Please don't force me against my will to be limited to what you personally consider to be an acceptable standard of care. How I choose to live or die is none of your business.
This boils down to a simply question. Is society ok with letting people die in the gutter because they cant care for themself as a result of having bet on not needing insurance? If not the discussion is moot. Because then the freedom of not being insured simply means people leeching on society once it happens.
I am not saying it is either or, but if you boycott the current system without offering a new one its simply dishonest. Your actions still have consequences whether you like it or not.
Fundamentalism is rarely a working model for society. Despite your motivations, your actions have effects in reality. They have effects on others. And no matter what you think might be possible, as long as its not, you are still betting on getting bailed out by the current system.
We are all stuck with each other whether we like it or not and we have to find a way to coexist without actively seeking to harm each other for your own benefit.
The problem with this is that you want a top-down defined system with a master ruling over you. I want an emergent system where free people interact for mutual benefit. Surely there is some tiny fraction of the population that will be unable to take care of themselves. I'm happy to have a discussion with you about how we help that tiny percent of the population. Helping them doesn't require that you turn my healthcare decisions over to Donald Trump.
>but if you dont share the burden out of principle and your own stubbornness, you are simply acting anti social and living off others.
I suspect that if you had to rely entirely on the personal charity of others for your survival that you might be more inclined to behave in a pro-social manner.
>I am not saying it is either or, but if you boycott the current system without offering a new one its simply dishonest. Your actions still have consequences whether you like it or not.
You're being dishonest by painting a picture of a utopia where if I'll just turn over my healthcare decisions to Donald Trump then everyone will get the care they need when they need it. Can you even say out loud, "Donald Trump should decide what kind of medical care I deserve?"
>Fundamentalism is rarely a working model for society. Despite your motivations, your actions have effects in reality. They have effects on others. And no matter what you think might be possible, as long as its not, you are still betting on getting bailed out by the current system.
I'm not a fundamentalist. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. I just believe that, in general, I am better able to make healthcare decisions for myself than Donald Trump. I also believe that emergent systems tend to be better than centrally planned ones.
>We are all stuck with each other whether we like it or not and we have to find a way to coexist without actively seeking to harm each other for your own benefit.
In the scenario I'm describing there is no active harm to anyone. The worst case scenario is passively not aiding someone. Your scenario actively harms many for the benefit of the few.
Again, your request is hypocritical and carries no merit.