Big Business & Big Government vs. the People

Why do you feel car insurance costs less because it is mandatory?
In your above example. How much did everyone else pay?
If we consider the cost of accidents to be the same each year, it's really just a question of who pays for it. For some drivers who have an accident, insurance will make he cost of that accident cheaper. For other who have no accident but were insured fro one anyway, the cost of motoring was more expensive.
Make everypne pay for insurance and it adds to the toal price for many and reduces it for some. Typically the good drivers pay more and the bad drivers get a reduction to their costs. Rich and poor doesn't come into it.


This weekend I have been attempting to use my mandatory health insurance.

I am so ****ing angry now.

The problem with mandatory payment is this. No matter what service they provide, I have already paid and I am still going to have to pay.
They do what they like and not what I ask and then I pay them anyway.

And now, I will pay a voluntary health provider to get the service they aren't providing me anyway.
A big waste of my money. A big waste of my time. And a week spent in agony unnecessarily..... as per usual. As per ****ing usual.

Mandatory payment = **** service.
No direct accountability to the customer. No power of veto.
No point, really.

Just giving someone money to do as they please..

 

so... for x many people the costs of insurance go up by 10% and for the 13 million they go down by 100%.

Have the costs risen, only for those who wanted medical insurance. They are now having to pay the full price for it, instead of being subsidised by people who don't want it at all.

So the cost of it has gone up for certain people and down for other people.

And the same is true in your VA example. Mandatory insurance put the cost of motoring up for some, but down for others.

I put it to you that changing which person pays, is not changing the overall cost.

 

Actually, you're the one who is for coercion. I'm against coercion, as I have made clear.

 

Government monopoly.

 

You might as we call it an economic lollipop, because that's not what coercion means to anyone who goes by an English dictionary.

 

Want to make a distinction between economic coercion and the 'dull force of economic circumstances'? Good idea, let's have some Marxism!

 

Coercion has a definition.

 

"Ecomonic coercion"...a.k.a. taxation.

 

Bingo!

 

Sounds like you oppose taxes and taxation.

 

Of course I do.

 

which is why nobody takes libertarians seriously. No offense.

 

None taken.

 

Total ignorance illiterate of the American idea of freedom. South America or Bangladesh can impose American regulation tomorrow but....

1) it amounts to further infantilization, further crippling the poor and expanding their numbers
2) people in SA and Bangladesh would starve to death if they had to pay the additional cost of American regulation
3) picking the right amount of regulation or quality cant be done by libsoviet bureaucratic govt only by the free market which has the incentive to improve quality or regulation, not sanctify and freeze the best of current capitalism
4) stability trac for example is the result of capitalism not libsoviet bureaucrats who actually prevented it.

freedom works best , liberalism lacks the IQ to understand it. Remember East/West Germany? Now even a liberal can understand what happened there and in 132 other countries where 120 million slowly starved to death waiting for liberals to come to their bloody senses.

 

Then you prove the value and practicality of your thinking. A society has expenses and that society needs to fund them. Opposing funding is to advocate the chaos of anarchy and places like Somalia. Their tax revenue to GDP ratio is 2.7%. Sounds almost good enough, eh? In 2012 their government expenditures totaled $35 million. What a paradise!! Right?
http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/somalia/overview

The following is a list of countries with a progressively higher tax:GDP ratio than ours which is 26%:

List of countries by "tax revenue to GDP" ratio

Kazakhstan
South Africa
Bolivia
Tonga
Jamaica
Zimbabwe
Romania
Bulgaria
Montenegro
Trinidad and Tobago
Ukraine
Namibia
Macedonia
Slovakia
Dominica
Latvia
Ireland
Guyana
Seychelles
Estonia
Barbados
Korea, South
Moldova
Mongolia

(Mongolia is 33.8%)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio

Aren't you proud now?

 

actually opposing funding to to advocate small Republican govt, which is exactly what our founders wanted. I"m sure conservatives would be happy to sign up for a federal govt that spent 15% of GDP.

liberals are 100% anti American and irresponsible always wanting to fund more govt waste no matter how much increasing waste they have funded in the past. Its never enough.Read book by that name!! Govt is big enough for a liberal only when its finally a communist govt.

Welcome to your first lesson in American History:

Thomas Jefferson:
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is.

I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government.

Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

 

That is not what Longshot said nor what I commented on. Read more carefully before criticizing.

 

actually opposing funding is to advocate smaller Republican govt, which is exactly what our genius Founders wanted. I'm sure conservatives would be happy to sign up for a federal govt that spent 15% of GDP but liberals oppose always wanting more funding no matter how much funding there already is short of communism.

 

Don't confuse society with government.

False dichotomy. Somalia doesn't have institutional protection for property rights. Apples and cinder blocks.

 

Then show me a country with a government that does not govern, organize, manage, and provide for that society. ... -one that has zero expenses, -ya know?

 

Ah, so you would have been of of those ancient Greeks who said, "Show me any country that doesn't have slavery."

 

b...b...but it's never been done so it can't be done...it just CAN'T!!!

 

Exactly. @Kode would have been one of those stodgy conservative Greeks who insists that no society could exist without slavery. Just as he's being a stodgy conservative now.

 

I bet Somalia does have institutional protection for property rights, BTW.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_Somalia