Do you support universal health care? Why or why not?

[Ripster42]

The ACA is actually Romneycare in all but name. It is just another private healthcare system that is marginally more efficient than the fucked-up system you already have.
.

That was part of it. The other was expanding medicaid to cover more people. You know, getting us closer to universal health care.

[Shadowferal]

The ACA is actually Romneycare in all but name. It is just another private healthcare system that is marginally more efficient than the fucked-up system you already have.

But since Obama endorsed it, it means it's a liberal plan and better than universal 100% coverage and needs to be defended because reasons. /s

[Theodarzna]

More then a few of the people voting yes don't actually support it in a meaningful way. They just like the concept of it, but never want to push for policies that would actually get us to universal coverage. Hell a decent percent don't even want the House to vote on policy that could get us there.

Well it is like if you ask Sen. Warren if she supports it. On paper and in theory yes. Does that support mean anything? Is it a priority? Is it something worth fighting over? Strikingly it isn't really that important. Putting a lot of these peoples support for a NHS in the US at about the same level as "We should cure cancer and all dogs go to heaven!", they are nice things to say, it is what is expected of you to say, but it doesn't really mean anything, it isn't actionable. And curiously these same people can contrive the most creative reasons to oppose action towards an NHS when anything happens and oppose any politician or movement trying to enact it. So its a bit like the people wanting a cure for Cancer saying "But we have to dutifully wait for Pfizer to have had their fill of selling cancer treatments, once they've satisfied their need for profits THEN we can work on a cure!"

[JohnBrown1917]

Corbyn was a socialist of false promises, the old cancer kinnock warned about in the left, a man more concerned by ideological purity than what the point of the left is.



I carry no water for the blairites, I carry water for the lib dems, as I see nothing left in labour except dogma and spite.

When socialism becomes a religion to the middle class, the working class becomes the heretics.

Such as? Or where you too busy spreading the exact same talking points the blairites did about Corbyn to actually bother with them?
If he was really as idealogy pure as you claim, he would have kicked out all right-wing labour members.


But ye, I get that anything you say about labour is pretty much bullshit anyway. You hate blairites but the even more right-wing liberals are fine? Just come out as a tory already, save us both some time.


Have fun thinking up shitty excuses to gut the healthcare system. Its what liberals are best at.

[Jonnusthegreat]

Universal would be great, but what's really important is that it's non-profit healthcare.

[BeepBoo]

Mandating people work or give up their own livelihoods in some way/shape/form in order to blanket-care for "the good of everyone" is antithesis to my being and morals. People have an innate right to decide who and what they want to support with their efforts.

[Felya]

As I said, sad.

“All the networks!!!”

https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1325130373144043520

[Endus]

Mandating people work or give up their own livelihoods in some way/shape/form

Not what anyone's asked to do, anywhere that has universal healthcare coverage.

It's a masturbatory bit of fetish propaganda that right-wingers won't stop abusing, but it bears no resemblance to reality in any respect.

in order to blanket-care for "the good of everyone" is antithesis to my being and morals.

In short, you desire a certain level of human suffering, and everyone being protected is antithetical to those views.

It's literally the only reason to take issue with that principle.

People have an innate right to decide who and what they want to support with their efforts.

Yep!

Also a complete non-sequitur that has fuck-all to do with any conversation about universal healthcare.

Edit: Unless, of course, your issue is just with the concept of taxation itself, in which case, the only response is gonna be "good luck with that". There isn't a nation on the planet that agrees with you on that utterly ridiculous point of view. Like Ayn Rand, not even those who propose it really believe it.

[Zaktar]

Mandating people work or give up their own livelihoods in some way/shape/form in order to blanket-care for "the good of everyone" is antithesis to my being and morals. People have an innate right to decide who and what they want to support with their efforts.

None of us get to choose whether we support the government with our tax dollars, we're required by law to, so you're opposed to the concept of a government at all, right?

[PC2]

Do you support universal health care for the United States? Why or why not?

No because it's based on coercing the people who pay for most of it and it's based on coercing large parts of the medical industry. If you can justify coercion in place of voluntary contributions to a social program then basically you could justify anything such as universal basic income and arbitrarily anything else that you want.

[Felya]

No because it's based on coercing the people who pay for most of it and it's based on coercing large parts of the medical industry. If you can justify coercion in place of voluntary contributions to a social program then basically you could justify anything such as universal basic income and arbitrarily anything else that you want.

What’s it called when someone tells you... pay me or you suffer?

[Ivanstone]

Mandating people work or give up their own livelihoods in some way/shape/form in order to blanket-care for "the good of everyone" is antithesis to my being and morals. People have an innate right to decide who and what they want to support with their efforts.

“Mandating people work or give up their own livelihoods in some way/shape/form in order to provide roads for "the good of everyone" is antithesis to my being and morals. People have an innate right to decide who and what they want to support with their efforts.”

Now apply that attitude to road work and see what kind of roads you get.

PS You have no fucking clue how insurance works do you? Hint: It only works because of massive participation, not all of which is voluntary, and ends up mostly shifting money around to a secondary bureaucracy instead of providing actual healthcare.

[PC2]

What’s it called when someone tells you... pay me or you suffer?

Coercion is when you threaten people with force if they don't do what you want. Hospitals and doctors aren't threatening anybody with force. Not to mention if you have a real medical problem in the US you can simply walk into a hospital and they will treat you without requiring payment from you.

[Elegiac]

No because it's based on coercing the people who pay for most of it and it's based on coercing large parts of the medical industry. If you can justify coercion in place of voluntary contributions to a social program then basically you could justify anything such as universal basic income and arbitrarily anything else that you want.

You say that as if universal basic income isn’t already a good idea.

Also lol @ the capitalists in the thread calling universal healthcare coerced labor and then supporting compulsory job market participation in the same breath.

Y’all love coercion, just not against you or social classes you aspire to occupy.

[Felya]

Coercion is when you threaten people with force if they don't do what you want. Hospitals and doctors aren't threatening anybody with force.

You didn’t answer my question...

Your own assertions of coercion, don’t meet this criteria. By this criteria, no one is being coerced by universal coverage.

Not to mention if you have a real medical problem in the US you can simply walk into a hospital and they will treat you without requiring payment from you.

Is cancer or heart disease real medical problems?

[BeepBoo]

What’s it called when someone tells you... pay me or you suffer?

You're already suffering and you want someone to do something for you cannot do you for yourself. So now you deserve to tell people they HAVE to help you? Lolwut? I hope I'm incapable in your world, so everyone gets to do everything for me and I'm not obligated to return it in any way.

[Felya]

You're already suffering and you want someone to do something for you cannot do you for yourself. So now you deserve to tell people they HAVE to help you? Lolwut? I hope I'm incapable in your world, so everyone gets to do everything for me and I'm not obligated to return it in any way.

Again... you didn’t answer my question... How much would you pay to not suffer? How about, all of your money and future income?

[BeepBoo]

Also lol @ the capitalists in the thread calling universal healthcare coerced labor and then supporting compulsory job market participation in the same breath.

The fact is that living and life requires work and effort. If you're unwilling or unable to do that, how do you expect to live?

[Elegiac]

You're already suffering and you want someone to do something for you cannot do you for yourself. So now you deserve to tell people they HAVE to help you? Lolwut? I hope I'm incapable in your world, so everyone gets to do everything for me and I'm not obligated to return it in any way.

Ah yes the one in which capitalists claim that moral hazard exists without ever having proven it while ignoring that by and far the biggest noncontributors relative to the value they extract are - wait for it.

The mega rich. Whomst y’all spend your time sucking off as if pushing their propaganda buys you a shot at entry into the club. (It doesn’t, you’re a drone like the rest of us, hun. )

[Felya]

The fact is that living and life requires work and effort. If you're unwilling or unable to do that, how do you expect to live?

No, living and life does not require work...