Devil505 wrote:OK......If your house catches fire call the Acme Fire Company to come put it out. (for about ten thousand dollars, that is)
Local FD supported by local tax dollars is fine. It's when you start giving state or even federal tax money to FD, EMS, etc. that problems start. And suppose FD services were provided by private sector companies and they charged relatively high rates (reasonable given the demand and training, equip costs, etc. but high one time hits none the less) then what do you think would spring up? That's right, insurance carriers would start offering coverage to pay those costs. So instead of paying $200 a year in local taxes for FD services, you would pay $200 to an insurance company. There are many ways to skin the emergency services cat. Taxes is but one way, and not necessarily the best.
If your pleasure boats starts to sink 10 miles offshore, don't call the Coast Guard.
Fine. I don't see how it is a reasonable expectation that the govt would come to pluck you out of the water anyway. Particularly on rough seas or other highly dangerous circumstances. That said, they're just training or waiting around otherwise (they are still needed for search and rescue of other coast guard and LEO personnel) so why not go out and put the skills and equipment to use? I say charge those who call for rescue, just like your FD suggestion above.
If a family member is kidnapped.....Call Blackwater..there won't be any FBI to help you.
Well, depending on where the kidnapping occurs, you may have to anyway. And what often covers the cost? That's right, private travel/life insurance or some kind of corporate contract clause (serviced by blackwater types, no doubt, maybe with help from State Dept.). For domestic kidnappings, though... this is a tougher one. Unlike FD, which is handling things outside the control or perview of government responsibility, PD are the enforcers of government laws. If you have laws, you need enforcement, and I think that is reasonably provided on a tax/service basis.
No more public schools. Try sending you kids to private schools for what you pay in property taxes.
You have got to be kidding. Public education costs on average $11k+/student/yr. Private education tuition is often less than 66% of that amount. Private does not mean expensive in and of itself, it only costs more because people aren't freeloading off those without children. Reasons are many, but basically it boils down to private schools paying for teachers primarily instead of bloated administration costs, facilities costs, and paying the very expensive legacy costs of the teachers union and the federal dept of education. Sure, people only see a yearly bill for public education in the area of $2-3K, but that is because everyone without a kid in school is subsidizing the rightful education costs of that family and their kids. Maybe it is just and right that education be handled as a tax based service (I don't think so, but I won't argue the point here), but we'd all do as good as or better if we moved to a predominantly private school system paid by vouchers. We'd be able to break the strangle hold the teachers union has. We'd cut administrative costs probably in half or better. We'd give families and students flexibility to go to a school of their choosing (where the population is dense enough to support multiple schools in a region). Schools could specialize much more easily in order to compete and better serve their students and their families desires for education. Families would actually know the costs of educating their children. Even if paid primarily or entirely by a voucher check they would see the numbers and they'd understand the great benefit they're getting for their now $1-2K school tax (instead of the old $2-3K tax). Same goes for the students. Which hopefully would go a long way to turning the corner on some of these urban regions where failure is primarily about motivational and cultural/social problems, not an issue of dollars spent. And we could eliminate the god forsaken federal dept of education. If it has to be tax funded, then fund it through state and local taxes only.
If you get laid off...try collecting unemployment from the Acme Unemployment Co & Grill
Just so long as Reid, Pelosi, and Obama don't keep trying to buy off votes by extending coverage.
Seriously though, wouldn't private provider unemployment insurance be great? First, premiums would be risk based and salary based. Not only risk of an individual being fired but risk they they wouldn't be able to find a job in a short period of time. Entry level employees would have to pay little since they lose little if fired and it is relatively easy to find low/no-skill employment since you aren't locked to any given industry. Highly paid people would pay higher rates, both to compensate for higher cost of payout and for trickier reemployment at the same wage. If it were through private providers, they would also, again, be in competition. I could see competitive programs being partial payout if you get reemployed at a lower wage. You could lower your premiums by getting lower payout terms (pay only 50% of salary instead of 80%, cover only 6 months out, not 12, etc.). There are lots of options and potentials here.
Hey......& let's do away with the silly FAA. Don't require an maintenance of airlines....Let's just TRUST THEM!....& whoever needs to use a runway...let them take-off/land with no control!
This is a tough one. May have struck upon another one I can't see privatizing in any significant way.
& let's trust the banks....No need for FDIC to insure your deposits, right?
Argument to be made that the banking system of this country and much of the industrialized world is evil incarnate. I don't know if it is a particularly good argument, but given the troubles we find ourselves in today even with FDIC insurance I'm left to conclude that FDIC insurance is nothing more than wool over the eyes of the American public.
Get rid of Medicare/Medicaid.....That's the way Darwin would have liked it.
I trust my life and health to my own survival choices more than I do Daschle's "people expect too much from the health system" mentality and the Stimulus Bill's Health Czar and Board of Health Decision Makers. I do not know where the idea that people are entitled to non-emergency health care came from, but the idea that making it a government tax funded service is going to improve matters is insane given all the evidence to the contrary. Not saying the current government regulatory scheme of private providers is ideal, far from it, only that nationalizing health care strikes me as the most foolish notion to ever cross the national agenda.