When did you realize that Dolan glumphf was our goy??

...

Honestly she's right. The bill is disgusting and will directly literally cost lives.

>relying on the government to do anything for you
serves sick people right

The government has no obligation to keep you alive. That is on you.

>Honestly

Fuck off phone posters

"forget death panels"

You wish bitch

Good if people die. Dying is natural. Dying weeds out bad genetics.

Forcing the fit and healthy to slave away for the benefit of the sick and dying is dysgenic. It redistributes wealth from the fit to the unfit.

a government that doesn't look after its citizens is no sort of government at all

You mean a government that doesn't look after big pharma.

it looks after the FREEDOM and OPPORTUNITY of its citizens, not fucking feed and change their diapers

...

>directly literally

laissez faire

And a government that attempts too regulate the healthcare industry in such a way as it can save lives or take them through established policy directives has clearly overreached its intended purpose. Mandating that individuals participate within an insurance marketplace isnt Healthcare. It isnt quality of healthcare. It is insurance.

a citizen that can't look after themselves don't have the right to force others to

I agree slightly. I'm for a limited government, but I also wouldn't have much of a problem paying a small tax to help others out. I don't agree with "taxation being theft," and I believe you need some financial support from the people to keep an infrastructure running. But at the same time there are certain medical things I don't want to pay for. But I also don't think we should let people die because they can't afford to survive. Quite the dilemma.

>but I also wouldn't have much of a problem paying a small tax to help others out
what is charity?
>I don't agree with "taxation being theft"
give me a different name for involuntary acquisition of capital
>but I also don't think we should let people die because they can't afford to survive
but that's why charity exists, user

Paleoconservatism and originalist intent would seem to cover this, user.

>give me a different name for involuntary acquisition of capital

Well, I will agree with you. Technically, yes, it is theft. I'm born into this country, and I I'm then born into the system where I have to pay. But I think people sound a bit crazy shouting "taxation is theft," at the top of their lungs. So I kind of avoid the phrase. I guess I don't disagree with the concept of it being theft, but rather how people go about explaining the concept.

>what is charity?
Well, yes, charity exists, but you would then have to rely on people who want to give with no real obligation to. Which I imagine would be a small amount of people. If certain health or infrastructure issues arise, some people may not donate, or it may be too late, and some disaster has already occurred. By then an influx of funds would be too late. If you try to live in a cohesive community or government, things have to be maintained. Things we don't even think of needing to be maintained. It's extremely complex. Taxes are there to help pay for an maintain the community, the average person would be unable to go through it all and cherry pick. So the compromise it. We provide services to you in exchange for a tax. I don't think it's that bad of a compromise honestly.

>but that's why charity exists, user

Yes but again, with millions of people in this country and others, not everyone will participate, and many will die because of that. I'm OK with money being taken out of my paycheck to go towards services like that. I like people being healthy and the country';s people being well then some money from my paycheck. I still don't really like it, but I like it more than people dying because they can't afford to live.

>The government has no obligation to keep you alive
Can we abolish police then?

Rich people hold charities all the time. They either give money or use their mediums as a way to raise support for the cause.

Police in our country absolutely have no obligation to keep you alive and I wouldn't want a force that had such a mandate. Where are you from, user?

Yeah, but this is a bigger problem than either of us can debate. We have billions of dollars going to other industries. Military, roads, sate/government banquettes. All sorts of things. It costs and enormous amount. The top 1% or even the top 10% aren't going to be able to afford what we have now. I agree, it would be nice, but I think it's just not possible.

I don't much agree with Paleoconservatism. I'm no traditional, religious, and don't care for nationalism. Or at least what the modern definition is nationalism means. I usually call myself a Classical Liberal. Libertarian I guess too. I just think a lot of compromises need to be made between ideologies, rather than saying one is better than the other.

You're disgusting and will probably die from heart disease. So you got that going for you.

And no I will not pay for you any more. Get a job faggot.

Fully agree. Im proud to not identify with a party. It stifles critcal thought and tends to force us to see things through a lense others have created and a set of conditions they expect obedience to.