Why does anyone oppose free healthcare? It literally saves the lives of more people.
Conservatives, why do you guys oppose free healthcare?
Posts
Total:
56
You might be surprised to know the number of Trump supporters who support universal health care.
-->
@coal
I mean, in my opinion, Universal healthcare is good, and it is probably expected that some Trump supporters would support it.
However, why do some people oppose this idea?
-->
@Intelligence_06
A lot of them are afraid of the government screwing things up. And they think the private model is less likely to screw things up.
-->
@coal
I don't see how people can think that the government will screw it up, but not private industries... the guys who only care about profit - in other words - the guys who have much more motive to screw people over, and if their caught - "Who cares" people will dismiss, just industries being industries, but the government gets a lot more flock - an entire cabinet can be gone by next election cycle.
-->
@Theweakeredge
The belief that government is unavoidably going to screw health care up isn't well founded, but its common. It seems that the fact that things have largely been different here is the reason for its prevalence. Most can't even conceive of an alternative world, like Germany.
-->
@Intelligence_06
I don't. I'm completely in favor of nationalized health care.
-->
@Intelligence_06
Really, the opinion polls vary largely on how the program is described. That is why lefties call it "medicare for all" even though it is a completely separate program. Medicare is popular. However, terms like "government healthcare" or describing the terms of it with "no deductible", "higher taxes to fund it", etc will make popularity go from well below half to over 80%.
So, it is unclear how many of either party really support or oppose a program based on how you want it implemented. Now, if you ask us "do you want everyone to have sufficient healthcare", the answer is going to be "yes" from the vast majority of people regardless of their party. Really, from there, it is just how you want to accomplish that. Some people think that private market reforms can solve it. Some people think that only the government should be involved.
And I'd not like to use terms like "free" if I were you because any economically literate person knows that it isn't free. It costs plenty of tax dollars. It might be "free" at point of service, but a large tax hike is inevitable to afford it.
I'd say that I would most likely support a public option. If the market is efficient, people will choose private plans for more expensive and better care. If it isn't efficient or the plans are too expensive, then they can stay on some form of basic government plan. If I'm not mistaken, it is the Australian model that I like in which there is a universal government plan, but they try to actively shift people to private plans.
-->
@Intelligence_06
Why does anyone oppose free healthcare? It literally saves the lives of more people.
Who opposes free health care?
I mean, in my opinion, Universal healthcare is good, and it is probably expected that some Trump supporters would support it.However, why do some people oppose this idea?
Because Universal Health Care is NOT free. It's a debt scheme that conscripts otherwise healthy individuals into subsidizing the promises made by politicians.
I don't see how people can think that the government will screw it up, but not private industries... the guys who only care about profit - in other words - the guys who have much more motive to screw people over
Because private industries in a free-market would pay for their mistakes, as opposed to government whose mistakes are sanctioned by its capacity to tax.
"Who cares" people will dismiss, just industries being industries, but the government gets a lot more flock - an entire cabinet can be gone by next election cycle.
You think cabinet turnover is "more flock"? Private businesses can lose their businesses because of its mistakes; the government rarely loses government (i.e. revolutions) because of its mistakes.
First of all, nothing is free. That healthcare is funded through taxes. And that's fine, if it's a better system I'm happy to raise taxes to pay for it, but I hate when people pretend that their policies are just no-brainers. Nobody is against "free" healthcare, such a thing does not exist.
I don't know enough about healthcare to be for or against universal healthcare, but I don't think you are underselling how difficult it is to organize a healthcare system across 50 states and 350 million people. The ideal system is not a no-brainer, there are good arguments for how switching to socialized medicine would not be an improvement to the status quo. I found this with 30 seconds of googling, and I would say that most of the arguments selected for both sides seemed reasonable and I can see how a reasonable person could take either side on this: https://healthcare.procon.org/
-->
@thett3
Most Americans that can afford health insurance don't want to be downgraded to government service levels.
The same people also don't mind giving that shitty government service level to poor people that can't afford anything.
A compromise can certainly be made here, but government lobbyists won't allow it.
-->
@Greyparrot
@thett3
Most Americans that can afford health insurance don't want to be downgraded to government service levels.
That's an important point. "Government service levels" isn't something I would take issue with in France or Germany (or Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc.). But if the model people argue the United States should follow is either England or Canada, it's a hard no.
Canada's healthcare system is a failure by almost any reasonable measure. The wait-times for very, very basic procedures defy comprehension. And Canadian medical sophistication in general is fairly limited. There are parts of the US that are worse, but not many.
And England's NIH has consistently demonstrated its inability to accomplish even very basic things, like preventative care. Then you add to it horrible situations like the Charlie Gard case, and the "death panel" argument from certain conservatives becomes less unrealistic.
I don't think we can do anything like what France has, though. That's pie in the sky. Germany's public option on the other hand seems like a viable path. I'd be behind that for us.
-->
@coal
Germany's public option on the other hand seems like a viable path. I'd be behind that for us.
Germany has nowhere near similar levels of corruption and problems with armies of parasitic lobbyists writing legislation thousands of pages long.
-->
@Greyparrot
The difference is less about corruption than basic competence. There are plenty of US government operations that work well and effectively. Take the DOJ, for example. Or the CIA. Or the NSA. Each are the gold standard for what they do, relative to all other governments on earth. Even the IRS does its job fairly effectively.
But most people don't have an experience with their local government that is good. Which is why Germany is a public option, where the entire country is essentially one involuntary risk pool and medical care comes out of a bucket of tax dollars. But the points of services are largely privately ran.
That keeps hospitals and doctors not being government workers. But essentially nationalizes the health insurance industry. Not unlike how medicare works now.
-->
@coal
Here is a sample of one of Germany's various healthcare laws (acts)
I want you to pay careful note of how many pages it is. When is the last time the American Congress passed anything less than 100 pages? Obamacare and the corresponding regulations were what...8000+ pages?
The problem is with the lobbies that write the laws instead of congresspeople.
-->
@Intelligence_06
As others have said, it's not free for the taxpayer. Why did you think they were against it?
-->
@Athias
What are FREE and NOT FREE.
Where actually is the dividing line between concept and reality?....Or is there a division at all?....Concept is internally real I suppose.
One might dare to suggest that health or Ill health actually manifests in reality, and that monetary value always remains a concept.
Do we not actually just measure one persons effort against another's, on the bases of acquired importance and inherent selfishness.
-->
@Intelligence_06
Because it's stupid and doesn't actually work. As yourself, if we had a working healthcare system which isn't just a debt scheme, who would have the audacity to oppose it?
Consider the following.
-->
@Intelligence_06
There are many things that will save more people that shouldn't be done because it is needlessly big government. Some examples are:
1) Making the speed limit on the highway 10 mph. 30,000 people die from car accidents a year. This does not mean we should prevent car accidents with extreme authoritarianism.
2) Making organ donation mandatory. 8,000 people die from a lack of organ every year. Does this mean we should mandate organ donation to save these lives?
3) Making sponsoring 3rd world children mandatory. 3 million 3rd worlders die of starvation every year. Does this mean we should be forced to sponsor a child through our tax dollars to save their lives? No.
Just because something saves lives does not mean we should enact authoritarian policies to save those lives.
-->
@coal
Very few republicans support universal healthcare. 60% in US say health care coverage is government’s responsibility | Pew Research Center states only 12% of republicans support a universal healthcare approach.
-->
@triangle.128k
I don't. I'm completely in favor of nationalized health care.
What makes you conservative then? Conservatives are fiscally libetarian, ie get the government out of everything economic.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Universal Free Healthcare is a colloquialism - the reason why people oppose it because of the non-free aspect of it - which is where taxes would be increased. People who oppose it typically are convinced that the taxes will be increased for people of all income, whereas people in support of it are typically convinced that people who are wealthier taxes' will be increased. That's the most common distinguishment I've seen.
-->
@bmdrocks21
This is not the case every time - it is also possible that someone who supports universal healthcare believes that everyone will be taxed, but that healthcare is worth the increase in taxes - and someone who doesn't support it could believe the wealthier will be taxed, but that they don't deserve the increase in tax - from my personal experience these are less likely to be the case, but hey, not omnipotent.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Just because something saves lives does not mean we should enact authoritarian policies to save those lives.
oh, you mean like shutting down the economy for 360,000,000 Americans NOT at risk of dying so that a few hundred thousand old fatties get to live a bit longer?
-->
@Greyparrot
Who are you referring too when you say, "Old fatties"?
-->
@zedvictor4
What are FREE and NOT FREE.
At or at no direct monetary/financial expense.
-->
@Intelligence_06
Free? You're kidding, yeah? Why should I be responsible to help defray the cost of another's healthcare when that person lives a careless lifestyle endangering his well being, and my lifestyle is prudently controlled? He consumes fast food, beer, weed, and whatever else he can stuff in his pie hole. I consume only fresh food, and produce a lot of it myself, avoid smoking, alcohol, and drugs, and don't act like an idiot on a skateboard? His risk; his wallet. Seems fair to me, because nothing is free. It's taxes. Hell, I wonder why I'm still paying for education out of my property taxes at the same rate that someone with school-aged children still in their house when I've already paid for my children's education, in addition to paying those property taxes, a generation ago. Free? That's a laugh.
I believe in personal responsibility, not freeloading.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Perhaps those are the more common reasons for the average voter, but there is a lot more to it. I feel like a lot of voters, especially conservatives, are very skeptical of the government and expect decreases in the quality of care, and there is validity to that idea.
For instance, price fixing would occur to manage costs of the system like it does in every country with government healthcare. Less profits means less money available for R&D for new treatments.
If, like Medicare and Medicaid, hospitals are losing money on patients, they will have to cut costs all around in ways that will have spillover effects. One likely cost to cut will be labor costs (aka doctor salaries), which means less doctors.
It seems to me that these are looming issues and many people are too concerned about getting everybody some kind of coverage or only caring about taxes.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Who are you referring too when you say, "Old fatties"?
Johanna Ralston, CEO of the World Obesity Federation said in a statement. "The failure to address the root causes of obesity over many decades is clearly responsible for hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths."
In other news!
185 million tons of sugar was produced globally and the USA consumed 11 million tons of the stuff in 2020 :D