Why Do Trump Supporters Not Want Medicare For All?

The only problem I have with this is when you say 'poverty shouldn't be a barrier to health care.' I would say 'there shouldn't be any poverty.' But there is, and it is a barrier to many things. By trying to eliminate the results of poverty, we merely spread it around. And we shouldn't do that either. Successful individuals do not and should not have a legal obligation to care for the unsuccessful (I believe they have a moral obligation to do so, but we should avoid legislating morality), and thats what trying to spread the poverty around creates.

 

I can respect that, but how do we ensure that the successful fulfill their moral obligation? What do we do if they don't? Do we just accept the consequences of them not doing so?

 

You can't

Nothing

Yes.
People are very good at securing their own needs, when forced to do so

 

What is their moral obligation?

 

Dude you don't know what you are talking about I currently have Mdeicare and I have premiums and a deductible...

 

According to what I quoted from moralpaladin it's to help their fellow, less successful citizens with their healthcare needs.

 

This is a Catch 22 argument. Neither Medicare for all or private insurance are a good final solution.

As a country, we don’t have the money to afford to pay for Medicare for all and a large segment of society does not have the money to pay for the growing deductibles and premiums of private insurance. BOTH answers are wrong.

Either we bankrupt individuals or the country. We need to come up with a plan C. A plan that will most likely be robotic hospitals and doctors and some type of government regulation of profit margins of the companies that run them.

 

Depends. Do you want to live in a theocracy? Theocracies legislate morality and punish people for doing things that are 'wrong', like being greedy or getting an abortion or not worshipping the right god.

In the West, we punish people for theft and violence, because such things destabilize society, but we leave the morality out of the purvue of the state.

Until quite recently, anyway. It seems more and more people are becoming intolerant of immorality, and seeking to control eachother's morality via the state.

 

It's hard to nail down statistics since they're all over the place, but a relatively conservative estimate is that 300,000 to 500,000 people a year declare bankruptcy because of medical bills. Also, and again it varies pretty wildly, but it's estimated that 15,000 to 50,000 people actually die each year due to lack of health coverage. It seems to me that a lot of people aren't very good at securing their own needs.

 

These schemes are always about social justice and wealth equality. Always.

We all know that if this plan came to fruition, half the country would pay for the other half. Progressive plans are always about using the tax code and government policy for some sort of perceived social justice.

To be honest, I like my doctors and insurance company. Why should I forgo those for a Medicare for all plan? I am not a big fan or public sector options. They are usually subpar to private options and i am not believing they can do it cheaper.

I really don't want my healthcare to operate like public schools, the postal service, or the DMV.

 

Imagine that, $320k home, $33k auto, cable, internet, electronic gadgets, sporting and music events, esting out, vacations in Cancun, cigarettes, alcohol, brand clothing, ......can't pay medical bills

 

Umm, ok? I guess for that very narrow section of the population it would be kind of silly if they couldn't afford their medical bills. I'd assume that families with all of that would have jobs at a places where they offer health insurance also. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at with your post. Those aren't the people we're talking about here.

 

People with no property are not filing bankruptcy

 

You have to shake your head when you see someone on welfare or food stamps talking on their IPhone. . Or people on welfare that are obese. You have to buy a lot of food to become obese.

People are their own worst enemy. Always been that way. Always will be that way. We can’t fix stupid.

 

An entire society so indebted they can no longer pay for necessities, and were supposed to bail them out with taxes

 

And that IS the claim of the brainwashed people. It's nut us, it's them....
Give us a break.

 

Ahh, ok. Well, you post is still a bit misleading. The median home value in the US is about $230,000. If you look at state by state statistics there are a lot where the median home price is well under $150,000 I'd suspect most of those are still under a mortgage. I think you're pretty high on the price of cars also. Internet and a mobile phone are almost a necessity these days. I know my kid must have internet for middle school. I know several people who have never been on an airplane, much less been to Cancun. The point being you seem to be using a lot of hyperbole to attempt to strengthen your position. The fact is that there are a lot of folks who "own" very modest houses and who probably own a car who can't afford insurance. The average premium for a family insurance plan is around $1,000/month. The average deductible for a family plan is around $8,000. It's pretty easy for me to see how even very financially responsible lower income individuals could be financially broken by an incident with the health of themselves or someone in their family.

 

Follow the money. The money flows into government.
Divert most of that river of revenue to the productive working class to meet critical needs and our Big Bad Government monstrosity will become the minor pest it was intended to be.

 

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ASPUS

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/...erm=related_resources&utm_campaign=categories

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bo...rly-4-percent-year-over-year-for-may-2019/amp

 

You have XXX number of people who may need medical care. That number is the same as our population, of course.
You have XXX number of people who could pay for that medical care. That number is the same as our population, of course.
If each person takes care of only one person, everyone is taken care of.

Now- You have a XX portion of those people who could pay, that for various reasons won't or can't support the medical costs of just one person.
Those who can't have throughout history been supported by good and generous citizens, by choice. This is the hand-up we give our neighbors struck by calamity. There were such people in need and neighbors helping long before there was health insurance, so it's quite clear that we dealt with it successfully for centuries.

Not so with those who won't do for themselves. When we pay for them, we enable a parasitic lifestyle of living off the generosity of others. We promote the elements of society the erode society.
That may be uncomfortable to swallow for some, but it is true. When we choose to support such a need voluntarily, that is our choice. When we are forced to do that by law- we are being forced to support situations against our will. Invariably, when government controls anything- personal freedoms are destroyed.

Now- You have people deeming themselves as noble by being willing to use government and law to steal the money of those who contribute to society and pay their own way- in order to pay for those who won't.
Government is the most inefficient way to get anything done, and nothing they do is clean, fair, simple or cheap. The plan winds up with care for all- but payment by some. It depends on character. Honorable people do not use others to carry their load. The crisis is the declining moral character of our society, having been eroded for decades now with an increasing number of people thinking that regardless of what you produce and contribute to society, you are entitled to live comfortably at society's expense. The logic is simple- Why buy the cow (pay the bills) when you can get the milk free? Few words are more addictive than "free", and few are more corrosive to ethics.
You really think anyone would have more money left?

California has been using that kind of logic for quite some time. The middle class and wealthy are leaving. Corporations are leaving. The population is not falling fast, because illegals and bums are welcome and rushing in- but do not pay taxes; thus the economic result of the government policy has been devastating and continues to worsen. Housing cost exploded instead of falling. Infrastructure is falling apart, and they have roads, bridges and dams with structural issues they can't afford to fix it. They are throwing millions, probably billions at a homeless issue that continues to grow- and losing ground everyday. Their long-term and unfunded debts are staggering- and nobody knows how to stops the chain of events except by raising taxes on the declining tax base, driving them out. Theirs is the same battle as "medicare for all" on a wider scale, and it's an ongoing, worsening failure. Just a matter of time. Why would a rational person choose to mirror that on the national scale?

The problem is that once you put something massive like this in place and take the right of choice away from people- no matter how soon you recognize that it's a disaster, the process of reverting to something more effective will be monumentally difficult. It's a road that no wise man starts down in the first place.

 

That's average sales price. The population of people who aren't insured and/or can't afford insurance probably doesn't correlate.

That's median sales price. The population of people who aren't insured and/or can't afford insurance probably doesn't correlate.

That's the average new car price. Every car that everyone owns is, by definition, used (unless you're the dealer of course). What's the average value of automobiles on the road? Even that number probably doesn't mean much because, as above. the population of people who aren't insured and/or can't afford insurance is probably doesn't correlate.

 

The 3.5ish% unemployment rate seems to contradict your argument. Doesn't the unemployment rate imply that only 3.5ish% of Americans are trying to live off of everyone else hard work? That assumes that those 3.5ish% are purposely unemployed of course.

 

So you're saying I was correct about mean aoutomibile prices and even underestimated mean house price by $60k?

 

Good, then we dont need government run healthcare. The 96.5% are doing just fine

 

That's correct. You are correct about the mean and average prices. I'm also saying that they're not really relevant to the discussion.