Why Can't Libs Understand the Problem with Govt Funded Anything?

Question

Like music? I like music. Jazz, especially. I spend some of my income on jazz CDs, have a lot of Miles, some Getz... The government could, if it wanted to, take $10 from each of us and provide each of us with the same CD that I might pay $15 for now, generating efficiency through scale.

And if I were in charge of rating countries' standards of living, I'd include access to jazz as a measure of standard of living and that might score the US some points.

Except that NOT EVERYONE LIKES JAZZ. Thus, if you don't like jazz, you're NOT better off, your standard of living is not better, it's worse because you're out the $10.

Not everyone likes parks as much as the next person, not everyone gets sick often enough for socialized medicine to make sense for them, etc......

There is no "government funding" - it's the government forcing the citizens to buy something that not all the citizens would buy on their own. It's more efficient but only if you were going to buy it.

Unemployment is 4.5%, and 10% more of the population owns its own home than was the case a generation ago, even as the average home is 50% bigger! Poverty numbers aren't declining but they're not rising in proportion to the whole, even as we keep importing three quarters of a million new poor people, legally and illegally combined, every year! The ranks of the middle class are shrinking in proportion to the whole but the ranks of the rich are increasing!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1229294/posts
http://www.nytimes.com/specials/downsize/21cox.html
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1988/05/art1full.pdf
http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/el97-07.html#winners
http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar95.html
http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/25/pf/record_millionaires/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/28/news/economy/millionaire_survey/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/28/news/economy/millionaires/?cnn=yes
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/bg1773.cfm

Herb I'm a Libertarian and I oppose legislating morality. But I'm against legislating either Pat Robertson's morality OR Longhaired Freaky Person's morality.

Univee the post office is not privatized - but I'll tell you this, inflation-adjusted and given their increase in costs, they've actually done better in the last decade, due to more competition with the private sector.

ER's SHOULDN'T be open to all, and passing the cost of doing that on to the rest of us is a big reason why the rest of us face higher health care costs!!!! Imagine if the supermarket produce section were "open to all" and the cost passed on to the paying customers, imagine what your grocery will would be!!!!

Showtunes you're wrong, treating the emergency illnesses of bums with TB and then sending them back out into the street, THAT is more dangerous than letting them die.

It's a simple question - when are people expected to GROW UP and pay their own way? We have 4.5% unemployment, and about 1/4 of that is people in cyclical fields like contractors who've decided to take only a few jobs under the table, work on their own homes and collect unemployment after making six figures for the last few years.

Aviator no, government should not provide "the necessities" - government's function is to protect liberty, period.

Ooohbother, sweet ignorant child, the market does provide the best - as the consumers see it, rather than as the government sees it.

Answer 1

You are a great American. I agree entirely.

Answer 2

The point is that the government should provide the necessities. Would you rather have a private police force? When someone breaks into your house, you could call up competing police stations and get bids on who is the cheapest. The basic things that we need are provided for the government, that way everyone is able to receive them. Things like emergency services, roads, and other infrastructure. Many people also believe heath care is a necessity.

Now I see that you are just selfish. You don't want the ER open to all. So you would rather a poor person dies in the ER lobby because they don't have the money to get treated. That way you can keep your precious tax money. I assume you are not Christian.

Answer 3

But sweet innocent child...the marketplace does not provide the best - only the most promoted. The government has several initiatives to preserve distinct regional and non-commercial music so that it does not disappear. It doesn't benefit EVERY person, but it benefits a higher knowledge of music for those who can benefit. It's not all about driving to the bottom cost.

We may be equal, but are not the same - something proponents of capitalism are fond of announcing as if no one else understood...

But the answer for you to understand, is that YOU DO NOT GET A LINE ITEM VETO on governments spending. I don't care if you yourself personally this minute do not need health care - I myself every minute do not want people dying for lack of money while insurance and pharmaceutical companies pump profits out of the health care dollars.
Your taxes are not purchases - they are what you pay for living in a civilized country.

Answer 4

It's the government forcing us to help each other.... I for one have no problem with it for basic things like health care, public education, the National Park system, oversight of our food supply and it's safety.... But equating it to forcing someone to buy a Jazz album is ludicrous. And if you think you will get to the end of your life without needing the health care system, you are sorely mistaken, my friend. I certainly hope you have the money to pay for health care coverage when you will need it the most... There are a great many people out there who cannot. And I feel that as a nation, we have an obligation to see that all our people have basic health care, education and the legacy of our beautiful national parks... At the very least...

Answer 5

It is the responsibility of a government to do for it's citizens what they can't or WON'T do for themselves.

No one should be forced into participating. Some of these programs are like insurance. You have, for example, house insurance. You pay premiums and if your hous burns down you file a claim and are paid. If your house never burns down you still had to pay the premiums, just in case.

Maybe you are in great health now. Congratualtions. Some day you will be old and your health won't be as hale and hearty as it is today. You will need health care. All the money you pay now for health care insurance is being given to benefit someone else. Some day, however, someone else's premium will go to pay for your medical needs.

I like jazz but suppose I didn't I would still let you have your jazz if you let me have my classical, which I also like. We each help the other get a lower rate on the type of music we like. All benefit.

Answer 6

So the government shouldnt fund roads since not everyone uses them? Even less citizens use airports that are government funded, I dont own a boat so dont see why the government should fund the coast gaurd, not taking any medications why should the government be funding the FDA?Not everyone likes the military should the government stop funding that too? Part of being in a society means you recieve benefits from government programs for the public good, you win on some of them and lose on others.


ERs shouldnt be open to all?....So if a 3 year old kid is brought in having trouble breathing they should just allow them to die because her parents dont have insurance, is that what you are saying?

Answer 7

I like jazz. But I think your logic is a little whacky.

Now let's look at the post office. Just a few years ago, it was quietly privatized. Most Americans weren't told that, but it happened. It isn't a government agency any more. You can look this carefully hidden fact out. It's true.

Is the post office cheaper or or more efficient than when it was a direct Govt. agency?

No? How strange. It seems to fly in the face of your theory. I guess that's why very few people mention the post office when they try to sell your brand of thought...

Answer 8

Sometimes the leaders of a society makes decisions for the betterment of the entire society. That does not mean that everybody will benefit equally. It has been this way since man first started living together in tribes. How can it be any different now? Life is not fair, get over it. If you want to remove yourself from society, by all means go ahead.

Answer 9

Except that health care is already paid for by everyone, just at a much higher cost since it has to be paid afterward instead of upfront.

ERs are open to all, that cost has to be passed on to someone--who do you think it gets passed on to?


EDIT::
So should they just let people die in the streets? Theyre open for public health reasons as well as morality.
Without good health for the poor, everyone gets sick with something crazy eventually due to untreated or mistreated illness. (Youd be surprised how many people hold onto antibiotics and swap them around because they cant afford pills when theyre sick--this contributes to diseases that are immune to our cures and can really only be solved by not giving them drugs at all-wont happen since theyre easy to steal, or giving them access to enough to actually treat themselves)

Answer 10

Someone's life does not depend on jazz music.....I am not for govt. control over most things, but if 47 million Americans lack health care coverage and we can do something about it, I'm fine with that. I would rather spend $500 on helping Americans than I would spend $250 helping Iraqis.

Answer 11

health care is not a "like" for starters.

and I bet you don't complain when a police officer, or fire fighter, or sanitation engineer, or.. whoever from whatever "government" funded program does their job.

government programs do work, granted not all of them are efficient.. and I'm all for streamlining them.. that doesn't mean they should be scrapped or that we should stop trying to do the right thing.



EDIT: In all honesty, you lost all credibility with me when you said ER's shouldn't be open to all. There are things in this world more important than money.