled with 230 grain.45 jacketed hollow points before he got that far. Don't worry though I'm sure he has health insurance through the thieves guild;)
If your version of a health system which determines if I live or die all depends on where my wallet is it's a poor system.
If your version depends on the Government determining whether you live or die then it's a poor system.
One of government's proper roles is to prevent individuals from depriving OTHER individuals of their freedom of choice. Which can sometimes require using force to prevent some asshole from insisting that it's his "freedom of choice" to go around raping little kids or something equally heinous.
I'm pretty sure I said that.....
I personally think that the current form of government has bloated way, way beyond what it needs to be to provide a stable healthy society, but sometimes the libertarian "don't-want-to-pay-for-anything" and "don't-want-anybody-to-be-able-to-stop-me-from-doing-anything" rants
Where did I say that I don't want to be stopped from doing anything? I just don't want to be stopped from doing things that only harm myself.
Slashdot Mirror
The government is at least potentially answerable to the people it serves.
Hahahaha, thanks for the laugh :) How is Government "answerable" to the people when the political parties get to draw the election districts in such a way as to maximize their chances of winning re-election? Go take a look at the number of incumbents who are re-elected (or even the number who run unopposed) and then tell me that Government is "accountable".
Corporations are only answerable to their share holders (and often not even that)
No, corporations are answerable to their customers, because barring Governmental bailouts they can't stay in business without them.
Government run services are also run for the common good
No they aren't. They are run for the good of whatever special interest happens to be favored by the political party that's currently in power. Public education reform is held hostage by the teacher unions. Financial reform is held hostage by the banks. Entitlement reform is held hostage by the AARP. Energy reform is held hostage by the extremist environmentalists on the left and big business on the right. Our foreign policy is at the mercy of AIPAC.
Our Government hasn't operated for the "common good" for quite some time. If your issue isn't backed by a loud and well financed lobbying group it's basically dead on arrival in Washington. Given all that, you'll forgive my skepticism of new Governmental programs.....
One poverty-stricken and grilled-planet coming up for you sir. Would you like a little laissez-faire dressing on your dish sir...?
The history of socialism suggests that it will be the leftists who turn it into a poverty-stricken planet. As far as "grilled" goes, we are already fucked on that one anyway -- unless you purpose to go to war with China and India to stop their development.
Oh, did you mean the big bad american boogie-man, the liberal who's coming for your guns and wants to give all your money to poor, gay minorities?
That's a nice way to try and stereotype me, but was I was specifically referring to was the spend spend spend attitude that is personified by the Democratic Party in the United States. It doesn't really have anything to do with "gay minorities". The President ran on a platform of hard choices but hasn't made any. He ran on a platform of bipartisanship and a "new kind" of politics but has turned his domestic agenda over to the most partisan element of his party in the Congress. Nothing has changed -- we've replaced a far-right ideologically driven government with a far-left one.
The Democrats are acting in the exact same manner as the GOP did in 2000 and are only too happy to pretend that the 47% of the country that didn't vote for them doesn't exist. They seem to think the election was a mandate for every leftist idea that's been collecting dust on the shelf at Berkley for the last few decades. Those of us in the middle know better -- the election was the final rejection of Bush'ism, not a mandate for the left.
I wasn't even thinking of gun rights when I made that remark but that's another issue that I could raise -- though thankfully it seems that the Democrats from moderate/conservative districts are placing political-survival ahead of the party agenda on that particular issue. There's actually a few that believe in gun rights too (Tester, Webb and Baucus come to mind) so I'm really not worried about that issue on the Federal level. Here in the People's Republic of New York is another matter of course......
To be fair it should be noted that the GOP wasn't any better on spending/hard choices -- but beating that dead horse doesn't really seem to serve any purpose now that they aren't in power, does it?
Yeah, that's about as much to do with liberalism as the abstinence-only, fundamentalist, intelligent-design teaching US christian right is conservative.
What it's supposed to be and what it actually is in our body politic are two different things. Personally at this point I'll vote for whomever seems to have the political capital to place reality ahead of ideology. I didn't vote for him but I had assumed that was going to be President Obama. Unfortunately he last few months have thoroughly dispelled that illusion. It seems the best we can hope for under our broken system is divided Government -- I think I'd like Obama much more if the GOP took back Congress and we had some checks and balances on partisan power.
Libertarianism rarely survives ones first graduate job.
Liberalism rarely survives ones first paycheck and the discovery of how much of your money the Government is taking from you. To borrow a quote, "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain."
And for the record, fuck yes I am anti-business. Corporations are, from my personal experience, a completely malignant form of social and economic organisation. I have found them to be places that stifle creativity, individuality, hope and happiness.
Got a better suggestion? For all it's flaws our capitalist system has produced much of the wealth and technology that we take for granted. I've yet to see a system that I'd rather live under.
There is no anti-business sentiment on slashdot. There is an anti-getting-screwed-over sentiment. I don't know when we started equating "not buying their bullshit" with "anti-business", but it's a pretty scary trend.
I'm not a big fan of getting screwed over either. I just don't advocate governmental intervention to deal with companies/industries that have screwed me over. I just don't do business with them. I don't buy music from RIAA labels, I don't do business with credit card companies that have mandatory arbitration agreements, I don't do business with American Airlines (a rather long story but suffice it to say they screwed me over once too), etc, etc.
If you've never worked in a corporate environment, it would be hard to believe how twisted some people are.
I've worked in corporate environments for the last 15 years and my main observation is that they are infested with bureaucracy (too much management), indecision/inertia (we've always done it THIS WAY...) and Dilbert stereotypes (particularly the PHB, marketing guys, and Wally). I don't think most of them are really "twisted" though. I think it's a side effect of any large organization. Take a look at any Governmental agency and you'll see the same thing -- except in those agencies you'll find more Wally's because they know that they have lifetime employment if they don't screw up too bad.
I will literally shit myself if my government appoints a minister of puppies, pink ponies and day old baby ducklings.
What does the tasty foods ministry have to do with this?
The overtly corporate and hopelessly generic radio stations across the country
It's fucking sad, isn't it? I can literally set my watch by the music that is played on local radio stations. Umm, Nickelback, it must be 4:30.......
As much as I know this is heated topic in slashdot -- and i probably get modded down for it
Yeah, you will. Evidently 'flamebait' and 'troll' are the new 'I disagree with this person and am too lazy to write a good rebuttal' mods.
the big label records AREN'T there to fuck everyone over.
See, I was with you until you said that. I find the anti-business sentiment around here to be annoying and naive but I can likewise find no redeeming value from the big record labels. Their specialty seems to be litigation and lobbying, not music. They've run their business into the ground with a series of stupid decisions and if it wasn't for their lobbying clout and deep pockets would probably have been replaced by more nimble competitors a long time ago.
But I think record labels are needed to support the artists.
I would agree with that to a certain extent -- but I still refuse to give any RIAA member a penny of my money. I also agree with you that it's not really fair to pirate their product just because you don't like their business model. I've done my share of filesharing in my younger days but nowadays it's just not worth the hassle -- particularly when better stuff is available for a fair price from non-RIAA record labels.
That's certainly a win-win for the cops -- if they delay treatment and the guy dies, their investigation has gone from attempted murder to murder, a plus
I don't think most members of law enforcement would view that as a "plus"......
Have we really come to a point where someone is a troll simply for taking the Constitution at face value?
Yes, we have. You should have seen the moderation in the recent discussions about health care reform. Every single person that was skeptical of more governmental involvement got modded down to -1. Every single post in favor of it got modded up to at least 4.
It wouldn't have bothered me as much if they had all been modded -1 offtopic (the comments were in a story about RIAA) but I find it particularly infuriating that there seems to be a large contingent of leftists around here whom are willing to use their mod points to silence opposing viewpoints. The problem of people modding down opposing viewpoints isn't a new one around here but lately it seems to have gotten completely out of control.
On the astronomically rare occasion when they do malfunction, replacing them is literally a plug-and-play swap out that takes under 60 seconds.
To be fair, it should be noted that would also require dispatch/drive time of an employee that is presumably well paid (around here they are all union guys)......
You'll need to come up with another justification for their greed
*shrug*, you call it greed, I call it a basic service charge. It's not free for them to provide you with a connection to their network even if you don't use any energy. What the heck is up the recent upturn in anti-business sentiment around here, anyway? Where'd all the /. libertarians go?
power company apologist! ;)
Oh yeah? Well at least I know how to use one of these: </b> ;)
And, is it true we are screwed?
You were always screwed if you don't have your machine physically secured. There's really nothing new here other than an interesting implementation of a concept that's been around for awhile. If you care about the privacy of your information then your PC had better be secured at least as well as you would secure your other valuables. If someone can gain physical access to your machine then it's effectively game over.
That has got to be unconstitutional
Yeah, I remember reading about all those debates the Founding Fathers had about electrical generation when drafting the constitution. Franklin thought that the Bill of Rights should include the right the fly kites in thunderstorms and Jefferson thought the 2nd amendment should protect his right to shoot said kite out of the sky. They eventually settled on a compromise whereby the House would be based on the number of electrical consumers in a given area and the Senate would be based on the number of electric companies in the whole country.
Even at high voltage the loss with DC would be much greater than with AC
Says who? Ever heard of HVDC? Ever heard of the skin effect? With modern technology DC may very well prove to be more efficient for long distance transmission than AC.
You aren't re-connecting every month, so there's no way to charge for "connecting" again and again...
You are leasing equipment (a meter) from them though. They are obligated to replace that equipment out of their own funds if it breaks.
Your original story was interesting and informative. Now you're just trying to win an ideological discussion - can't be done.
Regardless of what you think of the ideological discussion I'm disappointed that I don't see anybody besides one AC calling out the complete bullshit that is the moderation in this thread. Every single one of my posts that spoke out against socialized health care got modded -1 troll but every single post in favor of them got modded up to at least 4.
I wouldn't care if they had all been modded -1 offtopic but to use moderation points to punish those who disagree with your political ideology is complete bullshit. It's pretty pathetic that I'd get a fairer hearing on Daily Kos speaking out against Obama-care (they only down-mod for insults/trolling over there) than I do on a neutral site like /.
I hope they pay for it during meta-mod but have little faith that will happen either.
Really, you think a single person on "the dole" is taking down $15,000?
By the time you combine the benefits they get from welfare, SSI, food stamps, WIC, free medical insurance, housing assistance, blah, blah, blah, yes they are taking down at least $15,000 or more.
Thanks for ignoring my main point though. Evidently you think it's ok for the Government to steal nearly half of your income.
Here's an important one: you can't just make shit up.
What did I make up? The last half of the 20th century has seen a continual expansion of Governmental power at the expense of individual liberty. Sin taxes, the criminalization of victimless crimes, the expansion of the nanny state in areas ranging from your automobile (seat belt laws) to your internet connection (laws against pornography). Do you honestly believe that this trend is going be reversed when the Government takes over health care?
More charitably, you just demonstrated a particular variant of the logical fallacy known as the "slippery slope argument."
If the slippery slope argument lacked validity then we'd all still have SSN cards that were stamped "Not for identification" and it wouldn't be a unique key for everything from college admissions to credit card applications.
If you're spending money on healthcare insurance anyway why do you care? Either way you're spending the money so that's not a valid argument.
Because I get to choose which insurance company I do business with. Because I can walk away from them anytime I wish. Because if I miss a payment with them they don't have the power to take me out of my house at gunpoint and throw me in jail.
You can't even argue on price because with socialised healthcare you're cutting out the insurance companies meaning more money actually gets spent on/in hospitals rather then ending on up in insurers pockets.
No, it means more money will get on spent on the hospitals in the district of whichever Congress-critter has the most seniority on the appropriations committee. It means more money will get on spent on hospitals that picked the right horse back in November when they were writing campaign contribution checks.
I fail to see why you're have such a problem with this but happily have a socialised police force and fire service
Actually, around these parts the fire service is a volunteer one. The police I don't have a problem with because as I said earlier it is a proper role for Government to resolve disputes between the citizenry and stop my neighbor from murdering me. I don't think running the health care system is a proper role for the Government. It's going to wind up being held hostage to special interests and political considerations.
Health care is a basic human right however you're treating it as luxury for only those that can afford it?
What of my basic human right to enjoy the fruits of my own labor? I make ~$32,000 and my combined tax burden (federal/FICA/state/local/school/gasoline/sales/etc) is close to 45% of my income. That means I'm working for someone else 18 hours a week. Why should I even continue to bother? I'd have almost the same standard of living if I quit my job and started mooching off the system like the rest of the bottom feeders.
Every single thing the Government touches eventually becomes mired in corruption and dominated by special interests that care only for themselves. Take a good long look at the sad state of public education in the United States. Now tell me why I should expect health care to come out any differently?
The NHS would be doing great if they just ignored the patents on US made drugs and fabricated them locally.
Do that and the rest of your economy will go down the shitter when we stop trading with you.
Paying drug companies 21,000 USD per injection is stupid and I don't care how research costs factor into it.
If it wasn't for that research there wouldn't be any drug to inject. I'd be interested to know which drug goes for $21,000 per dose too.
There wouldn't be any rationing if it weren't for your damn country overcharging us.
And that's the whole problem with socialized anything. It's based on the assumption that the people providing the service don't have the right to charge what they want. I'd like to see how you'd respond if you had a Government bureaucrat sitting in the payroll office at your employer, telling you that you are making too much money and it isn't fair to everybody else.
Judgments can be executed against personal property in most (probably all) American jurisdictions.
Most personal property up to a certain dollar value is exempt from seizure. The remaining personal property generally isn't worth seizing. Yeah, they can theoretically come into your house and seize your couch and second TV. Tell me, what does a used TV generally fetch at auction? Hint: Not enough to make it worth their while.
Having a substantial portion of your wages garnished for 20 years is also hardly a laughing matter.
Actually wage garnishment is a joke in most instances. They can't garnish your wages if they don't know where you work. You aren't obligated to help them find out where you work. That's problem number one for them. Problem number two is that a civil judgment is generally last in the priority list for wage garnishment. Child support, alimony and taxes come ahead of it -- and if they exceed a certain percentage of your income (garnishments are generally limited to 10-15% depending on state) then there's nothing left for the civil judgment to garnish.
There's also at least four states that don't allow civil wage garnishment. Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina and Pennsylvania. Yet other states have extremely broad exemptions in other areas. Flordia for example has an unlimited homestead exemption. You could own a ten million dollar house and your creditors can't touch it. Why do you think OJ Simpson moved there after he lost the civil suit?
The bottom line is that if you know what you are doing you can avoid paying a civil judgment indefinitely. They aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
There's plenty more situations you could make up.
Operative words there.....
Simply put, taxing healthcare allows people to get on with their jobs rather then worry at all about finance in an emergency situation.
Yes, now we can worry about our finances all the time instead.
So what happens when someone takes your wallet and stabs you
He would have been filled with 230 grain .45 jacketed hollow points before he got that far. Don't worry though I'm sure he has health insurance through the thieves guild ;)
If your version of a health system which determines if I live or die all depends on where my wallet is it's a poor system.
If your version depends on the Government determining whether you live or die then it's a poor system.
One of government's proper roles is to prevent individuals from depriving OTHER individuals of their freedom of choice. Which can sometimes require using force to prevent some asshole from insisting that it's his "freedom of choice" to go around raping little kids or something equally heinous.
I'm pretty sure I said that.....
I personally think that the current form of government has bloated way, way beyond what it needs to be to provide a stable healthy society, but sometimes the libertarian "don't-want-to-pay-for-anything" and "don't-want-anybody-to-be-able-to-stop-me-from-doing-anything" rants
Where did I say that I don't want to be stopped from doing anything? I just don't want to be stopped from doing things that only harm myself.
You know what's wonderful? Just because it's free, it's not the only choice
You think universal health care is free? Thanks for demonstrating just how divorced from reality you are.....
No big :)