Conservatives, why do you guys oppose free healthcare?

Author: Intelligence_06

Posts

Total: 56
#31
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,585
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Intelligence_06
Taxes would increase, their would be mass amounts of debt that we'd be in which we would have to cut spending from critical areas.

I do think we should reform healthcare privately, but UHC in general is just far too hard to implicate in a society with 300M people

#32
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
every other developed country spends half as much as we do and covers everyone. it's possible then for us to do the same. it would require price controls to get down to that level, given that that's the main reason they are cheaper. but it's still possible. plus we could just take some of the edge off with price controls and dont have to go as deep as everyone else does. plus even countries like china and other countries have just as much innovation on a per capita basis as we do, so im not convinced we would suffer on innovation. 

the main factor for quality of care is the number of doctors a country has. that determines the wait times. on most things, we are below average on wait times, so it's misguided to say quality of care will always suffer. it's because we have below average number of doctors. we have more specialists than most other countries so our wait times in that regard are a little better. giving the rest of the ten percent of uninsured health care wouldn't change our wait time dynamic much at all. it's less about the type of system, and more about the number of doctors. 
#33
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
the main problem we have in implementing a universal plan is that we are trying to do it after the fact.... after already having a system for hundreds of years. other countries started from scratch a long time ago. so what could happen, given it requires price controls to get costs under control the most, lobbyists will fight tooth and nail to prevent that. so we could end up having a system that covers everyone but doesn't do anything about the cost. that's not a good thing to do either. it could, in theory, bankrupt us if they dont do it right. i'm almost a single issue voter on healthcare in wanting a more liberal system, but even i can't deny there are risks if we dont do it right. 
#34
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
i think the easiest thing to do is find a way to cover the rest of the uninsured. maybe a public option or expand obamacare everywhere. but then grow healthcare costs under the inflation rate for a long stretch. that way we can have everyone covered and get costs under control. it's less important how we do it, but more important to focus on outcomes that matter the most, access and overall cost. 
#35
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,869
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
the main factor for quality of care is the number of doctors a country has.
So let's abolish licensing and make everyone a doctor. 

Also, how many doctors will it take to reduce the number of fat people that died from covid?

Should fat people pay more for health insurance since they use a lot more of it? How about smokers?

Why must the skinny, healthy people pay to keep fatties alive?

#36
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,215
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
Exactly.
#37
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Intelligence_06
I'm not a conservative, but I can't get on board because I don't think any person is entitled to the product of another person's labor.
#38
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 88
Posts: 812
4
6
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
6
10
-->
@fauxlaw
@Sum1hugme
I don't think any person is entitled to the product of another person's labor.
The patient is not entitled to the work of the doctor. The doctor is paid to work, he is voluntarily offering his services to society. This is true regardless of whether or not the paycheck is from a private business or the government. We already have "Universal Free Police Forces", but we don't see any moral issue with that. Some people pay more than others, but we all pay for these public services.


I believe in personal responsibility, not freeloading.
If you are one of those people with a good life, a lot of money and a healthy lifestyle - consider this:
  • Who paid for your public education?
  • Who protects you from criminals and invasions?
  • Who assures you fair treatment in court?
  • Who collected the knowledge needed to create your luxurious life in the 21st century?
  • Who is going to help your children when you are gone?
Answer: society.

The self-made man is a myth. Without society, you are screwed, you'll die in the wilderness. You owe everything you have to society. You are successful only because society helped you all the way. The unlucky person is on drugs because society had forsaken him. He did not get the same education, or the same parents, or the same treatment by society. You have an unfair advantage, which made you successful. He didn't. By paying for another person's healthcare, you are contributing to the welfare of society -- the society you owe everything.

Paying a few of your own dollars to help an unlucky soul get free healthcare doesn't seem so unfair anymore, does it?
#39
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,869
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Benjamin
The patient is not entitled to the work of the doctor. 
Which is why doctors leave when the state centrally plans the contracts between doctors and patients.

but we don't see any moral issue with that. 
Lol, are you hiding under a rock? Maybe you are white. Even before the police riots, people were generally dissatisfied with the incompetence of the police services, especially in large cities where police unions were allowed unfettered to bypass any check of centrally planned mismanagement.

Without society, you are screwed
Without a check on the mismanagement of centrally planned societies, you are doubly screwed. Getting your healthcare at the DMV isn't something most people want.
#40
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
If you are one of those people with a good life, a lot of money and a healthy lifestyle - consider this:
  • Who paid for your public education?
  • Who protects you from criminals and invasions?
  • Who assures you fair treatment in court?
  • Who collected the knowledge needed to create your luxurious life in the 21st century?
  • Who is going to help your children when you are gone?
Answer: society.
My father, by his property tax payments, collectively with parents of other children in my neighborhood, paid for my K-12 education. As it happens, I paid for my higher education personally, along with some early help from my father. Society at large: no, they did not.

Regarding public protection, yes, I understand what you're saying, but I have never been victim to such invasion.

The Constitution assures my fair treatment in court, though I have never had to appeal in such a manner for that fairness.

My father collected his knowledge and gave it to me, and I've collected my own knowledge, both in school, but more privately by my own effort to educate myself ever since my formal education concluded. Look, I know what you are trying to sday, and it may be the case for many people. I am one individual who has prepared, and spent considerable amounts doing do, to have it all taken away. My current primary residence was built to my specifications, on my land, and there is no mortgage on either the land or its improvements, so no one will, but by force, take it away. I have food and water storage to sustain for many months; in excess of a couple of tours around the sun, just in case. IF I must leave my home, I am prepared, with appropriate knowledge, to live off the wilderness. I know I am somewhat unique, but I was an eagle scout; I am prepared, and that is not some mantra to recite.

Proper answer to your questions for me [and not society at large: Society? No. Me.
#41
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 483
2
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
2
2
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
What makes you conservative then?  Conservatives are fiscally libetarian, ie get the government out of everything economic.
You do realize that there are more types of conservatism than modern libertarian capitalism??
#42
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 88
Posts: 812
4
6
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
6
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Living in the wilderness is different from surviving in the wilderness. You don't get a life alone in the wilderness, and I doubt anyone who isn't an expert has a chance of even surviving the wilderness for more than a month. Furthermore, your knowledge of the wilderness was gathered by others. Had it not been for society paying for research and science, your 21st-century life would not be possible. You and your family would have been in the stone age if not for an organised society.


The money you and your father paid for your education is only worth anything because the government backs up its value. Without the government, money would not be worth anything, and you would need to trade item for item. Furthermore, the school system only works because society decided that people needed an education. In the middle ages, where none of these public goods existed, nobody could be a "self-made man", you were who you were born. 


You have not been victim to an invasion, or life-threatening robbery. This is thanks to the police and the military. Since you are rich, you are the person most reliant on the functional police and protection of society. If law and order disappear, you will be the first target for thieves and other criminals. YOU NEED SOCIETY, you can't deny that.

What I am saying is: you are successful, but your success is reliant upon the success of society --- that is why you ought to help society prosper.
#43
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 88
Posts: 812
4
6
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
6
10
-->
@fauxlaw
What if your father paid for your healthcare through property tax instead of direct payment? That worked for your education.
#44
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
You don't get a life alone in the wilderness,
Whether alone, or with other people, I get to survive, and I get to live. you have no idea of my circumstances, what I can do without, and to what extent I am prepared to maintain life.  That society as a whole is not as prepared; that's on them. They have the same potential to prepare, but that they don't is entirely on them. If you're one of those, I understand your cynicism, but that won't buy you a slice of bread.

Without the government, money would not be worth anything
I actually understand the value of government. As James Madison said: "If men were angels, we would not need government." We're not, so, I get it. It is a necessity. However, my personal need of it is quite minimal because I do not depend on it for much other than my local infrastructure, and that, now, is quite limited. I cannot see my closest neighbor's house. As I said, if needed, I can go completely off the grid for power, water, and food at literally the flip of one switch, and the turn of one valve. If my money becomes worthless, I am prepared to accept that. The sign of true wealth is how you deal with its lack.

I pay taxes. Does that not help society prosper? I volunteer at my local food bank, and elementary school. Does that not help society prosper? I donate 20% of my financial increase to charity. Does that not help society prosper? You do not know who you're arguing with, my friend. Get a clue. 
#45
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
What if your father paid for your healthcare through property tax instead of direct payment? That worked for your education.
That paid for K-12. My dad & I paid for the other nine years out of pocket. Our pockets, alone.  And, lest you think I'm freeloading now that I am retired [though still working] and on SS and medicare, you should know, because you are now paying it, or soon will, that your FICA taxes are paying for yours at a rate of something between 80 to 90%, that I paid plenty. It is claimed that SS and Medicare, as currently construed anyway, are socialism. Nope, because the interest that should be earned on what FICA I paid is supposed to cover the balance. It doesn't, but that's giovernmen t's fault by raiding it, not mine or yours.  What Biden and others propose, certainly, because the system cannot support everyone on medicare without taxing everyone [not just the"rich"] to the hilt, is going to be socialism And it will bury us, just like in every other country that embraces it.. 
#46
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 88
Posts: 812
4
6
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
6
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Whether alone, or with other people, I get to survive, and I get to live
Are you able to hunt down prey with your bare hands? Are you able to treat wounds without getting infected -- using only leaves and alike? Are you able to defend against a bear or a mother moose? Can you deal with hard weather all year long? Do you know how to keep your sanity in lack of social interaction? Even if you had all this knowledge, your body still isn't trained to survive. Unless you already live in the wilderness, the wilderness will kill you. Of course, your knowledge make you far more likely to survive long enough for returning to civilisation, but you cannot live a full life in the wilderness. Even if you could, insanity would hit you hard.


If my money becomes worthless, I am prepared to accept that
Untill society collapses and criminals gang up on you to steal your food and water, that is. It isn't just money, everything you have depend on laws to remain yours for use.


The sign of true wealth is how you deal with its lack
Excactly. Your preparation for lack of wealth is a direct result of your wealth. If society had no success, then your initial success would not have occured. Thus your indepence of society, if it exists, was only possible because society existed. 


my personal need of it is quite minimal
Except everything you have exists because the government exists. Without a government, society would collapse into anarchy, making impossible your success by education.


it will bury us, just like in every other country that embraces it
The argument of it causing socialism, taxation and economic collapse is an argument that I respect. However, I do not support the current policies in the US, just the very idea of universal free healthcare. In Norway, everyone is taxed, and everyone gets free healthcare. Norway is still amongst the richest AND most healthy nations on Earth. The difference between Norway and US is that US is larger and more complex -- making it impossible to easilly implement policies in US simply because they worked for Norway.



I pay taxes. Does that not help society prosper? 
IF paying taxes helps society prosper, and the long term success of society (as opposed to wilderness survival) is what brought you your wealth, THEN you should pay taxes

Yes, paying taxes helps society prosper. The same would be true if taxes paid for your healthcare. 

I understand how unique you are with regards


I donate 20% of my financial increase to charity
Respect +

If universal free healthcare was a charity organization, would it be wrong for the government to spend some percent of their income (taxes) on charity? 

The government already DOES pay money to charity, is that wrong?
#47
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
My point is not that I do not recognize the general need of society. After all, we are social beings by nature. My point is that I am not as dependent on society for survival than most, but that is only because I have carefully planned and prepared for the possibility that society may, end the end, fail in its effort to sustain me in the case of its collapse. Yes, there are risks to not having four walls to protect, either from wildlife which has no malice, or from human wild life, which does, particularly when they are of the variety that have not properly planned and prepared, but still think they are deserving of my planning and preparation when they have no right to it whatsoever. Why didn't they plan and prepare? That's on them, not me. What good will their RVs and boats and 4WDs, and whatever do for them when fuel is no longer available? I don't waste money, accepting added debt, buying these things; I rent when wanted, and give it back when the want is done. I still have two healthy feet if that is all that is left to me.
#48
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,869
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@fauxlaw
 After all, we are social beings by nature. 
Yes. After all, Capitalism is a valid form of social interaction with millions of individual voluntary contracts. A form of social interaction from a Centrally Planned economy where a few contracts are mandated by an oligarchy is valid as well. It's just that one system historically leads to massive suffering and an exodus to countries with the other system. Even Nordic countries aren't stupid enough to eliminate private options and private contracting. Nordic schools have more private schools per person than the USA.

You can take care of the poor without forcing everyone to suffer under a centrally planned dystopia. 
#49
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
a centrally planned dystopia.

You mean like China? 
#50
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,182
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@triangle.128k
What does it mean to be conservative then (in your view) if your not fiscally libetarian? 

If your conservative because of abortion, immigration, or drugs, this is authoritarian, not conservative.  There is nothing objectively wrong with being an authoritarian, but if you are one, your not conservative.

If your conservative on guns (but liberal on everything else) there are communists who are very pro 2nd amendment(advocating for the legalization of all guns).  True conservatism requires small government on the economy. 

If your conservative on family values, this is not a political justification for being conservative as family values are backed by the left and the right.  Moreover, conservatives don't care about family values on the immigration issue since they are willing to break up families to deport undocumented immigrants.

If your conservative on religion, religion has many liberal and conservative tenants.  It would be wrong to call god apolitical, but being religious does not inheritely make you conservative.  There are very religious democrats in blue states like Andrew Cuomo (who merely don't believe in forcing their religion on anyone but themselves)(Andrew Cuomo used his Catholic faith to avoid marrying long-term girlfriend Sandra Lee | Daily Mail Online).  There are also very non religious conservatives like Donald Trump, who believe in ideas stereotypically tied to religion (like banning abortion), without using the bible to justify this and instead they use the claim, "It's a human life".  Moreover, being religious should not impact your political ideology (unless you are a sermonist/theocrat).  Nothing objectively wrong with being a sermonist or a theocrat, but come as advertised.

I don't know why else you would be conservative if you support universal healthcare.
#51
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,869
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle

You mean like China? 

Ask Cuomo.

#52
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol @ bringing up Cuomo for no reason. I'm just saying China has a centrally planned economy and has been dominating for decades. That was the fastest way for them to mobilize capital and labor for industrialization.  You seem to think they will continue to dominate even though they have far less freedom than us, so it's interesting that you think central planning leads to a guaranteed disaster while simultaneously praising China's outcomes.  
#53
AddledBrain
AddledBrain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 65
0
1
4
AddledBrain's avatar
AddledBrain
0
1
4
-->
@coal
The US government does and has done plenty of things right.  To name just a few :

The Space Program was a shining success.  The US is still the only Country to putmen on the Moon.
 
Won WWI & WWII 
 
The Thrift Savings Plan  https://www.tsp.gov/

Rural electrification

The Hoover Dam

The Panama Canal

Social Security

The US can easily provide for public health as well as it does public security.
#54
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,466
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
Because nothing is “free.”
#55
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,869
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
The US can easily provide for public health as well as it does public security.
Can't wait for BLM to defund racist public hospitals and burn them to the ground. 🤡
#56
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,466
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Can't wait for BLM to defund racist public hospitals and burn them to the ground. 🤡
They already burned businesses of black people. I wouldn’t put it past them to do this