Strawman again. No one said you wish death on anyone. Or maybe you just don't read for comprehension like I said.If you want to think because I don't want to be forced to pay for others that means I wish death on those people be my guest.
Prevention in your life and prevention in the government are not at all reliable. If you were smart you wouldn't treat them the same.
Do you understand that in your first sentence you equate both "Prevention in your life" and "prevention in the government" to "not at all reliable". Let me ask the silly question: if they are both "not at all reliable", why wouldn't I treat them the same?
I can sort of understand if you gloss over my posts and don't comprehend what I write, but do you also gloss over your own posts too?
So you are claiming the US does not have democracy?I was unaware we were a democracy. Why do liberals not understand what a Representative republic is?
So back to square one. After contradicting what everyone can see was your thinking so far (you want the government to provide only what you think ought to be provided by the government and begrudge the taxes you think are paid for what others want) you now go back and confirm it. Don't you get tired of contradicting and repeating yourself?I was saying I pay for you rwants already, and my wants are my wants that live outside of government. Having ones wants in government is a just a way to control others. I have no desire for it.
You are just filled with fallacies. Let's examine your strawman - what if I go to the opposite extreme of "forcing people to do what I wish" - i.e. absolute freedom? Is it moral that we force people to have a driver license before they can drive? Is it moral that we punish people who want to shout fire in a public confined space? Is it moral that we put criminals in jail and curtail their freedom as a result?So you think your morality of forcing people to do what you wish is actually moral? Interesting.
Yes, I do as my post made clear. And you are just repeating it without any counter arguement whatsoever.So you think we actually really have a responsibility to society? That it actually exists in the real world and not in just in the minds of those people that believe it?
As I have said, and I'll repeat again: That is because you think that it's okay to let someone die who can't pay for the healthcare. And you don't seem to comprehend that you are as subjective as I am, whereas I'm very attuned to that fact and made clear from the beginning that it's my views, subjective to me. You keep repeating that it's my view, but you don't seem to understand what that means. My morality is base on my reality and value as yours are. I think the problem with your position is both to do with reality and values - as I've said in my original post. You believe that it's not your problem when someone fails to buy insurance, it's their problem. That ignores the reality of how the system currently works. The fact that it affects you the tax payer and potential healthcare user in many ways: when they seek charity care, that is paid with tax money. If they don't seek charity care, and own the bill to the hospital, as Ron Paul campaign manager did (his family still have not paid the bill) the hospital covers that loss by charging more for the services. We know what your values are regarding society. What my value are regarding society I've stated in my original post. So you are immoral to me, and I think to DA and Paul too who could not bring themselves to say that it's okay to let someone die who can't pay for their healthcare. My reality is not baseless, they are backed up with factual examples and solid reasonings which you have not been able to refute in anyway.Your morals are not based on reality. They are only based on how you want the world to be. They are baseless.