Why has there been such antagonism to the idea of Universal Healthcare here?

[LBJ Revivalist]

The more I consider it, the more I find myself in favor of a system of Universal Healthcare. I was kind of opposed to it at first, but I do feel such a system would be of benefit to the country. But it seems every time a candidate or President has come up in support of it--TR in 1912, FDR in 1944, Truman in 1947, Nixon in 1974, Clinton in 1993-1994, they've aroused intense anger on the part of the right, or didn't (in the case of Nixon) garner enough support from the left wing; And the efforts by the right particularly with Clinton's and Obama's healthcare plans drew some populist resentment, due to that cry of "Socialism!"

But is it simply a political issue--Have all these Presidents in the past had bad plans, or simply articulated these bold initiatives to the public poorly?

Also, why is Universal Healthcare such a big "No-no" to the Right Wing, at least now and in 1993/1994? Why is that the ''tipping point'' for many of the commentators?

Finally, do you believe Obama's plan will be watered down or repealed by the incoming Congress?

[opebo]

The essence of privillege is inequality - one's enjoyment is directly the result of another's suffering.  Those privileged with health care see their advantage being diluted by the provision of care to their inferiors.

[Badger]

"Freedom"

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Because of Civil Rights and Hippies basically.

[Zarn]

The government that can provide everything is the government that can take everything away.

The federal government should have no stake in being our little safety net. That's our job. Their job is to preserve republican values and maintain a military.

A large government is highly inefficient.

It's a tax nightmare waiting to happen.

It doesn't address the rising costs in health care.

There is a lot of potential for abuse.

[anvi]

I understand all the arguments of opponents to universal health care in the United States.  Their are constitutional arguments, suspicion-of-government arguments, economic arguments, innovation arguments, "negative-rights" based arguments, ect. ect.  I also think I understand the motivations on the part of opponents to resist it.  Some arguments have a greater hold on facts than others, but I understand them.

But, at the same time, I have very strong feelings about this issue.  I personally find the rejection of the very idea of universal healthcare morally disgraceful.  We don't have it because, living in a democracy as we do, large portions of the electorate don't want it.  If we did want it, we could figure out a way, and there are numerous different ways available, to make it workable, as many, many other countries have done with, while not perfect (nothing human can ever be perfect) appreciable success.  But, on the most basic level, if ideological doctrines about government, making profits or saving money are more important to people than human life, no amount of persuasion will being them to the table.  If people don't even care about the health or well-being of their fellow citizens just because those citizens happen not to have means, then I have no inclination to give any credence to either their professed patriotism or religious values.  

[Hatman 🍁]

$$$.

There is no real good argument against Universal Health Care. In the end, its true opponents (in power) are getting money from the health care insurance industry.  I really have no respect for anyone who opposes it, because they are putting their own interests ($$$) ahead of the millions of Americans who are not getting any health care or are paying an arm and a leg for it.

While there are some flaws with it, even conservatives in Canada tend to support universal health care.  It would be political suicide here to be against it.

[Zarn]

I understand all the arguments of opponents to universal health care in the United States.  Their are constitutional arguments, suspicion-of-government arguments, economic arguments, innovation arguments, "negative-rights" based arguments, ect. ect.  I also think I understand the motivations on the part of opponents to resist it.  Some arguments have a greater hold on facts than others, but I understand them.

But, at the same time, I have very strong feelings about this issue.  I personally find the rejection of the very idea of universal healthcare morally disgraceful.  We don't have it because, living in a democracy as we do, large portions of the electorate don't want it.  If we did want it, we could figure out a way, and there are numerous different ways available, to make it workable, as many, many other countries have done with, while not perfect (nothing human can ever be perfect) appreciable success.  But, on the most basic level, if ideological doctrines about government, making profits or saving money are more important to people than human life, no amount of persuasion will being them to the table.  If people don't even care about the health or well-being of their fellow citizens just because those citizens happen not to have means, then I have no inclination to give any credence to either their professed patriotism or religious values.  

Then you don't understand it, like you profess.

[Iosif]

The government that can provide everything is the government that can take everything away.

Yes, we Europeans love withholding health care from people we don't approve of. Especially American right wingers (sorry, 'libertarians') with delusional paranoia. Death panels are cheaper that a judiciary.

[Хahar 🤔]

The government that can provide everything is the government that can take everything away.

The problem with that argument is that it makes no sense.

[Middle-aged Europe]

The government that can provide everything is the government that can take everything away.

The problem with that argument is that it makes no sense.

It's a tagline, not an argument.

[courts]

"Freedom"

No no, you're doing it wrong. You're supposed to have several !!!!!! at the end of that and have it in all caps, perhaps with a badly written forwarded warning before it containing little gems like 'TAKE BACK ARE COUNTRY' for good measure.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Don't most surveys show fairly solid support for the idea of universal healthcare?

[Torie]

Universal health care would be considerably superior to the cf that Congress passed, but subsidized means tested insurance premiums for insurance containing a certain basket of coverage, is to me, the superior option. I don't think it is really a close case actually. Which is probably why we will never get there.

[cannonia]

I understand all the arguments of opponents to universal health care in the United States.  Their are constitutional arguments, suspicion-of-government arguments, economic arguments, innovation arguments, "negative-rights" based arguments, ect. ect.  I also think I understand the motivations on the part of opponents to resist it.  Some arguments have a greater hold on facts than others, but I understand them.

But, at the same time, I have very strong feelings about this issue.  I personally find the rejection of the very idea of universal healthcare morally disgraceful.  We don't have it because, living in a democracy as we do, large portions of the electorate don't want it.  If we did want it, we could figure out a way, and there are numerous different ways available, to make it workable, as many, many other countries have done with, while not perfect (nothing human can ever be perfect) appreciable success.  But, on the most basic level, if ideological doctrines about government, making profits or saving money are more important to people than human life, no amount of persuasion will being them to the table.  If people don't even care about the health or well-being of their fellow citizens just because those citizens happen not to have means, then I have no inclination to give any credence to either their professed patriotism or religious values.  

This is great: you are rejecting thoughtful analysis and demonizing those who disagree with you because of shallow sentimentality.  Fortunately, you have a lot of company.

[cannonia]

Also, why is Universal Healthcare such a big "No-no" to the Right Wing, at least now and in 1993/1994? Why is that the ''tipping point'' for many of the commentators?

"Healthcare" involves the production of medicines and instruments and the delivery of medical services.  These goods and services should be traded through voluntary transactions.  A free market in medical care provides the most justice and efficiency.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obamacare is the worst of both worlds, and will certainly be changed.  Obama, however, would certainly veto a full repeal.

[opebo]

"Healthcare" involves the production of medicines and instruments and the delivery of medical services.  These goods and services should be traded through voluntary transactions.  A free market in medical care provides the most justice and efficiency.

Lots of dead poors, though, it cannot be denied.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I had to smile at this characterization of anvikshiki, because arguably he is most thoughtful and analytical poster on this site. His erudition just emanates like the rays of the sun in almost every carefully crafted sentence that he writes. It might be better to actually  think about what he writes, and engage him on his terms. You might learn something, even if in the end you disagree with him on some points. JMO.

[memphis]

"Healthcare" involves the production of medicines and instruments and the delivery of medical services.  These goods and services should be traded through voluntary transactions.  A free market in medical care provides the most justice and efficiency.

Lots of dead poors, though, it cannot be denied.

Poors are often "dead" because the market is anything but free. The entire system is set up by the medicalindustry for the benefit of the medical industry. Drug manufacturers have been trying to change this of late, advertising directly to consumers. We'll see how it plays out.

[Zarn]

Stop calling people 'poors.'

We are not in a class civil war.

[DrScholl]

Basically, because the right-wing in this country is completely in the pocket of the insurance companies and they can manipulate a lot of uneducated and sometimes fanatical people into believing the most ridiculous logic. It borders on insanity.

[Zarn]

Basically, because the right-wing in this country is completely in the pocket of the insurance companies and they can manipulate a lot of uneducated and sometimes fanatical people into believing the most ridiculous logic. It borders on insanity.

The entire right-wing is in the pockets of the insurance companies? LMAO

[Associate Justice PiT]

Basically, because the right-wing in this country is completely in the pocket of the insurance companies and they can manipulate a lot of uneducated and sometimes fanatical people into believing the most ridiculous logic. It borders on insanity.

The entire right-wing is in the pockets of the insurance companies? LMAO

     The entire right-wing (or close to it) in Congress is. That's more or less what matters, since the right-wing relies on them to set policy.

[Zarn]

Basically, because the right-wing in this country is completely in the pocket of the insurance companies and they can manipulate a lot of uneducated and sometimes fanatical people into believing the most ridiculous logic. It borders on insanity.

The entire right-wing is in the pockets of the insurance companies? LMAO

     The entire right-wing (or close to it) in Congress is. That's more or less what matters, since the right-wing relies on them to set policy.

Just about all of Congress is in their pockets.

[opebo]

Stop calling people 'poors.'

We are not in a class civil war.

Yes we are.