by legal requirement

the public option still gets free money

just stolen elsewhere

so you only lose half of the anticompetitive advantage

public option for what?

charity

welfare

seperate concepts

identical

almost

welfare is just forced charity

Many charities are guilty of not actually doing what they claim.

to an autist

identical

welfare is literally forced charity

very different in reality

welfare is a forced donation

but not charity

you of ALL people should know the difference

that depends on your definition of charity

given your faith

I to this day disagree that welfare is public charity, I do not think the philosophical ideas line up with that conception even if it addresses the same problem

Autism I know

obviously, in the moral sense, "forced charity" is an oxymoron

it's a type of 'tax'

but, practically speaking, welfare is forced charity

charity by definition is voluntary and done for DIFFERENT reason

the different reasons is far more central to the definition

it tries to do what charity tries to do, but with force

and is obv less effective as a result

that's not what welfare tries to do at all

it also kills the charitable nature of the populace

you are looking at it PURELY from the perspective of the person paying the bill

because "oh dont worry, I'm sure the govt will take care of it, it's not my problem"

but what if charity was not kill

hence why I said "practically"

but charity doesn't expect a return on investment

Its a sweeping government solution to say X, y and or Zthey want to give things to people who don't just need it, like nobody gives charity to people who aren't needing charity yet **universal** healthcare and similar are for **ALL**

doesn't expect the situation to improve at all

welfare doesn't necessarily either

welfare isn't intended to be permanent