Quote:
Originally Posted by Alkaline  Eh? By those examples the community one would be subsidised by the government, so it's not a valid comparisson. Maybe internet radio should be subsidised too. A lot of internet broadcasters aren't non-profit, in fact there are probably more profit making internet broadcasters than non-profit.
If you want to get hypothetical: I pay National Insurance every month from my wages. I haven't been to the doctors in years yet i pay more than a junkie who is there every week for all sorts of 'treatments'. Is that fair? |
It is a hypothetical example, there was no mention of goverment subsidies in the hypothetical example, therefore it doesn't come into the equation.
Do you have anything to back up your inkling about the majority of internet broadcasters being profit making? Otherwise its just an inkling, and is silly to base an opinion on it.
That isn't a hypothetical situation, assuming you do pay your National Insurance, and aren't at the doctors every week. This comparison has no grounds whatsoever, as it is comparing two users of the same system, as opposed to two similar companies, the only difference between them being that one is non-profit. Where is this 'junkie' going to get 'treatments,' a honky-tonk doctor? A back alley doctor? Otherwise, he/she is just getting treatments, not 'treatments.' And to answer the pointless question, yes that is as fair as it is going to get with a national health system.