I don't quite understand Republicare. Supporters: you are blatantly stating that poor and lowly should not be helped...

I don't quite understand Republicare. Supporters: you are blatantly stating that poor and lowly should not be helped, right? You are dissatisfied with them, and outwardly against their lives/wellbeing? There is no other side to this? I'm just curious, and I think Republicans should at least be able to make a case for themselves. So far, I haven't seen one. Maybe there is no case. Maybe that is now acceptable.

>liberal logic
Conservatives know there are no easy solutions, only tradeoffs
>guaranteed minimum salary => massive drain on the economy
>health care for all => increased bureaucracy size, bloated government, increased debt

For every action, there's a reaction. You want to base a country's policy on philanthropy/feelings? There's a price to pay and many don't think it's worth it.

Republicareless. I don't want to pay for your AIDS treatment.

I am not a liberal, nor do I have AIDS. That wasn't even a response to my post. If you "Republicareless", you obviously dont need health care. You don't fit the question, nor should you be answering.

Okay, and there is a difference between "care for all" and a well constructed health care bill that doesn't leave millions to die. I am not a liberal, nor do I think we should run the country on feelings. I am simply wondering if you genuinely think it is better to let people die. And genuinely hate the poor. And if there is a counter argument. Running a country is about "trade offs", not completely fucking people. Feelings and overall wellbeing of the citizens YOU ARE GOVERNING are two very different things. Or do you support the third Reich? There's an example of trade offs over human lives.

Also, your flag is Canadian. Are you a hypocrite with free health care? I guess there's no need for the "other countries" argument

>wondering if you genuinely think it is better to let people die
Like i said, there are tradeoffs. You can frame the argument as "letting people die" if you want, i look at it as "letting people keep more money in their pockets come payday". It's all a question of ideology. Just like how conservatives view strong borders as "protecting national sovereignty" while democrats call it "breaking up families"
>And genuinely hate the poor.
Utilitarianism prevents me from having feelings about it one way or the other.
>Or do you support the third Reich?
Yes
>Are you a hypocrite with free health care?
I'd rather be taxed less than have free health care. There's no cognitive dissonance there.

National socialism need to come back.

>you are blatantly stating that poor and lowly should not be helped, right?

wrong..it will cost us more to take care of them in a system that is not set up at the front to take care of and address them

you can't stick your head in the sand and not help them when they or their kids are sick and/or dieing

Why should the well off have to pay for the poor? it just makes lazy people who think they don't have to work to get what they need.

Edit this so its something more along the lines of:

>When you used the freedoms granted to you by thousands of years of social progress and philosophical tradition of Western Civilization to ruin it.

The only difference is that millions of people will literally die with no health care. That is a fact. But you've made it clear you're on one side of the argument, so I appreciate your time. Also, change your sentence to *more money in wealthy pockets. I'm sure if you had cancer or something, you wouldn't be saying you'd rather have less taxes, but it's hard to argue with someone who isn't affected, because you have to use all these hypotheticals.
By denying them care, that is what you are doing. By structuring the system, you would be right. You may say you can't stick your head in the sand, but that's why I asked for a counter argument. This is blatantly what's happening, but of course it has to be denied for safety purposes. You're not doing anything for them, so the laws you support will be your position.

ITS NOT FUCKING FREE IF YOURE BEING TAXED FOR IT REEEEEEEEEEEEE

If the government could do it cheaper, which they could if they really wanted to, Id be willing to try universal healthcare. Obamacare has me paying $800 a month for me and three children. This new shit bill is not going to do anything for me. The (((hospitals))) and (((doctors))) and most of all (((bigpharma))) are the ones ruining this shit. Time to tighten the reigns on these traitors to the people. Would not mind seeing some swing honestly.

>Imply Swedish female politicians don't wear hijabs in Middle Eastern countries when though they say they are feminist

It has always been acceptable, the weak must be culled, preferably in wars useful to the strong

The well off should not have to pay for the poor. But that does not mean you have to completely cut them off, like we are doing now. Basically, there are two sides and there needs to be a middle ground. Regardless of what you've been taught, the path to wealth is not easy in this generation. Not all the poor are lazy. There are plenty of well off lazy people too. We've already created the worst types of citizens; no amount of death will change that. It will make things ten times worse. Some of the poor really are underprivileged.
I was not expressing a view point. I truly wanted to see if these people gave a shit about anyone else, even knowing their lives could be destroyed tomorrow by illness. Just an alternative to the anti right media. So far it looks like that's a no.

Why is there "underprivilege" my problem? I worked hard to get what I have why should I be penalized for my hard work? why are they entitled to my money when they didn't work for it?

That has not always been acceptable. Go ahead and kill the sick, but centuries of social progress have rendered that argument obsolete. If it was acceptable, they would at least balls up and say it publically.
Actually, it seems like both bills suck desu. I just thought we might go forward a little bit with this one.

>when you try to push all the blame on singular idea instead of yourself taking any of the blame that you should take

are you a fucking retarded nigger who thinks god doesnt see what you are doing?

kys my man

There was more to my side than what you addressed. So I really don't want to repeat myself. It seems your political knowledge is terribly restricted to cliches. They shouldn't get your money, but this is the whole construct of taxes. Why should the roads get your money? Should you, as a democratic citizen, contribute to this society financially (in increments) as you continue to take advantage of it? Is that a penalty? You work hard, but others work harder and get nowhere. You're not special. You just profited off of good values and health. There are millions of poor, and I guess you're presenting the side that states that it's okay to just forget them. That is fine. I'm not judging.

I pay for the roads because I use them, I pay for the school because I used them, I dont use tyrones food stamps, I dont use tyrones welfare check, and I dont use Ashleys medicare. yes life is hard for some and harder for others but that doesn't mean people who got ahead and worked hard(or didn't work hard) should have to pay for the poor.

Another Canadian with free health care. That must be why you only addressed one point. Anyway, there were others. Ashley could give AIDS to your son Ethan. You wouldn't know because it doesn't really affect you. You just make the same point ten times. Irdk how to keep addressing it.