I don't believe I've ever met a libertarian that believed social medicine is the answer. For those of us paying insurance premiums for the last 40 years, only to have those premiums tripled while the services we've paid for for decades is no longer available to us. Socialized medicine is about as much part of the libertarian doctrine as Bernie Sanders is. I live in the Socialist Republic of California, we're getting a glimpse of what social medicine already looks like. Appointments that one used to make a week out have become 6 weeks out. Medicine's that the state decides you really don't need, (even with your doctors prescription) get replaced with meds that are cheaper and generally don't work. UNLESS of course you're an inmate in California. An inmate CANNOT receive medications that are NOT from the manufacturer. Nothing generic for our criminals. We also provide them with hormone shots and sex change operations at the tax payer expense, meanwhile, my 78 year old mother, who's paid her insurance premiums for more than 50 years has to go to Canada for her thyroid medication. I also feel strongly about states rights, but not when they go off the rails against federal law. When the 5 time felon picked up a gun, pulled the trigger, and killed Kate Steinle, and a SF jury can't even convict the guy of manslaughter, (which just happened to be the defenses case), then the State has failed to protect it's lawful citizens and needs to be brought to heel.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Steinle's killer got off because the DA & jury are the children of illegals. They were protecting their own kind.
I'm not really sure where you're locating your facts but, nothing you said was true. I was purely political and a travesty of justice any way you look at it.
The DA didn't charge the killer with charges appropriate to the crime.
In group preference is a real thing. Think about how many times you've thought of those not in your group as non-human.
And, there's no such thing as everyone liking everyone.
The constitution says Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness....I'm sorry I just dont think cost should interject in whether or not someone gets the right to live or not. Life is to me an unalienable right, if it wasn't then what's the difference between this and murder in cold blood?