What should be subsidized besides health care?

It may be pointless when you're discussing it with trolls, morons and NPCs as this thread seems to have devolved to.

 

Lol, NPCs. Love it.

Wow, somehow a crap-ton of my recent posts no longer exist. This forum software seems buggy.

 

Realize I'm coming late to the game in this topic, so may this has already been mentioned. To me what is absolutely essential to life is not healthcare, but food and water. If medical treatment is "free", why do I have to pay for groceries at the store?

 

Trump's fans remain loyal to Trump by avoiding what Trump says and does. Look at the threads that interest them most. Look at the threads they largely avoid.

There are exceptions to the latter. Some of Trump's fans enjoy attacking critics, making wisecracks, and/or providing cartoons and photo shopped illustrations. They rarely defend Trump.

 

Ok. Not sure who you would "discuss" that with but... have fun...

 

Finally someone understands the problem set out in the OP.

 

the question is why we do not have a food insurance but forced to buy health insurance from private provider?

 

Absolutely, if those people take our health resources we need to force them to pay for our health insurance.
It is natural right of everyone to demand compensation for the inflicted damage.

 

So...Mexico?

 

If Mexico is what you think of when you read that quote, then I'm not sure it is possible for us to have a reasonable discussion.

 

You definitely have more freedom in Mexico. I've lived in both the US and Mexico. No question there is more personal freedom in Mexico.

 

Freedom and liberty are not necessarily the same thing.

 

Because you need food daily, but most people only need medical occasionally.

 

In general, we eat too much, not too little.

 

Maybe someone on a political discussion board.

 

Your health care resources?

 

there is no difference whether you need something essential daily monthly or yearly, you need it all your life.
The insurance on the other hand is something that financially protects you in case accident or a loss that might or might not happen.
Since any person need health care at some point of their life the health insurance is similar to food insurance. The only reason we are not forced to have food insurance because the fraud would be so obvious.

 

If person does not have health care protection that means he puts a strain on the society, because if the person get sick he has to be treated in the emergency room instead of primary care facility. It is very expensive and wasteful practice.
So if you are against universal health care you have to be forced to buy insurance to protect us from the misuse of valuable resources. We (the people) have legitimate reason to take your property.

 

Yeah, that's a dumb rule and should be eliminated. Then you wouldn't have to worry about your precious health care resources.

 

I do not want people to die on the streets, so the rule is 100% correct, since it protects our freedom.

 

You don't want people to die on the street? That seems like a noble cause. Good luck with raising money for it and getting donors. Are you a doctor? How many people are you caring for in your house?

 

I do not care what you are thinking, if you violate my freedom I have a right to violate yours.

To let people on the street means.
1. the practice does not comply with the standards of civilized society.
2. they have to be removed by someone, so I have to pay for that
3. they might have infectious diseases that can cause a disease of other people.

 

I'm not violating your freedom. Am I? If so, how?

 

You are voting against health care, thinking that health care is a problem of individual while in fact health care is a public issue.