It is common for conservatives to not see themselves in list like hers. But she has explained how the values you describe has a result like the one she described. Maybe it wasn't your intention, maybe it wasn't your aim, but it is the result regardless. So you end prioritizing economy over lives.
For example, you believe in low taxes. A public health insurance cost money that can't be afforded with low taxes. So public health insurance is not possible. Without public health insurance, some people would die of things like cancer because treatment is really expensive. Also, regardless your opinion, private health insurance is less efficient, since cost increase to give margin to shareholders and when you are dying you don't stop to chose the most competitive hospital, you are taken to the nearest one. Also, if someone without health insurance gets a cold, they would go to work and pass it to other people. Since it won't be treated, you would end needing to treat several people instead. So, less efficient cost-wise since treating 5-6 people would always be more expensive than treating just one.
Another example "less intrusion in our lives". But that is contradictory with "safety net". Example: traffic regulation. You accept that you can't drive the way you want (like speed limits) in order to increase your safety. On the other hand, conservatives are really keen on regulating women's bodies.
Point is, you make choices based on your values and preferences. My grand parents are conservatives. I'm familiarized with that way of thinking. For them it is uncomfortable when I point out the contradictions on paying low taxes and people who would die of an illness that can be treated because they are rejected at the hospital for lacking health insurance. But that is a fact. Same as people who would die of hunger or for being malnourished. Sure, you can donate money to charities, but that doesn't solve the dying people as efficiently as just paying taxes and having a public safety net. It a contradiction between what you believe and the result of actions.
Progressives have contradictions too, but the paying taxes so other people have health insurance, education and a safety net is one where they show they care about people.
As for the "safety net that allows business to operate in a freer fashion" that works well for "normal goods" or things that doesn't cover basic needs. But for basic needs, the market fails. There is plenty of economic data to support that. But, basically, if you are in the middle of the desert and the only water available in miles around cost you 100.000$ you'll be forced to pay them. Even if there are plenty of water once you reach your home for just 1$. That applies to health insurance, housing and to lesser degree to food and water (since you usually have more competition in that market). It also applies to energy. Those are broken markets with "inefficiencies".
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/inefficientmarket.asp#:~:text=According%20to%20economic%20theory%2C%20an,may%20occur%20for%20several%20reasons.&text=The%20efficient%20market%20hypothesis%20(EMH,reflect%20the%20asset's%20true%20value.
Anyway, her point stand, different values make for bad partnerships and worse relationships. She is doing them (and herself) a favor by not attempting something that would be doomed.
