POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : n_to_national_healt =?ISO-8 : Re: Can anyone explain America's opposition to national health care? Server Time
6 Sep 2024 01:28:45 EDT (-0400)
  Re: Can anyone explain America's opposition to national health care?  
From: Neeum Zawan
Date: 24 Aug 2009 22:50:17
Message: <4a935169$1@news.povray.org>
On 08/24/09 17:00, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg>  wrote:
>>          We're explicitly discussing something *not* paid for by taxes.
>
>    It still sounds to me like illegal extortion.

	That would depend on the laws of whatever country you're in. However, 
if that was such a law, then it means that some areas will simply not be 
covered by non-tax paid fire services, and lead to an overall worse 
situation.

>    People don't put themselves into more or less danger depending on who
> paid money for protection or not. You cannot justify such selection of
> whose life you are going to save or not, based solely on whether that
> person has paid you money or not.

	At least over here, insurance companies do it all the time. And that's 
not even a volunteer service.

>    Moreover, deliberately not helping in an emergency situation where you
> are capable and able to help is irresponsible and at least here illegal.
> If you, for example, see a car accident and just ignore it, if you get
> caught you will be fined or even jailed. You are refusing to help even
> though you perhaps could. I think the legal term is negligence or something?

	Are you talking about ordinary citizens?

	Here, apparently, actual doctors who happened upon an accident have 
been sued when they tried to help (no doubt a rare problem). I'm pretty 
sure there's no law requiring ordinary citizens to help.

>    So we have a protection racket, extortion, negligence and manslaughter.
> Still not enough to make this practice highly illegal?

	Well, perhaps having volunteer fire departments should be made illegal, 
and a law should be mandated that *only* full time, tax paid fire 
departments should exist. The conditions you're imposing will be pretty 
good at discouraging them from starting up to begin with. If they're 
duty bound to save all houses, few would pay and it would simply be 
unsustainable.

	It'd be nice if they'd put out the fire and then the owner will be 
obligated to pay after the fact, but I doubt the legal system will allow 
that - again being voluntary.


-- 
Feet Smell?  Nose Run?  Hey, you're upside down!


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.