Sick and struggling to pay, 100M people in the U.S. live with medical debt

ERs can't deny life saving care, but that's the exception.

Is this the conception people have of the US healthcare system? That everyone's taken care of so why are they complaining?

Let me disabuse you of that notion.

2. I did forget about mentioning that one. Republicans could have easily restricted it in 2016 if they as a cohesive unit wanted to. They do not. It's much more useful to leave it in the current state where it can constantly be brought up every election cycle as a way to drum up supporters who have no object permanence.

3. You got me here but that's also the thing I listed as their only accomplishment.

4. This one is very bi-partisan. The military has no issue with losing funding and especially wants to optimize funding by doing things such as closing low-utilized bases and moving those staff to other under-utilized bases. However doing so affects congressional districts and their congress representative have no interest in losing jobs (money) for their region. The lack of awareness of defense spending as a jobs program is a big pet peeve of mine :/

> What Republican lawmakers are great at is being united in thwarting Democratic policies and doing what it takes to enhance their own power.

5. Sure but Democrats have this issue as well. There have long been calls for things such as Ranked Choice Voting, Approval Voting, etc and Democrats and Republicans have long tried to even overturn those efforts even when decided by voters as a ballot measure. Both of them know that allowing this will degrade the "both sides" situation going on as other parties will gain a foothold. However it also leads to situations where voting for your first choice (a 3rd party) in close elections (i.e 2016 [2] vs 2020 [3] and 2000 [4]) can allow your second favorite candidate to lose but Democrats collectively are ok with losing every 3rd presidency (~1/10yr) as long as it doesn't eat into their powerhold (every other elected position).

There really is no reason to argue about the Republicans here. We have a bunch of states such as North AND South Dakota strictly to increase the number of republican senators [5]. Or more recently, in 2000 when Republicans in US Supreme Court overruled Florida's Supreme Court about if a recount should occur [6] (so much for states rights!). SO yes, it's a moot point that Republicans are power hungry and don't care about consistency only power.

[1]: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2016/s... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia... [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Territory#Statehood [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

You are obviously a very smart guy, jjoonathan. Why do you suppose the Democrats didn't even propose this when they had 60 Senate votes, the Presidency and the House? If its a 101 level problem why do you think that is?

How about you move. It's hilarious to suggest the contract is still intact when the government violates the contract itself, such as abridging 4th and 2nd amendment rights, rendering the contract void. Just a few months ago, I had a warrant served where a homeland security official lied and said a drug dog had "alerted on my buttocks" and I was forcefully strip-searched and dragged to a hospital to be "internally examined." Sorry the government themselves violated the contract.

And it's worth noting, even though the "contract" legitimize this, the last president didn't even have the assent of the majority of voters.

>By staying within the bounds of a country you are consenting to its laws or are considered a criminal or foreign aggressor.

I'm not too worried about whatever ad-hominem you'd like to label.

>Note since you are US citizen you still benefit from their social service while living abroad, the are many protections upheld to US citizens traveling abroad you would no longer have if you renounce.

This is so hilarious as to make me wonder if you've ever actually been to a US consulate abroad. I have, against my wishes due to riding in the same taxi with a 'friend.' We had both overstayed our visas, and the consular services basically said "lol get fucked, good luck!" I could have obtained the same services talking to a wall. I'm good on their services.

>Exactly, you must pay your final rent payment and get out, no one is forcing you to stay. I

If I've already "gotten out" including paying my taxes this rent analogy makes even less sense, not that it was a good one to begin with. I never signed a contract saying if I leave the non-existent contract I agree to pay $2000 to back out.

> you don't have to defend your property and life through force on a daily basis

I wonder if you've even been to the United States? It was not so long ago someone tried to rob me at gunpoint. I still have a scar from fighting back. On a daily basis, people are violently assaulted in my city. Nowadays I'm forced to have "protection" that I have daily in case someone tries to use lethal force against me again. The police have no legal duty to "defend" you per the supreme court. The type of protection police provide here, I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

As for military protection, I actually have fought as a self-funded volunteer in a foreign militia (YPG) against ISIS, so I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is about not using tax money to defend life.

>However while you are there you must fund the services they are currently providing to you

You don't get to just provide services for someone, who never agreed to it, and then demand payment. Payment for services is predicated on the parties consenting to the transaction. Providing service without the other party agreeing is charity at best, unwelcome intrusion at worst.

>no one is forcing you to stay

Except some people have had their passports revoked, and occasionally without even owing anyone anything ("for national security reasons.") In fact DHS has threatened to revoke my passport before, despite not breaking any law. It is a crime to leave the US without a passport. So the US does 'force' some people to stay.

>People are social animals, they work together to solve problems no individual could on their own, money facilitates this and is needed to fund the large social framework

People are capable of doing this in a consensual manner. In fact many businesses operate on this principle of consensual mutual benefit.

>You may not like it but that doesn't matter because others will form large groups and impose it on you regardless and you will have no choice over its form.

Back to your contradictory argument of "no one is forcing you at gunpoint" -- except you reneg and say actually they are.