F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

[DogOnPorch]

It worked well for the High countries in 1941.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France

[Signals.Cpl]

It worked well for the High countries in 1941.

So you have no comment for this right? This is one of many examples where people tried diplomacy and essentially disarmed themselves and were crushed... so much for your theories...

[Signals.Cpl]

Oh, that old chestnut...the US health care system...that bastion of free market economics.

The US system is every bit as managed and controlled by governments at all levels, and insurance companies regulated and controlled by government at all levels. Pointing at the US health care system as an example of free market health care is crazy.

What is a free market system? The Somalian one? You are sick and Ill solve it by shooting you in the head...

Yes, research and infrastructure costs money, especially when every step of it is gummed up with government regulation and red tape.

Yeah better let companies give you a placebo or better yet test their pharmaceuticals on you. government regulation is there for a reason, too much regulation is bad just like not enough regulation is bad

Health care delivery, research, infrastructure...all of it gets cheaper and more readily fixed, and improved when you get government out of the way entirely.

Any proof or are you pulling this one out of your ass as well...

And practitioners can earn boatloads in a private free market system, especially when they're not being taxed on their income.

And they can make a boat load when they give you a tic tac for cancer treatment because no one is regulating the qualities.

And you'd be paid commensurate with your skills.

Doctors, Technicians, Engineers etc... are all expensive and since you have qualified people at every level of the process healthcare ends up just as expensive, only since there are no restrictions they can charge as much as they please and let you die or be a virtual slave at the end of the treatment.

Your talents would earn you what the market determined your skills were worth.

And therefore everything will be just as if not more expensive because everyone will want a bigger cut and there would be no one to say enough is enough

And even better you'd get out of med school without piles of student loans to pay back because school tuition subject to the same market forces would also be affordable, and of better quality.

Yeah but why would you need to go to Med School? Its just a requirement by the government? Why not just give you a book, read it and start treating people?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

And the fundamental problem with that is if we go down that route we will bear the full cost. Look at the cost of the F35 and the current situation, it is affordable because the research and development is spread out along over 3,000 aircraft, now imagine the same level of research and development being spread out on just 65 or 100 or even 200 fighters... and then you have to consider what happens with that investment when the RCAF gets its fighters, do we replace them every 10 years just to keep the industry going? How can we compete with the current established competition and sell enough to just barely break even?

There is no point in setting up the infrastructure and the intellectual power in an industry just to research our own plane build it and shut the industry down or sell it off after the order is done.

To address your first point, about the full cost of the program in question, the Americans built how many F22's...? Less than two hundred of them. So in fact countries do build one round of aircraft. Actually its companies that do the building, on contract isn't it, not the country. So in fact no different here than there, really.

The point is that we do in fact need the infrastructure, and the way to get it is clear. WE could in fact build a new round of improved aircraft every ten years and I suggest that we should do it this way. Small, self-sufficient defense industry. Build what we want and what we need instead of getting what we can afford or find to buy from somebody else. Keep the tax payers dollars in Canada..

With all due respect the concept of breaking even on defense spending amuses me greatly when we don't even try to claw back the costs through income taxes on our own citizens. We can't right now because we keep buying stuff outside the country. We start buying stuff in the country than its production is taxed across the board and this serves to offset the capital investment nicely.

[Wilber]

Locking your door is a psychological thing. If someone wants in, they'll get in. Of course almost all of us do it. I do it. The difference is I didn't expect everyone on my street to pay for the lock.

Citizens and private land owners and businesses can come together and form their own policing body, and one a lot more answerable to its constituents than the top-down policing bodies forced upon us right now.

So if you can't afford to pay you get no protection. I take it that if something doesn't directly effect yoy personally, you aren't interested. Enjoy your bunker.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Wilber

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Well, you don't just walk into Wal-Mart and grab a few dozen off the shelves. It takes years to set up and run a selection process, a year or more to negotiate an agreement with a vendor, and then several years of waiting before you can begin to receive the aircraft.

Which goes toward my original point of not having to replace the CF18 until 2020, the end of their service life. Besides, we don't really have the ability to defend the nation at the moment anyway. We never have had that ability before, not having the F35 right now doesn't change that and even if we do get the aircraft, 65 of them will not defend the nation either will they??? Too big of a job for too few aircraft at to great a range to function as defense. We need to keep in mind the goals and objectives of national defense for Canada.

The F35 program, and its planned spending could change our defensive capability for the better or worse. In my view given that we would still not be able to defend the nation with the planned purchase, we should seek instead the means to accomplish job one for the RCAF which is simply to defend our skies. Many folks will disagree, but I maintain that we need a Canadian solution.

[Signals.Cpl]

To address your first point, about the full cost of the program in question, the Americans built how many F22's...? Less than two hundred of them. So in fact countries do build one round of aircraft. Actually its companies that do the building, on contract isn't it, not the country. So in fact no different here than there, really.

They build around 200, but did they start from scratch? Using designs from 60 years ago? And why would any company in Canada invest billions of dollars researching aircraft designs from the bottom up to build only 65 aircraft? Its one thing when the Us has a working industry and has experience, infrastructure and a lot of the kinks worked out already its a whole different thing designing everything from scratch. If Ford designs a car and the whole project costs 10,000,000 dollars does it mean that if I had the means I can design a car of similar abilities and quality using designs from the 1950's for the same price considering I would have to start from scratch?

The point is that we do in fact need the infrastructure, and the way to get it is clear.

We DONT need the infrastructure because when we get our 65 fighters we will not be purchasing another fighter fro 30-40 years, what do they do in the meantime? Which private corporation will invest money and time in setting up and industry that would be significantly behind before it even starts? So that brings us to government investment, now imagine having to design everything from the ground up only to discover that few if any nations are actually interested in our aircraft... maybe if the Arrow had succeeded in 1950's and we had continued developing the aircraft and secured a market we could succeed but as it is we will not succeed but pay many times more per aircraft then we do now.

WE could in fact build a new round of improved aircraft every ten years and I suggest that we should do it this way.

spending 1 billion a year on aircraft upkeep and maintenance and 1 billion a year on replacement seems like a waste, we need aircraft replaced every once in a while but every 10 years is too much.

Small, self-sufficient defense industry.

is useless since we are not large enough to need it, what we may need is to make a strategy and I mean a real strategy in the shipbuilding projects so that we have the abilities rather then trying to be self sufficient in everything and end up with garbage in everything.

Build what we want and what we need instead of getting what we can afford or find to buy from somebody else. Keep the tax payers dollars in Canada..

Buy what serves our needs and buy it from our allies, or invest on expensive Garbage at home and end up with equipment that meets few or none of our needs. We need to pick our battles, and I for one prefer to have a defence industry for what we need and can afford rather than spending many times the cost of the aircraft using money we DONT have just so it stays in Canada.

With all due respect the concept of breaking even on defense spending amuses me greatly when we don't even try to claw back the costs through income taxes on our own citizens.

Breaking even means that we will spend 100 or more billion to develop this aircraft and we will end up being the only user of the aircraft which means that we spend 10 or more times to build the aircraft and that does not even account for the 30 years of upkeep. I would rather take that money, invest it in something else than in an industry that will fail before it is even set up.

We can't right now because we keep buying stuff outside the country.

And unless you can convince the British, French, Americans or any other NAtO country to buy in bulk we will not be able to make our money off the massive investment.

We start buying stuff in the country than its production is taxed across the board and this serves to offset the capital investment nicely.

So we invest 100,000,000,000 dollars to get 60-100 new aircraft, and then spend another 50 or more billion dollars in upkeep of those aircraft because now we have to maintain production for the next 40 years which will end up costing more then if we bought from the US where they are mass producing the parts.

You are proposing that we stop buying our screw driver from the US for $10 a unit and build our own for $100 a unit and tax our citizens to make up for the difference.

[Argus]

1. Absolutely right. You shouldn't be. Pay for your own health care and ask everyone else to do the same.

But many people would not be able to afford to do that. Are you willing to see people die from easily curable sicknesses because they have no money?

Public health care was not designed out of a sense of altruism, you know. It was designed because the rich get killed when diseases sweep through society too, and because it cost a lot of money to have to keep hiring and training new workers after the old ones died.

2. Right, because the government runs the fire department better, more cheaply, and efficiently than private citizens who've banded together could?

They certainly run it more effectively. Volunteers take twice as long to get to you.

[Signals.Cpl]

Which goes toward my original point of not having to replace the CF18 until 2020, the end of their service life. Besides, we don't really have the ability to defend the nation at the moment anyway. We never have had that ability before, not having the F35 right now doesn't change that and even if we do get the aircraft, 65 of them will not defend the nation either will they??? Too big of a job for too few aircraft at to great a range to function as defense. We need to keep in mind the goals and objectives of national defense for Canada.

The F35 program, and its planned spending could change our defensive capability for the better or worse. In my view given that we would still not be able to defend the nation with the planned purchase, we should seek instead the means to accomplish job one for the RCAF which is simply to defend our skies. Many folks will disagree, but I maintain that we need a Canadian solution.

So we should just build an aircraft in Canada that serves no purpose other than just being Canadian, one that was obsolete 50 years ago?

[Argus]

There are no guarantees. Diplomacy is every bit as effective as a fighter plane, if not more. And it's way cheaper.

Only if the other side is interested in compromise. And if you don't have a military, and they do, then why should they compromise?

[Argus]

Citizens and private land owners and businesses can come together and form their own policing body, and one a lot more answerable to its constituents than the top-down policing bodies forced upon us right now.

And how answerable would this body be to non-members? If this private police force decides to beat people up at random and the local land owner doesn't care, what then?

[Argus]

1. You're quoting prices based on current government-created inflationary costs. Health care in an unfettered free market is far cheaper than the numbers you're throwing around.

That's certainly true. Absent government and insurance the doctors and hospitals would have to greatly lower their prices.

But it would still be far out of reach of the poor. We saw that in history. So you're prepared to just let the poor die? So you can have more money?

[Argus]

Yes, research and infrastructure costs money, especially when every step of it is gummed up with government regulation and red tape.

Health care delivery, research, infrastructure...all of it gets cheaper and more readily fixed, and improved when you get government out of the way entirely.

Virtually all important health care research is done or paid for by government. Get government out of the way and there won't be more research but far less.

And practitioners can earn boatloads in a private free market system, especially when they're not being taxed on their income.

And what about people who don't have boatloads of money to pay to have their busted appendix removed? Let them die?

[kward]

Because in the free market people don't want to make a profit and will therefore keep healthcare costs artificially low...

Oh it has been done before, many times... precisely why people moved away from that and to government organized and led organizations. You might be more suited to live in Afghanistan where the people band together and form their own militia's and pay for their own healthcare... you know where an ambulance is a wheelbarrow.

And what do you mean by free market? Someone charging you whatever they want for the service?

And in Canada I have no worry that if I need healthcare for myself or my children I will be able to get it... If I had to pay out of pocket for the healthcare I might not be able to afford it and will be forced to watch my children die, which might be acceptable for you but to me not so much.

Less bureaucracy? What happened to all the charities that spend three quarters of every dollar on on expenses related to their bureaucracy and only spend one quarter or less on the intended project?

Doubt that we can achieve impartiality much less if it was in the hands of a few corporations.

So do you Dispute that the British, French and Spanish were paying essentially bribes to the pirates to leave them alone while the US fought what was it two relatively small wars and ended up paying no bribes for protection of their ships? The Americans used force and the British used "diplomacy" the result was the British were found to be a much easier target even though they had a navy many times stronger than the US navy of the timeframe.

For the moment until others realize that to use the seaplanes we need to bribe them and they will join in the practice, you pay off one group of people to leave you alone and others will see you as an easy target, why should we bother ourselves with work when we can capture a few of your ships and get you to pay us millions of dollars to leave you alone...after all with no military power you can't do much anyway and if you want to use the sea lanes you have to pay us to leave you alone.

Be sure to explain how paying Pirates in Somalia will not give ideas to criminals in all busy shipping areas to start their own little operation because you will pay if you want to run your business... you don't pay they take your cargo you eventually go broke...

That is exactly what will happen when idiots disarm and let themselves be pushed around by mere criminals.

Money comes from you, if they have weapons and target your ships you will either pay up or it becomes their ships and their cargo... thats the business plan good luck running a business when you have to pay bribes to everyone and anyone with a rifle and a boat.

1. In a free market you don't control costs. Costs are a reflection of supply and demand.

2. Ah, yes Afghanistan...a great example of free market and free people. Try again.

3. In a free market business owners can only charge you what the market will bear, i.e. what people will willingly pay or can afford. A business owner cannot sell a product if it's priced so high no one can afford it. Business owners want to stay in business so they can keep making money.

4. In Canada you and your family receive substandard care in a rationed, "take a number" fashion. In a free market, you get care when you want at a fraction of the price.

5. You've just stated the problem with government perfectly...just substitute the word "charity" with government. In a free market people, if a charity does a poor job of passing donations onto those in need, that charity will not survive. People vote with their wallets.

6. Your longevity is already in the hands of corporations, except right now they're taxed and regulated by a middleman that allows these businesses to write off costs, and charge more for services and pass the long wait times and expenses along to you and your regional government bodies.

7. Paying a land owner for the use of their territory is the cost of doing business. Of course taking it by force is an option, but it is immoral.

8. Again, an oversimplification. If someone owns territory and you want to use it, there's nothing wrong with paying for the privilege, nor charging.

9. Right, or you could just do as you please and use another person's territory with impunity - and then threaten them with violence if they complain. That's fair.

10. Nothing pushes harder than wealth. And I have no problem with using force and acting like a pirate yourself, but don't rob government constituents to pay for it.

11. See number 10.

[Guest Derek L]

Yes, but we still really only have 48 active aircraft right now. I'm talking about a scenario where we have 72. That would seem to indicate we could deploy at least 9 indefinitely, and an entire squadron for a short time.

As I said, we can’t deploy 6 indefinitely now………The repercussions on training and maintenance are still being felt after the Libyan deployment, as I said again, an additional squadron of 24 (plus an additional purchase of 4-8 aircraft for attrition) would allow use to deploy a third of a squadron (8 aircraft) without impacting the rest of the force………I don’t make this shit up on the fly you know………

For instance, the continued high tempo operations in Afghanistan and Iraq ran down the RAF/RN Joint Force Harrier, an organization with a similar force structure to what you purport, well also stripping it’s other responsibilities (Providing a Squadron of (8) Harriers to the RN’s duty strike carrier), as such, after a decades usage, maintaining the force no longer became viable, hence the entire force got the axe.

[Signals.Cpl]

1. In a free market you don't control costs. Costs are a reflection of supply and demand.

And I form my own Armed unit and kill the supply, so now the demand far outstrips the supply...

2. Ah, yes Afghanistan...a great example of free market and free people. Try again.

Yes Afghanistan, in some areas they don't have government police, they police themselves and look at how well that turned out for them...

3. In a free market business owners can only charge you what the market will bear, i.e. what people will willingly pay or can afford. A business owner cannot sell a product if it's priced so high no one can afford it. Business owners want to stay in business so they can keep making money.

Yeah but that true for an iPod, when its medicine you will kill or rob someone to get the money to treat your kid, they can charge as much as they want.

4. In Canada you and your family receive substandard care in a rationed, "take a number" fashion. In a free market, you get care when you want at a fraction of the price.

So in what country do we see this amazing example?

5. You've just stated the problem with government perfectly...just substitute the word "charity" with government. In a free market people, if a charity does a poor job of passing donations onto those in need, that charity will not survive. People vote with their wallets.

Just like they do in a democracy, your wallet hurts you vote differently.

6. Your longevity is already in the hands of corporations, except right now they're taxed and regulated by a middleman that allows these businesses to write off costs, and charge more for services and pass the long wait times and expenses along to you and your regional government bodies.

Give me an example where your theory has worked i really wanna see what heaven looks like.

7. Paying a land owner for the use of their territory is the cost of doing business. Of course taking it by force is an option, but it is immoral.

And that being immoral has NEVER stopped anyone...

8. Again, an oversimplification. If someone owns territory and you want to use it, there's nothing wrong with paying for the privilege, nor charging.

And there is nothing wrong with taking it by force, I have the means to take it, you don't have the means to defend... why should I pay if I can take it for free?

9. Right, or you could just do as you please and use another person's territory with impunity - and then threaten them with violence if they complain. That's fair.

Who is going to stop me if you are unarmed and I have all the weapons I want? How can you negotiate if all you can offer me I can take from you anyway?

10. Nothing pushes harder than wealth.

Actually the barrel of a gun pushes much harder, why would I take up on your offer if I can simply move in and take all your stuff at will?

And I have no problem with using force and acting like a pirate yourself, but don't rob government constituents to pay for it.

But you are ok to let the constituents be robbed by pirates and be defenceless so that any petty dictator with a small military can force us on our knees...

11. See number 10.

Thats right, see #10.

If you are walking down the street at night, and I come to rob you with my trusty gun, good luck negotiating seeing as I would have all the power and nothing you can say or do will make a difference.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[kward]

So you have no comment for this right? This is one of many examples where people tried diplomacy and essentially disarmed themselves and were crushed... so much for your theories...

I made a nonsensical point in reply to your nonsensical point. Again, with the oversimplifying of history. A lot more to the story of the second world war than what you're painting here.

[kward]

What is a free market system? The Somalian one? You are sick and Ill solve it by shooting you in the head...

Yeah better let companies give you a placebo or better yet test their pharmaceuticals on you. government regulation is there for a reason, too much regulation is bad just like not enough regulation is bad

Any proof or are you pulling this one out of your ass as well...

And they can make a boat load when they give you a tic tac for cancer treatment because no one is regulating the qualities.

Doctors, Technicians, Engineers etc... are all expensive and since you have qualified people at every level of the process healthcare ends up just as expensive, only since there are no restrictions they can charge as much as they please and let you die or be a virtual slave at the end of the treatment.

And therefore everything will be just as if not more expensive because everyone will want a bigger cut and there would be no one to say enough is enough

Yeah but why would you need to go to Med School? Its just a requirement by the government? Why not just give you a book, read it and start treating people?

1. Somalia is an example of anarchy, not free market capitalism.

2. All regulation is bad because who decides? Who pays? And who benefits?

3. It's not something out of thin air. It's called logic. It's called reason. This current system of corporate-state blending is terrible and is driving many nations into debt by the billions. If you need proof of this widespread waste and injustice, look around you.

4. You really need to step back from the exaggerating. "No one is regulating"? Is that what I said? No, I said the government should not be regulating...there is a difference. Citizens, private wealth, they can band together and form regulatory bodies, and you can voluntarily take part, or you can choose not to and save your money.

5. Again, if you charge more than people are willing to pay you will not stay in business. People will go to doctors they can afford. Doctors who need to equip their office will buy from a company selling that equipment at an affordable price. This isn't really that difficult to understand.

6. We don't need to pay people to say enough is enough. We can do that for ourselves, and put our money where our mouth. is. A bureaucrat doesn't know better how to spend my money than I do. A government employee does not know how to spend your own hard earned money, than you do.

7. Sure, go ahead. Read a book and start treating people, and see how many people buy your services. There probably won't be too many, but never say never. And if any people do go to see you, they do so at their own risk, and if they get sicker or worse, that's their responsibility. People have to be accountable to themselves for the choices they make. No one else. There's too much of the blame game in this society. It is morally and financially bankrupting us all.

[Signals.Cpl]

I made a nonsensical point in reply to your nonsensical point. Again, with the oversimplifying of history. A lot more to the story of the second world war than what you're painting here.

Not that much, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg tried diplomacy and failed...when it came time to use force none of them were ready. Just like the British and the French, they relied too much on diplomacy with someone not even remotely interested in diplomacy except as a tool to buy him more time. You are saying that if the Allies had only tried a little harder on the diplomacy front Hitler would have been satisfied right?

[kward]

So if you can't afford to pay you get no protection. I take it that if something doesn't directly effect yoy personally, you aren't interested. Enjoy your bunker.

Correct, if you decide not to opt in, you are not protected by that service. Maybe there's another cheaper service you'd prefer. Or none at all. Something doesn't effect me directly? Like what? Don't paint with a broad brush, be specific.

A bunker? That's just pessimism talking, not reason.

[kward]

But many people would not be able to afford to do that. Are you willing to see people die from easily curable sicknesses because they have no money?

Public health care was not designed out of a sense of altruism, you know. It was designed because the rich get killed when diseases sweep through society too, and because it cost a lot of money to have to keep hiring and training new workers after the old ones died.

They certainly run it more effectively. Volunteers take twice as long to get to you.

1. Don't use today's health care costs as your example of what people can or cannot afford. A free market system means no limits on competition which leads to falling prices and higher quality. The electronics industry is a good example, not perfect, but good.

2. I wouldn't watch people die who can't pay for any care at all (which is highly unlikely given how cheap it would be). But with all the money people would save on goods and services, and not having an income tax, there's plenty of room for charities to spring up that will gladly cover medical care costs for those who have absolutely no money (also a shrinking number of people in a free market economy).

3. I don't advocate for altruism...I advocate for cheap, high quality, readily available health care for all. Only the free market provides that. Do you know how much money it costs right now to research treatments for diseases? Do you know how long it takes for drugs to go through clinical trials, and then how much they're sold for on the consumer market? All of those costs will come down, and the time will be greatly lessened when you take government out of the equation.

[wyly]

I made a nonsensical point in reply to your nonsensical point. Again, with the oversimplifying of history. A lot more to the story of the second world war than what you're painting here.

oversimplification by the historically ignorant no less...low countries were armed but defending against a much larger foe like Germany futile, just as canada's situation would be versus any opponent with the capability to invade us...any opponent we are capable of defending ourselves from doesn't have the capability to invade...if the USA, Russia or China had the intention to invade canada 200 F35s couldn't save us, they'd neutralize the flying pigs in a day or two at most...

[kward]

They certainly run it more effectively. Volunteers take twice as long to get to you.

Right across the board? You've studied this I take it? But really it's beside the point. I'm not talking about moving to all volunteer fire departments. I advocate citizens who have an interest in paying a fire protection team, come together in their community and pay for it free and clear of government regulations and without being forced into it. AND operating it in a free market economy where the cost of fire and rescue equipment and training comes at a fraction of the cost it incurs now.

[Signals.Cpl]

1. Somalia is an example of anarchy, not free market capitalism.

There is no example of the "free market" you are proposing.

2. All regulation is bad because who decides? Who pays? And who benefits?

So you are against safety regulation in aircraft? Or on building construction?

3. It's not something out of thin air. It's called logic. It's called reason. This current system of corporate-state blending is terrible and is driving many nations into debt by the billions. If you need proof of this widespread waste and injustice, look around you.

And your solution is to create anarchy?

4. You really need to step back from the exaggerating. "No one is regulating"? Is that what I said? No, I said the government should not be regulating...there is a difference. Citizens, private wealth, they can band together and form regulatory bodies, and you can voluntarily take part, or you can choose not to and save your money.

You are placing too much emphasis on private citizen organizations, do you think private citizens forming regulatory boards would be better then the government? They would get together and vote for what the guy handing out the most money wants.

5. Again, if you charge more than people are willing to pay you will not stay in business. People will go to doctors they can afford. Doctors who need to equip their office will buy from a company selling that equipment at an affordable price. This isn't really that difficult to understand.

What happens when I arm and equip 1,000 soldiers and kill or chase away any competition for 500km? You are forced to come to me, or on the other hand I get my people to sit outside the competition and "persuade" you to come to the more expensive treatment if you want to live.

6. We don't need to pay people to say enough is enough. We can do that for ourselves, and put our money where our mouth. is. A bureaucrat doesn't know better how to spend my money than I do. A government employee does not know how to spend your own hard earned money, than you do.

Yes they can. For the most part governments deal better with the funds then mobs...

7. Sure, go ahead. Read a book and start treating people, and see how many people buy your services.

And when the competition is the same? What then?

There probably won't be too many, but never say never. And if any people do go to see you, they do so at their own risk, and if they get sicker or worse, that's their responsibility.

But there is no regulatory body to determine who is qualified and who is not, most people will take the easy way thus the supply of good professionals will be far outstripped by the demand for them one person can do only so much.

People have to be accountable to themselves for the choices they make.

And when all their options are bad? You have 30 Doctors to choose from 26 of them are incompetent and 4 of them charge much more then you can afford(See supply and demand) you go to what you can afford.

No one else. There's too much of the blame game in this society. It is morally and financially bankrupting us all.

Ill give you a choice, the only doctors you can afford are the guy who read 1 book, or the guy who read 2 books as they are the only once within your price range... all the good once are much more expensive as they are fewer and more people want to go to them.

[Signals.Cpl]

Correct, if you decide not to opt in, you are not protected by that service. Maybe there's another cheaper service you'd prefer. Or none at all. Something doesn't effect me directly? Like what? Don't paint with a broad brush, be specific.

A bunker? That's just pessimism talking, not reason.

You are not affected by the same things that millions of people worldwide are i.e. no healthcare and you don't see the value of the lac of healthcare until it affects you or your family members, when you get sick and no one regulates the doctors or the insurance companies they drop you once you become expensive and can't afford the treatment.