For a bit of context. Inviting Trump was decided on by the party leaders and was not a popular choice with most of the delegates who were worried it would send a confusing signals to people not familiar with the party. Trump was also able to sneak a lot of his MAGA supporters into the convention for the speech. They tried to sit up front to make it look like Trump was popular there but they were forced to sit in the back. So any claims about cheering should be take with some salt.

Kinda thought lemmy was the better reddit. Seems it's just a different reddit.

I think part of the problem is the blurred lines between routine healthcare and emergencies. You are right, if you are having a heart attack insurance should step in to help you front the unexpected large cost. But for expected care like dentist visits you can and absolutely should shop around.

I like your point about insurance getting to decide but I think it's important to note you can still get treated even if insurance doesn't pay. Or you can sue them if you feel they should pay. You make some good points though.

There is no need to be rude. OP asked for libertarian views.

It's a about competition. I'm not saying business owners aren't corrupt. But if one company, say nestle, turns out to be rotten then you can buy your chocolate chips from another company. But with government I don't have a say. If I don't pay taxes I go to jail and if I don't like how my taxes are spent then too bad. There is no alternative.

There is no need to be condescending or rude. I'm trying to share my ideas and have a healthy discussion so maybe we can learn from each other.

Libertarian care about maximizing social and economic liberties. Liberty being defined as freedom from authority. Taxes are forced on citizens so libertarians generally want to limit taxes to a minimum. I see no reason to believe that universal healthcare would be cheaper than insurance. The government is an inefficient monopoly where private insurance companies have to compete for the lowest rates.

Libertarians want freedom from government force. They want to be able to fund healthcare by choice. They want the freedom to not have taxes being used to send weapons oversees. Libertarians are for social and economic freedom.

But corporations hold each other accountable. They have to compete for your trust. If corporation A does something shady then it's im their competitors interest to call them out in order to raise people's trust in themselves. There are also countless charities and third party sites to grade them. I can choose which programs I fund. I don't get any say in what government gets my taxes or what the government does with my taxes. What if I don't want to fund war but want my money to go to charity to help the poor? How effective is universal healthcare where you are?

They don't want to pay taxes because they don't like how government uses taxes and don't trust the government to do a good job. Plus, it's an additional layer of bureaucracy at the top which costs more money and is less efficient.

It seems like you have an interesting definition of liberty. Liberty (to me) is freedom from authority. Libertarians core value is not having government force individuals to do anything. If people want to opt into a universal healthcare private system they are free to do so (kind of like insurance). A big motivation for this is lack of trust in government to handle the job well. Libertarians see government as inherently prone to corruption and thus want to limit their power as much as possible. The extent to which a given libertarian wants to limit government varies. By appointing government authorities to the system the cost of everything rises as in addition to health care you also have to pay the government workers who oversee the system and it's not very efficient. Not to mention politicians get to decide how much money goes to these programs etc etc. do you really want politicians involved in your health? With all the inefficiency and corruption in politics why do you trust them to handle your health?

I think people have a lot of good responses especially about outrage fatigue. Also as many pointed out, people do care, hence the protests especially about Gaza. But even if everybody agrees that the atrocities are terrible people disagree on the solution. Historically the United States has been very involved in foreign affairs and trying to be some sort of glorified superman that went around beating up corrupt governments and improving lives in oppressed countries but it went terribly. It turned out that the US occupying these nations and fighting them just upset the locals even more and led to extremists and even more bloody fighting. Now days I think a lot of people want to help but prefer the government stay out of it. I think what is happening in Ukraine and Gaza is terrible but I don't want the US involved. Us sending soldiers and weapons doesn't help. Instead, I give to charity, and do the little bit I can to help struggling people.