Scott's pretty scrawny. I don't think he'd be able to hold onto all those gold bricks when the rest of the crowd tries to take them from him.
Yes, insurance is all about shared risk but why should someone have to pay for a risk that does not apply to them?
For example I am a man (or woman). Some health issues are gender related and do not apply to me so why should my money be used to share the risk of something that I am not at risk of falling ill to?
Health care does require judgement calls and risk assessments, not just in dollars and cents either. If two people need a kidney and you only have one, who gets it? If a person has lived 90 years and an operation has a 20% chance of giving them a few more years of life with a high risk factor of them not surviving the operation do you take the risk and operate? If someone gets a new liver and then lives an unhealthy life that requires another new liver do they get it?
My greatest fear of a government run universal healthcare system is the abuse. It's one thing if someone games the system for a few dollars of free money every month. It's something entirely different when their gaming results in someone else not getting the health care that they need to live.
You do realize that it's already common practice in the U.S. to refuse operations based on risk factors and organ transplants on the lifestyle of the patient?
As for why you should have to pay health insurance to mitigate risks that do not apply to you: It indirectly benefits you. The healthier the people around you are, the better the entire society and country you live in is going to be. There will be more and more qualified people available to work for or with you, there will be larger customer bases, there will be more soldiers, etc. All of these people will be happier and thus more productive because they will be healthier and will have less worries.
Man hours are what... maybe $20/hr for skilled labor? While a modern firetruck is a $75,000? Do volunteer firefighters volunteer more than 3,750 hours a year? That's 156 days, 24 hours a day.
If the government wasn't I would step in to do so and I hope so would everyone else.
I believe that eventually they would. All government is inherited from the natural anarchy at some point. People that grew up "sheltered" in the assumptions of protection for generations seem likely to have to fail a few times before they figure it out again - but eventually people always come back to wanting to form societies for mutual benefit.
Yeah, eventually they would. It's called forming a government.
Anyone who believes this phrase is an idiot: "Oh man, the government is so terrible. They should just let people get together and make their own collective decisions about how to live."
You know, I think you, highdefinition, are probably a Libertarian. Many Libertarians are decent people, who naively assume that since they would naturally volunteer to fight fires and uphold the law in the absence of a government, that others would be so inclined. This sort of political system only works when people all are nice, and work together for common goals. Instead, you often get a tragedy of the commons situation. It's a delicate balance between anarchy and totalitarianism. Regulating people's behavior too much is terrible as well, but I think you need a certain amount of governmental oversight to manage a populace.
And that's just 1 firetruck, used. I'm assuming a volunteer force would have at least one. So let's add in 10 sets of helmets, vests, gloves, pants, boots and estimate it at $20k. That brings the total up to $100k for one station. Add in a dirt cheap $100k building, assuming the government got one donated for super cheap and only has to pay the equivalent rent of a $100k mortgage. Now we're up to $200k.
Some quick math...
We're up to 10000 manhours worth of labor. 416 days, 24 hours a day. Let's say that volunteers spend a total of 20 hours a week working on fires and training. That's 500 weeks. Or 50 weeks, with each volunteer (a force of 10) working 20 hours a week.
So at the very least, considering I ballparked the equipment from here, taxes for a volunteer force at least equal the amount donated by volunteers.
OH MAN! I found one even better. Here's an actual budget (albeit from a few years ago) for a city in Michigan with both volunteer and paid firefighters. So look at the real numbers to see how much taxes pay for. It's certainly not an insignificant amount.
Yeah, eventually they would. It's called forming a government.
Government isn't necessarily the only solution, just the most common. Unless you broadly define government to include even small scale temporary tacit agreements.
Here's an idea. Maybe, and this is going to sound batshit crazy I know, but just maybe we could spend less money on building machines to fucking murder people, and spend that money on keeping US citizens alive! We have the hospitals, we just need the funds. Coincidentally, we also have a giant fucking arsenal of weapons and materiel that is far better than that of any enemy we have at present! Why the fuck does the Next-Generation bomber need a weaponized laser and an onboard AI-driven drone strike system? Why can't we spend that money curing poor kids with treatable leukemia?
Here's an idea. Maybe, and this is going to sound batshit crazy I know, but just maybe we could spend less money on building machines to fucking murder people, and spend that money on keeping US citizens alive! We have the hospitals, we just need the funds. Coincidentally, we also have a giant fucking arsenal of weapons and materiel that is far better than that of any enemy we have at present! Why the fuck does the Next-Generation bomber need a weaponized laser and an onboard AI-driven drone strike system? Why can't we spend that money curing poor kids with treatable leukemia?
How about we determine the cost of healthcare and puppies for everyone and divide that among every religous organization that doesn't pay taxes
Why should religious organizations pay taxes? I mean, the workers should pay income taxes, yes, and I'm pretty sure they all do. But the money that's not spent paying them is otherwise money to a non-profit, and non-profits don't get taxed...
Why should religious organizations pay taxes? I mean, the workers should pay income taxes, yes, and I'm pretty sure they all do. But the money that's not spent paying them is otherwise money to a non-profit, and non-profits don't get taxed...
Forget taxes. They should all be charged with conspiracy to defraud.
Why should religious organizations pay taxes? I mean, the workers should pay income taxes, yes, and I'm pretty sure they all do. But the money that's not spent paying them is otherwise money to a non-profit, and non-profits don't get taxed...
Forget taxes. They should all be charged with conspiracy to defraud.
Why should religious organizations pay taxes? I mean, the workers should pay income taxes, yes, and I'm pretty sure they all do. But the money that's not spent paying them is otherwise money to a non-profit, and non-profits don't get taxed...
Forget taxes. They should all be charged with conspiracy to defraud.
And also for successfully defrauding.
I'm sorry if I don't understand the legal terms going on here, but how are churches defrauding people? They actively solicit donations from people telling those people exactly what they're going to spend it on - Building and expanding the church.
Don't worry about them, Axel. They are arbitrarily targeting religion. They apparently don't understand the concept of fraud. Wherein you have to intend to deceive. The majority of religious organizations don't intend that.
There are also plenty of religious organizations that do great good for society and don't promote hatred.
Don't worry about them, Axel. They are arbitrarily targeting religion. They apparently don't understand the concept of fraud. Wherein you have to intend to deceive. The majority of religious organizations don't intend that.
There are also plenty of religious organizations that do great good for society and don't promote hatred.
Wait a second. It's ok to commit fraud if nobody can prove I intended to deceive? In other words, it's ok to sell snake oil if you believe in the snake oil?
A person who believed snake oil could cure diseases isn't being frauded. If you TOLD a person snake oil cured diseases, and then they bought it, that's fraud. If YOU believe in snake oil, and tell someone you honestly think it will help them, and then it doesn't, you didn't fraud them. You're just a psycho...I mean, homeopath.
Don't worry about them, Axel. They are arbitrarily targeting religion. They apparently don't understand the concept of fraud. Wherein you have to intend to deceive. The majority of religious organizations don't intend that.
There are also plenty of religious organizations that do great good for society and don't promote hatred.
No Scott, it's not OKAY to commit fraud. But you can't be convicted of fraud if nobody can prove you intended to deceive.
If you believe in the snake oil, and there is otherwise no law restricting the claims you may make about snake oil, then it's not fraud to sell it based on your claims.
In the US, we have LOTS OF OTHER LAWS governing the claims you may make about medicinal properties. You might get convicted for violating labeling laws, but not for fraud.
To sum up: There is a difference between being wrong/mistaken and active deception. The latter is fraud, the former is not.
I'm not really okay with church's giving out political opinions, but it's not like they're controlling people. If a pastor/priest gave his political opinion, that doesn't mean the entire church needs to follow it.
I'm not really okay with church's giving out political opinions, but it's not like they're controlling people. If a pastor/priest gave his political opinion, that doesn't mean the entire church needs to follow it.
I'm not really okay with church's giving out political opinions, but it's not like they're controlling people. If a pastor/priest gave his political opinion, that doesn't mean the entire church needs to follow it.
Depends where you live.
I understand that sometimes, there's pressure and stuff, but you always have free will. Someone else's opinion is only yours if you want it to be.
I'm not really okay with church's giving out political opinions, but it's not like they're controlling people. If a pastor/priest gave his political opinion, that doesn't mean the entire church needs to follow it.
Depends where you live.
I understand that sometimes, there's pressure and stuff, but you always have free will. Someone else's opinion is only yours if you want it to be.
Well, yeah. We do. However, if a church said "You need to vote for Rick Perry, he is the second coming of Jesus." you would still be free to not vote for Rick Perry, and the church would still lose its tax-exempt status (ideally).
The problem lays in the fact that the church is given a preferred status by the government (exemption from taxes) because (in theory) of the good it can do and the role it plays in people's lives. In exchange, the church is supposed to not use that power to endorse a political candidate or encourage voting one way or another. There's supposed to be a separation.
There is supposed to be a separation, and ideally there should be. I don't want the politics mucking up my religion and vice versa. However, unless the pastor/priest was paid to tell people their opinion, they haven't really done anything illegal, just immoral, and you can't make the entire church not tax-exempt anymore because one guy did something immoral.
There's a difference between a church leader and a Church. The pastor/priest is allowed to have his own views, discuss them, and vote. However, he can't stand up as the official representative of the Church and tell people the Church wants you to vote for X. Just like Obama is allowed to go to church and tell people he is Christian, but as President he can't tell everyone they have to be Christian.
Some Churches abuse the rule and try to get around the no politics rule. We deal with them the best we can. That doesn't mean we need to revoke the status for all churches. That would be like putting everyone in jail because a few guys couldn't refrain from killing people.
Comments
As for why you should have to pay health insurance to mitigate risks that do not apply to you: It indirectly benefits you. The healthier the people around you are, the better the entire society and country you live in is going to be. There will be more and more qualified people available to work for or with you, there will be larger customer bases, there will be more soldiers, etc. All of these people will be happier and thus more productive because they will be healthier and will have less worries.
Anyone who believes this phrase is an idiot:
"Oh man, the government is so terrible. They should just let people get together and make their own collective decisions about how to live."
It's a delicate balance between anarchy and totalitarianism. Regulating people's behavior too much is terrible as well, but I think you need a certain amount of governmental oversight to manage a populace.
Also, what Nuri said.
Some quick math...
We're up to 10000 manhours worth of labor. 416 days, 24 hours a day. Let's say that volunteers spend a total of 20 hours a week working on fires and training. That's 500 weeks. Or 50 weeks, with each volunteer (a force of 10) working 20 hours a week.
So at the very least, considering I ballparked the equipment from here, taxes for a volunteer force at least equal the amount donated by volunteers.
Here you go
I don't think that city's fire department would work without taxes supporting them.
There are also plenty of religious organizations that do great good for society and don't promote hatred.
$_$
If you TOLD a person snake oil cured diseases, and then they bought it, that's fraud.
If YOU believe in snake oil, and tell someone you honestly think it will help them, and then it doesn't, you didn't fraud them. You're just a psycho...I mean, homeopath. Truth. Glad someone understands things.
If you believe in the snake oil, and there is otherwise no law restricting the claims you may make about snake oil, then it's not fraud to sell it based on your claims.
In the US, we have LOTS OF OTHER LAWS governing the claims you may make about medicinal properties. You might get convicted for violating labeling laws, but not for fraud.
To sum up: There is a difference between being wrong/mistaken and active deception. The latter is fraud, the former is not.
The problem lays in the fact that the church is given a preferred status by the government (exemption from taxes) because (in theory) of the good it can do and the role it plays in people's lives. In exchange, the church is supposed to not use that power to endorse a political candidate or encourage voting one way or another. There's supposed to be a separation.
Some Churches abuse the rule and try to get around the no politics rule. We deal with them the best we can. That doesn't mean we need to revoke the status for all churches. That would be like putting everyone in jail because a few guys couldn't refrain from killing people.