Quote:
Originally Posted by Chocobot
Why would the kid do that? Moreover why would anyone want the kid to do that? The kid will life long needs, not just for operation - so such a solution is simply not viable.
|
Then the kid is fucked. He simply doesn't have the money worth the operation and, quite frankly, probably isn't worth it, anyway. Some people will die. It's the way life works.
Quote:
The baseless variations are also irrelevant, as the variation cannot diminish the case for such legislation across the country.
Why indeed do they vary by sex? By state?
So what?
Its completely irrelevant.
|
Of course it's relevant. It proves that the laws are largely subjective and not based on any science. Just a bunch of feel-good bullshit to tell the voters.
Quote:
They think alot harder about it than your example demonstrates. Just ask your mom what she thinks.
|
If they think so hard about it, then why are the laws still in such a state of variation? Why is there so much subjectiveness about them?
Quote:
The taxed amount proves its not free.
|
It exists at no additional cost.
Quote:
For most people, they can have good government aided care, should they need it, and any extras it doesnt provide they can pay for themselves. This is excellent news, because if they get into trouble with an expensive bill they face no possibility of medical bankruptcy.
Their money will not all be taken, and everyone can get on with their lives.
|
Except for all the people whose money is seized and all those medical practitioners who are pushed out of the business by a government monopoly with relatively unlimited and unjustly acquired resources. What about all those people who have their money taken who never use the amount of medical aid equivalent to what they lost?
Quote:
They simply contract out from the government service, taking on the jobs that require doing. They also can provide their own care for those willing to pay extra. BUPA, a private company in the UK, does very well.
|
Oh sure, some will be able to do well, but it would be like competing with an armed robber who robs your clients in front of the door to your store and gives them the product/service at no additional charge. Let me ask you this:
You own a candy store. You buy your candy from willing candy makers and sell it to willing buyers. Your business is relatively good. Then, I get a machine gun, stand outside your store and rob everyone who passes it (including your would be customers). I then use the money to buy candy from your supplier and offer to give it to your customers for free.
You think you'd be able to compete as easily? You think it would be as fair as if I opened a shop just like your shop next door?