Then I don´t understand why society should provide you with anything. Roads? Build your own road to where ever you want to go. Telephone? Put up the wires to whoever you want to speak to. Mail? Water? Education? Security? Lets see how much you enjoy the money saved on taxes.
I think I said this before but if not I'll say it again. I don't mind paying taxes when they benefit or benefited me in some way. I don't mind paying them when they are used for roads, fire/police protection, or public schools because I use or have used this services before and will continue to use them. But I don't feel I should have to pay for programs that will never benefit me, such as Social Security. I plan on providing for my own retirement and have no sympathy for those who don't and suffer because of their own shortsightedness. Free broadband is a benefit to everyone because it means information can be aquired faster and everyone benefits from a well informed populace.
Health care is provided for us over the tax bill here. The cost for our medical system is less than what you use on administration in yours! There are private hospitals and private insurance policies (and they are CHEAP compared to US) that will get you in front of the line but they are hardly used (I have one through my work) because all taken into account health care WORKS here for EVERYONE.
You don't understand. I don't feel I should have to pay for someone else's living expenses. I'm sure many other Americans share my sentiment. To implement such a system here in the states you would have to raise taxes by a huge amount and that to me is unacceptable. The difference between nationalized healthcare and gov't provided broadband is that indiviudal cities would be providing the broadband services. This would only happen if private companies refused to provide services to that particualr area. Your taxes might be higher in that city but you could move to another one where private service are available and you taxes would be lower. With nationalized healthcare it wouldn't matter where you moved, the taxes would still be the same (ie high) because it would be a federally implemented programs, and thus funded by federal taxes which everyone is subject to.
OTOH we had one state owned phone company up until ten years ago. We had national mobile coverage already in the mid 80´s but thats all the positive you can say about it. No customer service and high prices. Then other companies were allowed and the old state owned company was sold and now we have superb telecommunication networks everywhere at very low prices, thanks to the competition.
We had something like this also. But instead if a gov't owned company, it was a private monopoly. The company of which I'm speaking is AT&T. Alas, the gov't broke it up. Why, Ill never understand. From what I understand phine bills where much lower than they are today (I haven't taken inflation into account, but I bet they still would be lower).
The public sector in US is known for its ineffectiveness compared to countries like Switzerland and the scandinavian countries. So perhaps you should start there instead...?
Part of the problem is the fact that it is next to impossible to fire an employee of the federal gov't. That's why they're so slack, because they jave no fear of termination. Also the federal government has to sell contracts to minority/women owned firms instead of going with the cheapest bidder available. I think the gov't should sell contracts to the company will to do the work for the least amount fo money, and if it just so happens that it is minority/women owned then so be it. If not, too bad. I think people go to far with this diversity bullshit.
Who cares who does it as long as it gets done for the least amount of money and in the shortest amount of time possible.
Sorry it took so long for me to respond. I was off at college orientation.