National Attention for 911 EMS System Abuse...
Finally, the theme of my blog, exposing 911 EMS abuse, is getting national attention...
http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/24/news/economy/healthcare_911_abuse/index.htm?postversion=2009082407
I'm so glad this issue is finally receiving national attention. However, my worry is that, when this issue receives enough exposure, a majority of the population will naturally want to do something to solve the problem. Uh-oh.
Then, some opportunist politician will emerge with a plan which will create a new, MORE socialist program for solving this problem, which will cost taxpayers even MORE money.
For example, the "nurse triage system," which will incentivize calling 911...people will say, "If you have any sort of medical problem, no matter how bad it is, you should call 911 first; they have nurses now, who will give you medical advice and let you know whether or not you have a real problem...always call 911 first." I imagine this new, 'you-get-to-talk-to-a-nurse-when-you-call-911' program will double the number of calls to 911. Due to liability, nurses can only turn away the most obviously stupid calls, so this will likely also double the number ambulance responses. Brilliant! Now, not only are you paying for nurses, you're also paying for a higher call volume. What other bells and whistles can they add to 911 to make it more appealing?
You solve the problem by privatizing the system. Private companies will tell people "no." And, if they don't, then at least it's their PRIVATE problem.
When did a human ever acquire the right to be taken care of, at someone else's forced expense? I'm perplexed.
Posts
34 Snotty Remarks:
No, no they won't. Private companies are businesses that will treat patients as "customers". EMS is the only business (and yes, EMS is a business) that bemoans how people choose to use us.
Imagine a burger stand that prides itself on it's grilled burgers with dijon mustard and therefore turns away 75 people per day who want ketchup. Wouldn't happen.
Then why do we, in our arrogance, regard people who aren't having what we define as a "legit" medical complaint, as "system abusers". Sure, there may be more appropriate ways to care for some patients and I like getting up at 0 dark 30 just as much as you do... but we're EMS. Our job is to make people feel better. No matter how they need it.
Oh, and screw RN triage. EMS is the realm of the medic. It's OUR profession and WE have to take ownership of it.
If you are happy with your current 911/EMT provider you will be able to keep coverage though them. The robust public option only seeks to provide competition to private 911/EMT providers to keep them honest, and make sure they don't make any excessive profits.
Very nice, Allen. That's a good point. I'd bet private EMS companies were once like private insurance companies, until someone decided they needed to "fix" it and socialize the ambulances (at least they're socialized here, in my lovely city).
Look at us now...wondering why so many people abuse the system and wondering how it ever became so inefficient. Wondering why gubment-employed EMT's have shitty attitudes, why they make so many mistakes, why they keep their ambulances so filthy, and why they despise the losers that constantly call them for B.S. reasons...
Ckemtp,
Yeah, you're probably right. As long as private companies are reimbursed by public funds (cities, counties, Medicare, or Medicaid); they will want to abuse the system more than patients are even willing to abuse the system. They would probably go door-to-door looking for possible patients.
My solution to privatize the system assumes that there is also no socialized health care (no public funding).
Without public funding, private companies would definitely tell patients "no" when the patients DON'T have a REAL, life-threatening condition and don't have the means to pay for it. In fact, they'd probably say "no" to a lot of patients that DO have a life-threatening condition and don't have the means to pay for it. However, since when did it become somebody's right to receive emergency medical services at someone else's forced expense?
So...I say privatize it all, and what private companies don't want to deal with, let charitable organizations handle. What charitable organizations don't want to handle, just doesn't get handled.
My point is not to bitch about having to get up in the middle of the night to make runs, or being pile-driven by run after sleepless run. My point is to bitch about the public being forced to pay for an inefficient & ineffective system, which is being overtly abused by free-loading losers. Why should I support 911 EMS system abuse...just so we can have our jobs?
I'd rather not be forced to pay for other people's abuse of the 911 EMS system(I'd rather have freedom) than have a job driving an ambulance.
Call me a wacko, like Thomas Jefferson or John Adams, but I actually believe in that "freedom" crap.
Thanks for your comments.
Privatizing the EMS system sounds great, until you need it. The system is privatized in some areas.
Socializing the system sounds great, until you don't need it.
Your calls for "freedom" and things being forced upon those who pay is odd to me. Are you saying that emergency care is not a right? Does not the constitution, signed by the men you mention start the list of inalienable rights with life?
Your "socialized" system has good parts and bad parts, all systems do. But if we can get people in charge of those systems who want them to succeed, they will. If you were put in charge of the municipal emergency services in your area, what would you change? What would you keep?
Those of us with pieces on the board need to start playing the game.
The complete privatization of the EMS system will result in less ambulances, less access to emergency care and less training.
The complete socialization of the EMS system will lead to fraud.
Pick your poison.
Happy Medic,
I'm assuming that you're trying to screw with me...I've never heard someone seriously ask, "Are you saying that emergency care is not a right?" ...or... "Does not the constitution, signed by the men you mention start the list of inalienable rights with life?"
Even though you're not serious, I'll play along for the sake of those who actually believe what you just asked...
No, the Constitution does not talk about 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' The Declaration of Independence does, written & signed by Thomas Jefferson.
The point of mentioning 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' in the Declaration of Independence was not to say that governments should ensure that each citizen enjoys 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' it was to say that governments should never infringe on citizens' unalienable RIGHTS to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' A "right" to a happy life is a lot different than a "assurance" of a happy life.
In the Declaration of Independence, the Americans were complaining that England was infringing on their unalienable rights by taxing them and using their tax money to provide government services, which is an infringement on their rights to liberty and property.
Publicly funded ambulances exist because governments force people to pay taxes (if they don't pay the taxes, governments will use force to make them pay or incarcerate them), and they use the tax money to give services to other people. That is the exact opposite of governments securing citizens' unalienable rights to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' That is the very definition of government infringing on one person's rights in an attempt to ensure someone else lives a happy, healthy life.
Are you saying that someone DOES have the right to force someone else to provide them with emergency medical services? Are you saying a person is born with the god-given, unalienable right to have someone else take care of him?
Crusty,
Thank you for being an informed citizen and understanding the difference in the founder's documents and their time frame to one another.
I was not entirely "screwing with you," but must admit I am poking the bear a bit.
I read the Declaration as a reinforcement of the belief that each man is endowed "by his creator with certain inalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Not by "God." They went out of their way to stay religiously neutral.
On the government infringement of rights issue, am I to assume the many should not help the few in need. I'm not asking for a "redistribution" or a handout for those not deemed "worthy" by the masses, but shouldn't a group take into account that in some efforts the government is the only entity large enough to handle it?
Military, roadways, information systems etc.
There is no ambulance system outlined in the Constitution, obviously, but that does not eliminate it's possible inclusion in government agencies, does it?
You mention taxes being forced upon folks or the state will take them by force. Indeed they get pissy when you pay late, but I get pissy when the National Guard is deployed for the benefit of Exxon and pot holes go unrepaired.
I don't think we will see a fair return on our taxes in our lifetimes. I am willing to pay if the service I get in return is worth the investment, public or private.
Thank you for discussing this on your blog, you are braver than I.
HM
Happy Medic,
Yes, I also believe the many should help the few in need...in the form of charity, not forced redistribution.
I also like the idea of being able to call an ambulance if I find myself in an emergency situation, but I'm not willing to use the threat of deadly force to run a family out of their house, because they didn't pay their property tax, in order to feel safe.
I definitely want to get a return on the money I invest in public services, which is why public services should be privately funded, so I can choose which ones I want, and I can choose which companies I want to provide them.
You sound like you might be a good candidate for conversion to becoming a one of those lunatics who actually believes in freedom.
Crusty,
Sign me up.
The private company I work for will happily accept a bullshit call simply for PR reasons. They will fire you quicker from a complaint saying you didn't put on a smile and offer the patient a pillow than from malpractice.
I think the gub-ment funded ambulance is ok. Lets just not transport crackheads, cocaine users, toothaches, sore feet, pieces of shit that have been unemployed most of their life, single women who are pregnant with more than 5 kids whose name starts with a "shanee" and ends with a "quwa", piece of shits that have doctor appointments at veterans hospital at 5:30 in the morning, the puta with the hispanic attack for the 3rd time in 2 days, the pediatric fever at 4 am when the dumbass ignant parent can't give their future dumbass kid motrin, the bitch that doesnt want to pay for a cab, the fucking fat asses that are too lazy to drive one of their own 5 cars that are in their driveway, and my all time favorite......wait for it.....the shitty fucking home health care nurse who doesnt feel like changing the old fucks diaper so she calls 911! pun intended!
So chemtp....shut your pie hole!
If you can walk...you dont need 911
If you want to gather your shit before you free ride....you dont need 911
I could go on and on and on and on and on and on....
Cartman, please DO go on and on and on and on; you're just getting warmed up.
If I didn't know any better, I would think that I was writing your comments as some sort of evil, racist, politically incorrect, foul-mouthed, alter-ego of myself (hmm...not a bad idea...alter-egos...so I could comment on my own blog, saying what I REALLY think, and make people think it's someone else).
No, for reals though, I am not writing Cartman's comments, and I do not condone the crude, vitriolic way he expresses himself (or herself...why does it have to be a dude?).
[Giggle, giggle, giggle...say something about old people's shitty diapers again]
Hey why am i a racist? Just cause Kyle's a jew and i make fun of him doesnt make me a racist! haha and kenny is poor white trash!
Ok seriously stan....
No really, seriously, the gub-ment should release the demographics on who uses the 911 system. I dont think anyone would be surprised.
And to some of the previous douchebag comments....about this being our job and all....It's not out freaking job to transport these pieces of shit!
How many times do you think that a good person with a true emergency died because some loser, scumbag, piece of shit was abusing the 911 system?
I PERSONALLY KNOW OF 2...THAT'S TWO TOO MANY!
So let me sum up a few things....
The problems with ALL of our "systems" i.e. the health care system, educational system, welfare system, medicaid, etc....are the piece of shit losers who feel they're owed something so they refuse to work, keep smoking crack, and having numerous kids. "Systems" only work when all parts are working.
You cant run a car without tires or an engine. Well you can't run a health care system when the majority of the people who use it dont pay into it.
So to all the POS's out there...
Mmmmm! Let me taste your tears of unfathomable sadness!
No really, seriously, the gub-ment should release the demographics on who uses the 911 system. I dont think anyone would be surprised.
You racist! You make me sick!
...You mean, like if the government produced a map of where all the black people reside, within a big city, like, say, the City of Houston, for example? And then, maybe if there was like, some sort of list of the busiest fire stations in the City of Houston... ...You could possibly cross-reference that list with maybe like a list of where all the fire stations are within the City of Houston?
You mean, if you had all that information, you could plot where all the busiest fire stations are within the City of Houston and see if there is any correlation between the busiest stations and the highest concentrations of a particular race or ethnic background, like, say, black people, for example (or hispanics, if you wanted)?
You really think the gubment would give you all that info? That info could be very detrimental in the wrong hands and could perpetuate racist prejudices. I would not condone that kind of racist correlational study, because I'm not a racist, and there would be no reason to prove such a correlation.
Crusty! You're scaring me!
I almost can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not!
When did the truth and facts become racist? Oh nevermind....no point in answering that rhetorical question.
So let me ask you this....I'm not sure what you do or where you work ....but....how many white people have you picked up? How many asians have you picked up?
Have you ever noticed how many people have the day off when we're working? Not that we have the same job or work in the same city...im just saying!
Bottom line....EMS/911 is here for emergencies...Emergencies....
Not having taxi cab fare is not an emergency....
Yes I do feel like i have a right to judge these POS's.
so "Shut your goddamn Jew mouth kyle!!!"
I'd call it satire. Also, if you call someone else a "racist," you become exempt from being called a "racist."
Did you click on my links (highlighted, underlined text) in the last comment? I think you would enjoy the last link, you racist.
I agree, facts are facts. You can only intentionally blind yourself to reality so much, for the sake of political correctness. It gets difficult to always pretend to be ignorant.
Prejudices are based on past experience. It is a positive human attribute, which should not be suppressed, to perceive trends and create expectations based on past experience. It's called learning & adapting, discernment, and discrimination.
PM me on Facebook (Profile Name: Crusty Ambulance Driver).
I'm one of the few who still doesnt have facebook. Maybe soon.
"Prejudices are based on past experience. It is a positive human attribute, which should not be suppressed, to perceive trends and create expectations based on past experience. It's called learning & adapting, discernment, and discrimination"
I was actually taught this at the school i went to where i got my b.b.a.
The same goes with stereotyping.
They exist for a reason!!!!!!!
Hmmm....didnt a store clerk get killed in houston the other day? How many have been killed in the last few years? Who did the killing? what part of town?
If it smells like shit, and it looks like shit, it's probably shit!
Ah the last hyperlink! I looked at it...I didn't need to, but I did.
Northeast and the south to southeast. Is it just coincidence that most of the news stories are from those 2 parts of town?
Selinsky, MLK, Acres homes, and the infamous JUTLAND! not that i've ever been to any of these places...
You really want to get pissed off?!?! Got to "The Insite" by that POS from channel 26 news!
I'll give kudos to the private ambulance company that transported me from Seguin to San Antonio, they made the trip as.... well, comfortable isn't the word, but as stress-free as possible. I, however, want to call the Seguin EMS folks on the carpet, just for a second. When you're scraping a pt off the ground from a clearing, she's in obvious friggin pain, and screams when she's moved, popping her across the jaw isn't going to do much good.
I'm not saying they did it on purpose, I'm simply saying that if it was, it was uncalled for. And a 45 minute response time for any call is most likely unacceptible.
Michell,
You've just summed up what I believe the difference would be between public and private EMS systems.
Private systems would kiss your ass so that you'll want to call them again in the future. Public systems will bitch slap you, and hope you'll never call them back again.
what does the "E" in EMS stand for?
I think it must stand for "entitled."
Why don't we charge people for using 911 if it's not a true emergency? If they don't pay, take them to jail for 30 days. This will increase jobs in constructing jails, and for jail guards and management.
After all, some states charge people who need to be rescued in the wilderness, because they made a stupid decision.
Chuckr44,
That sounds like a great idea...charge people for their use of the ambulance, and send them to jail for theft of services when they don't pay. Another name for that is free-market, private ambulances. That's brilliant...you could have been a Founding Father.
"National Attention for 911 EMS System Abuse..."
So how well did this work out?
Well i shit in one hand and hoped in the other. On one hand nothing happened. But atleast i had a hand full of shit to throw at these sorry ass pieces of shit that our gubment requires us to pic up on a regular basis.
The same people who hate paying taxes have no problem paying for the uninsured, instead of forcing EVERYONE to buy insurance. We don't deny medical care to anyone in this country, regardless of insurance coverage.
So why not make sure everyone is already covered so you don't have to pay for someone else's irresponsibility? There is no competition for insurance so prices never fall. If we continue on the same path we are on now, we are going to go bankrupt.
Oh Jules, where do I begin? You've been so well indoctrinated by our system.
Your first logical fallacy is that you're beginning with the assertion that we have to pay for irresponsible people one way or another. Then you're saying it would be more effective to just pay for them up front with health insurance for everyone, rather than paying for them with ambulances and hospitals.
What you're saying is that government intervention in health care has caused problems which we need to fix with more government intervention.
The reason why there is no competition in health care is BECAUSE of government intervention. Insurance providers, health care providers, and drug companies buy legislation which thwarts competition. In addition, government regulates insurance providers, health care providers, and drug companies which makes it more costly to get health care, and it stifles innovation & competition.
These problems were not created by free markets (capitalism). They were created by government intervention. You don't solve problems created by government intervention with more government intervention. The problems will just get worse and worse, and people will become more and more reliant on the government.
You're not going to make people more responsible or drive down costs by giving people health insurance. You're just going to make more people want to be more irresponsible, and the cost to taxpayers is going to get bigger and bigger.
You make people more responsible by getting the government out of health care and allowing natural market forces and natural consequences to run their course. People will become responsible when it is in their best interest to be responsible. They will become MORE IRRESPONSIBLE and MORE RELIANT on government when it is in their best interest to do so (when government punishes people for working and incentivizes not working).
There are some of us who don't want to pay taxes and don't want to pay for the irresponsible uninsured. Some of us actually believe in freedom & liberty (in an absolute sense). I'm a nice enough person to let people suffer the consequences of their bad decisions, and I'm nice enough to not want to force people to pay for other people's irresponsibility.
The bottom line is, nobody has the right to force someone else to provide them with health care. People think they are being nice by making sure everyone has health care. They fail to consider the fact that their "charitable" health care is made possible by FORCING people to pay for someone else's health care through the threat of violence. Does that sound nice or charitable?
Are you personally willing to go to your neighbor, with a gun, and force him to pay for your health care program? If he doesn't want to pay, what will you personally do? Will you use your gun to take away his house and possessions; or will you use your gun to kidnap him and hold him captive; and, what if he resists and tries to defend what he believes are his rights to life, liberty, and property...will you shoot him?
Maybe you aren't PERSONALLY willing to violently extort money, property, or life from your neighbor; but asking the government to do it for you is the same thing. It's like hiring a hitman to commit violence for you.
You are far more violent than you give yourself credit for. And, you do it all in the name of 'being nice' and 'helping people.' You should feel really bad for being so violent and oppressive.
The worst part is that your violence and oppression are only going to make more people become irresponsible & dependent on government, and it's going to make the costs grow bigger and bigger, as government intervention has always done.
"You should feel really bad for being so violent and oppressive."
I really wanted to discuss this with you but that was pretty hurtful, tbh. You argue that we have no right to force others to do something like purchase healthcare, and then you go on to TELL me how I should feel.
You are absolutely right. I told you should be realistic and come to terms with the fact that your desire to force people to buy healthcare and force other people to pay for people's healthcare is violent and oppressive. It's oppressive because it's the opposite of freedom, and you're forcing one group of people to have healthcare, and you're forcing another group of people to pay for it.
It's violent because you do it with the threat of force. Just because you're not holding the gun doesn't mean you're not being violent and oppressive. You're asking someone else to hold the gun for you.
I'm just stating the facts. How is that hurtful? I would expect you to say, "you're absolutely right; it is violent and oppressive, but I'm not going to change, because that's the way I like it." How can you possibly argue that your desire to force people to buy healthcare, and force other people to subsidize it, is not violent and oppressive?
To argue against the fact that government programs are violent and oppressive is either ignorant or delusional, or both.
Are you seriously telling me this is the first time you've heard that government programs are violent and oppressive? Had you seriously never come to terms with that before?
Most people who believe in government programs have come to terms with the fact that they are being violent & oppresssive, and they accept that fact. Those people decide they don't care if they are being violent & oppressive, because they really like the government programs they support, so they are willing to hurt other people to get them. They consciously decide to be greedy.
So...what are you going to choose to do? Are you going to choose to be delusional and pretend government programs are not violent & oppressive? Or, are you going to accept that your support of government programs is violent & oppressive, and choose to continue greedily supporting them? Or, are you going to reject violence & oppression and start supporting liberty?
Here's the not-so-subtle difference between me and you. I say "you SHOULD feel really bad for being violent and oppressive." That is a suggestion. I'm not using the threat of force to make you follow my suggestion. When you support government programs, which in this instance, force people to buy health insurance, and force other people to pay for it, you are using the threat of violence to force people to do something, which you think is a good idea. That is beyond a suggestion. That is force, violence, and oppression.
I'm sorry this is the first time you've been confronted with the fact that you greedily support violence & oppression.
Are you religious at all? Christian maybe? If you are, ask yourself one question... Would Jesus (or Allah, or whomever you worship) ever take a gun and use the threat of violence to force people to pay taxes for what he beleives to be a good cause? Or, does your God beleive in free agency, freedom to choose, responsibility, and accountability?
Imagine this the next time you rush a man into a hospital with a gunshot wound to the heart. He's gushing blood, bleeding to death. His appearance is poor and slovenly. He is almost certainly homeless. You ask if he has insurance, or money of any kind. He indicates that he does not. The cardiac surgery will cost tens of thousands of dollars.
Now: Does the man have a right to healthcare?
He will die if he doesn't receive immediate medical attention. If the man has no right to healthcare, the hospital has no obligation to work for free. The hospital is a business — a product of the free market.
Now, according to your belief of healthcare not being a right, you and the doctors and nurses should let him die. If you're being consistent, you should let him die.
And the normal reaction to that scenario is, "Where is your fucking humanity? Of course you treat the dying man."
And in America, because we're not complete monsters, we do treat the dying man. We do it in hospitals all across the country. You know the nation’s poor are clogging up virtually every emergency room for lesser ailments because they have no money. We already have socialized medicine in the United States, we're just doing it really horribly.
Voting didn't use to be a right either. But then it was. I wonder if you would’ve been making the same argument in 1920.
If you are against giving folks the "option" of a public plan, then be consistent and use only privately held versions of things that are offered publicly.
Don't expect the military to protect you.
Don't call the police, get a private security guard.
Don't allow firefighters to save your house while it's burning.
Don't use the public library. Go to Barnes and Noble.
Don't use public roads.
Don't use the post office. Deliver it by hand yourself.
Jules,
It may seem inhumane to you that I believe the hospital should be able to choose whether or not they want to give away their time & resources for free, but the only thing more inhumane than that is to use the threat of force to force the hospital (which is a business, owned by an individual) to give up its time and resources. Another word for forcing hospital employees to work for free is slavery.
I agree, it would be nice if the hospital owner, and the hospital employees volunteered to give up their time & resources, but I'm not willing to force them to do it. I'm not being violent & oppressive if I choose not to help a guy in need; I'm just not being as charitable as I could be. However, when you force a hospital to provide free services, you are being violent & oppressive. Which is more inhumane?
In fact, if you and a bunch of other people feel bad for people, who don't have any insurance, then you could form a charity, which pays for their health care. That way, the people who feel bad can help, and the people who don't feel bad aren't forced to help. It's nice that you feel bad for people, but it's not nice to use the threat of violence to force people to pay for other people's healthcare.
Government has caused people to lose their ability to imagine ways of helping people, other than oppressive government programs. Use your imagination a little. Stop thinking the government is the only option, and I'm sure you'd be able to find solutions to every problem.
What if you and your family started a little corner store, and some guy came in who was starving...Do you think it's right for the citizens in your community to FORCE you to have to give away your products if someone is hungry? A hospital is just like any other business. Forcing a hospital to give away health care is like forcing a shoe salesman to give away shoes.
Have you stopped to consider just how violent and oppressive your political ideals are? You think you're being nice and doing the right thing, but you're really being quite violent.
It's nice when you can just go vote for something and forget about it. Meanwhile, someone else has the job of using a gun to force people to pay for the stuff for which you vote. That way, you can feel good about yourself for being sympathetic and voting for more government programs, and you never really have to think about the fact that your sympathy is actually quite disgustingly violent.
You are correct, all those inefficient and ineffective government programs you mentioned are also oppressive and violent. I don't support any of them. I would like to end all them tomorrow. It's one thing to use those services, especially when I pay far more than my fair share to fund those inefficient bureaucracies, but it's another thing to support them and vote for them. I don't support them or vote for them.
In most cases, legislation/regulation has kept private businesses from competing with the government programs. Did you know there was a law that no private company could deliver mail for a fee of less than $1.00? That was intended to give the USPS a monopoly on mail delivery. How sick is that?
I can't think of a single effective or efficient government program. None of them work, and they use government-mandated monopolies to control the market, so people don't have a choice.
Your healthcare idea is a lot like the USPS. Eventually, all the government legislation/regulation will drive all other competitors out of business, and the government will end up with a monopoly. Then they can be as inefficient & ineffective as they want to be, and they'll have nothing to lose, since people won't have a choice.
Either way, it's wrong because you're supporting violence & oppression and hiring hitmen to carry out the violence, so you don't have to think about it, and you can continue thinking you are a good person, because you voted for a sympathetic government program.
100 years ago, fire protection was optional. Fire companies were private, and you would buy a subscription to one if you wanted fire protection. But people learned that if their next-door-neighbor's house burned down because he didn't have a fire subscription, their own house was threatened. So in town after town, county after county, they decided to have the city or county run the fire department and charge everyone in taxes. And, I guess no surprise, not only did that work better to lessen total fire damage, but it was also cheaper for everyone! So today, 100 years later, we consider fire protection as a "right".
It's the same with medical care. If instead of competing health insurance companies running the entire health care industry, trying to cherry pick only healthy people to insure, we had everyone in the same insurance pool, we could save about half of what we pay for health care. Every other rich country does this, and they all pay half what we do, or less, for the same level of care, or better, the same level of customer satisfaction.
Do you have health insurance or do you just pay for all your own care out of pocket? If you have health insurance, then you ALREADY pay for other peoples' care! If you have a serious heart attack or need a kidney transplant, others will be paying for YOUR care. That's how it works already. Universal health care is just a better, more cost-effective way to do it.
And btw, I think it's quite ironic that you continue to use the same scare tactics and buzz words that Bush et al have used in the past to justify crappy, knee-jerk decisions that have been damaging to this country. I guess it's easier to point a finger at me and make threats than it is to sit down and think about this rationally. There's no need to continue to repeat yourself though, you've made your point.
Fire protection is not a "right," and it never can be a "right." You're confusing "rights" with things you really want or things you really think are a good idea. Ignorant people may call it a "right," but it's still not a "right." You can't have a right which is fulfilled by taking something from someone else (time, money, property, life, etc.).
A "right" to fire protection would mean that you have the "right" to take someone else's money & labor, in order to protect you. Does someone else have the "right" to NOT provide you with fire protection (by giving up their time, money, or property)?
Essentially, you are saying you believe in slavery, in which one person owns the right to another person's time & labor.
Between you and me, who is the person who is being threatening here? I don't believe in using the threat of violence to force other people to give up their time, money, life, property, or labor. You do. If anyone is threatening someone else, it is you, threatening me and the rest of our country by asking your government (your mob) to forcefully take things from us, and give them to you and other people.
I never threatened you, and I never used scare tactics...only reason & logic. I am the only one in this argument who actually believes in peace and not using the threat of force to enslave and steal.
With my current insurance, I have a choice to switch companies or to not have insurance at all. That is the difference between my current insurance and what you're proposing. My insurance is expensive and corrupt, but they are corrupt and expensive because they have to comply with government regulation, and they buy government legislation, which inhibits free market competition.
I was not a supporter of Bush. Bush did not believe in freedom or free markets. I would have thought you were a Bush fan. Nobody grew the size & scope of government and spent more money than Bush did. Bush gave you far more government services & programs than any other president before him. Isn't that what you want? Don't try to tell me you didn't like the war in Iraq because you believe in peace, justice, & non-violent resolutions. You have clearly declared yourself to be in full support of government programs which unpeacefully & forcefully take from one person and unjustly redistribute.
You would never hear Bush say the kinds of things I am saying. You might have heard Thomas Jefferson or John Adams say these things, but not Bush. If you haven't noticed, I actually believe in crazy principles such as freedom, justice, equality, and peace. You're more than welcome to begin believing in those principles also.
Don't expect the military to protect you.
Don't call the police, get a private security guard.
Don't allow firefighters to save your house while it's burning.
Don't use the public library. Go to Barnes and Noble.
Don't use public roads.
Don't use the post office. Deliver it by hand yourself.
I'll stop using those services when you and your heavily armed mob stop using the threat of force and imprisonment against me to steal 10x more than what it should cost to fund those highly inefficient & ineffective services. Until then, I'll continue using the services, since I already paid for them 10x over. However, I'll vote against them, hope they'll go away, and hope that some day, you and your oppressive mob cease being greedy & violent, and allow me the freedom to choose if, and from whom, I buy those services.
Isn't it funny how Democrats (and to a slightly lesser extent, Republicans) believe they are such compassionate, benevolent, charitable, peace-loving, and non-violent people; when in reality, they are the most oppressive, violent, greedy, sociopathic, and delusional people.
I'm sorry it's so difficult to admit, but I think people would respect you a lot more if you just honestly confessed, 'yes, I am a very violent, oppressive, & greedy person, but that's the way I want to be, because I believe it will give me the greatest reward, even if it is at someone else's expense.'
Post a Comment