> No one is making the claim that the cost of service would be $0. Quite obviously.
I am making the claim that the cost will be prohibitive to handle via charity, especially as a national healthcare strategy, as proposed upthread.
I am making the claim that the cost will be prohibitive to handle via charity, especially as a national healthcare strategy, as proposed upthread.
I do not think charity makes up a particularly signficant portion of that cost, no.
That's not charity!
Not according to any common definition.
I, too, can win every argument if I get to make up the definitions.
> compulsory collective charity
Compulsory makes it not charity. That's a tax.