Comments on: FAQ

By: HK.

HK. — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 10:35:45 +0000

The Central planners apparently are extremely inefficient, ZOMG!11 What a groundbreaking discovery I have made.

If by "terrible cost", you actually meant:

1. private schools are cheaper than public schools (8 K vs 12 K per student)
2. private transit is better than public transit (people want used cars not inefficient public buses)
3. there are, GASP, private roads already in Indiana and they are cheaper.
4. the Post Office is completely insolvent, while Fed Ex is whipping its behind.
5. FDR was afraid of public sector unions.
6. the government breaks the constitution with some of this stuff
7. public property is much more polluted.
8. private charity is superior to public charity.

Then yes, I agree completely with you.

By: Guest

Guest — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 00:09:28 +0000

Humans are resilient and basically kind. Where do you live where you know people who would allow someone to bleed to death in the street? Charity is a choice, it should't be taken out of your pocket via taxes.

By: Guest

Guest — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 00:22:01 +0000

So you're saying that private services are better than public-owned/controlled ones? Interesting…

So when a sick person is left dying outside a hospital because they have no money to pay for the 'super-cheap' private healthcare you mention, how exactly would you explain it to them that they are better off without a public health service?

The services would, as you say, still be available, but at a terrible cost. Privatised public services are run on a profit, not on quality of service, and people suffer as a result.