Then if you feel so deeply about not needing to have others see it your way then don't stand in the way of those of us who feel that social medicine is the way to go.
I don't until it mandates ME to follow suit to THEIR way, i.e UHC. Note the distinct difference, yet?? If YOU want UHC, then YOU and LIKE minds pay for it, and leave those of us who advocate individual responsibility & accountability out of it.
I'm entirely in favor of that if we can agree that I have don't have go in with you and your ilk on all your wars and murderous empiricism across the globe. Deal?
Your definitions of "ilk" and "murderous empiricism across the globe" don't jive mine, I'm afraid. My definitions are connected to the Constitution, including the section referencing PROVIDE for the common defense, vs simply PROMOTING for the general welfare of its populace. So, until we have a concensus on those defintions, I don't see any deal as imminent
Surpriiiiiiise, surpriiiise!!
Sirs comes out with semantics arguments to defend his being ok with "our" money being used to kill, maim, murder worldwide while not using a tenth of the amount of money used to kill every year to prevent illness, heal the sick and basically have a charitable outlook towards his fellow citizen.
So for sirs the following is true:
"Our" money being used to kill others > "Our" money being used to heal us