It's nice to have someone who knows what they are talking about post about the NHS.rachelbean wrote:Then she told me the total, for 3 months of BC which was £8 and I actually started laughing out loud, because at home I had paid $130 for 3 months WITH INSURANCE.
I'll see what I can do. I've got some Dropcams that upload directly to their servers, that may have to suffice.rEvolutionist wrote:Set up live streaming so it goes out to the internet as it happens.Seth wrote:I'll try to have my GoPro up and running, but no guarantees it'll make it out of police custody.Xamonas Chegwé wrote:I hope there will be Youtube of this.Seth wrote:And I'm free not to do business with them if I don't want to...or at least I used to be free. Now I'm compelled to buy insurance from such people by law, which, by the way, I refuse to obey. Eventually they will send out jackbooted thugs with machine guns to try to force me to comply. They will not succeed.
Exactly. You are being forced to pay for other people's health and lifestyle choices without your consent.mistermack wrote:Yes, national insurance is compulsory.
Evidently it did because you keep insisting all the shit you get from the system is "free." It's not.I thought that that was so obvious, even idiots wouldn't need it stating.
No, liability insurance to cover damages to others is required, but should not be. However, all I have to do to stop having to pay for such insurance is not drive. I guess all you have to do to stop being forced to pay for other people's health care is drop dead.Motor insurance is compulsory in the US if you drive.
Eventually, yes. If I drive without the mandatory liability policy it's a misdemeanor criminal offense and if I resist being arrested forcefully enough you can bet the farm that the machine guns will eventually come out. But I'm not compelled to pay for that insurance, it's a free choice and I can not do so simply by not operating a motor vehicle on a public highway...or by operating someone else's motor vehicle who consents to paying for such insurance.How awful. Do they send round jackbooted thugs for the premiums? You poor dears.
And their choice is to modify their business model so as to avoid that requirement.In Britain, public liability insurance is compulsory for businesses that might have a liability to the public.
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but that's what insurance is for. If you think you are at risk while engaging in some pursuit, business or recreational, then it behooves you to buy an insurance policy that will cover you against the perils involved in that activity. That is how insurance works, don't you see? It's designed so YOU get to assess your risks and exposures to liability and decide how much you want to cover. If you fail to cover yourself adequately, then you suffer the consequences of your poor judgment. On the other hand, if you do something that harms someone else, if they failed to cover themselves against that peril in their own insurance policy and you are "judgment proof" in that you have nothing of value they can seize under court order, then they get to suffer the consequences of their poor judgment.It's a good thing. If people run a business that might cause you harm, they don't just say, ''I haven't got the money'' when you claim.
Wanna bet? Do you really think that every dime you have forcibly extracted from your wallet for NHS goes to health care...ANYBODY'S health care?It's all good stuff. But National Health insurance is the best value of all, because there's no middle man.
What makes you think I pay income tax?JimC wrote:Your libertarian objections apply just as well to income tax. Why haven't you already died in a hail of bullets as you attempt to fend of the IRS?
Not enough TAXABLE income...that they know about.JimC wrote:Not enough income, I suppose...
Well, that's a fair point about your forcible contribution but it merely reinforces the argument that you would then be even more of a social leech and thief than you are if you contribute anything. Both situations are equally immoral. Why should anyone else have to pay your expenses? You've never adequately addressed that particular part of the equation.mistermack wrote:I have a choice not to pay national insurance.
Just don't have a job.
Similar choice to his choice not to drive.
Seth's arguments destroyed in seconds. Again.
Because I'm equally happy to pay theirs.Seth wrote:Why should anyone else have to pay your expenses? You've never adequately addressed that particular part of the equation.
So because you choose to be charitable you assume that you have the authority to make everyone else be charitable as well? That's not charity, that's selfishness and greed.mistermack wrote:Because I'm equally happy to pay theirs.Seth wrote:Why should anyone else have to pay your expenses? You've never adequately addressed that particular part of the equation.
Ah yes, the classic "democratic" argument for tyranny of the majority. Well, when the majority decides that you're too sick and feeble to be worth the investment of keeping you alive, I don't want to hear any complaints from you.And because this is what we choose, as a nation.
And you think that a tyrannous majority is inherently more moral or ethical than anything else why, exactly? Be careful what you advocate for, lest you get the shit end of the stick from the majority one of these days.That's what being a nation is all about. You get together and decide things as a group. And then enforce them on those who don't want to play nations.
Every journey begins with a single step and every revolution begins with a single objector to the status quo.If you don't like it, start your own nation. You can't fight a whole nation on your own.
No, quite obviously Marxism, your ideal, is, as Greece is proving this very minute.mistermack wrote:Your ideal is doomed to failure.
Nobody suggested getting rid of government.Get rid of government, leave it all to the individuals, and what happens?
What you mean "we" paleface?Some individuals get pissed off within days. The assholes are making life hell. And they know that by working together, they can defend themselves from the assholes, and improve virtually everything.
So they get together. Immediately they are stronger and more effective than the loners.
Other groups form. They fight wars. Eventually, one lot wins out.
And you're back to what we have now.
It's only inevitable because there are lazy, greedy people who want others to support them and manage to create governments with the power to force others to do so. The trick is not to allow government to have or gain that sort of power to begin with, which is what our Constitution was all about. Admittedly it's been grossly distorted of late, but it worked quite well for more than 150 years, which is a pretty long run for such a system, and it's worked fairly well up until quite recently. To restore it to effectiveness is a relatively minor matter if the populace decides to do so, which it may when it gets fed up with paying to support all the layabouts and doleists.It's absolutely inevitable.
And it ought to be obvious. It's the history of your country, for fuck's sake !
What, you mean, if they all work together, to get what they want?Seth wrote:It's only inevitable because there are lazy, greedy people who want others to support them and manage to create governments with the power to force others to do so. The trick is not to allow government to have or gain that sort of power to begin with, which is what our Constitution was all about. Admittedly it's been grossly distorted of late, but it worked quite well for more than 150 years, which is a pretty long run for such a system, and it's worked fairly well up until quite recently. To restore it to effectiveness is a relatively minor matter if the populace decides to do so, which it may when it gets fed up with paying to support all the layabouts and doleists.It's absolutely inevitable.
And it ought to be obvious. It's the history of your country, for fuck's sake !
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 19 guests