Why Do Trump Supporters Not Want Medicare For All?

Those are both true at the same time. Don’t complicate the simple.

 

Sometimes you just have to let people suffer. It really depends on the specific situation, but generally, if somebody is suffering, it's a road that was chosen long before I came along.

 

Because it won't work if it is Free. Or if we cover non-citizens.

I advocated a new part of Medicare that would cover individuals or families but they would have to pay a premium based on their Net income. Either Individual or family.I

This could actually make Medicare more solvent for years to come.
Those with group coverage can still keep private insurance.

There are many policy changes that would be need for these Medicare insurance policies. Like allowing all physicians that apply to accept Medicare to be approved and also Hospitals.

 

do you like Bernies new hat?

 

Yes and I’m sure whenever you see an accident on the highway you stop and check to make sure each party has insurance. If not. You offer to pay right?
Both arguments cannot be made. Using force to legislate morality is fascist. Especially when no ones rights are being violated.

 

Right.....you don't legislate morality. You legislate responsibility. You don't have insurance and are responsible for an accident......you work it off. If you are here illegally, you work it off and then be deported. I like the OT concept where you restore two and threefold. There should be punitive damage for not being responsible. I believe there should be chain gains across America for irresponsibles as well as deadbeat Dads at least until integrity is restored.

 

Perhaps I wasn’t clear. Using force is always wrong. But I believe we are morally obligated to help those in need. Both are true for me.

If one operates from a purely Darwinian standpoint then there is no moral obligation to help anyone. That’s a different debate.

 

Be on the look out for the left’s tired old mantras they use to push their collectivist crap.
“Fellow citizens suffering”
“We’re all in this together”
“For the common good”
All of which aim to make Americans forget they are individuals responsible for their own happiness and divide us into groups and tribes. Once they have the tribes fighting each other over who gets more rights, money and privileges, they cater to the biggest group that wins. And hold on to your wallet!

 

There isn’t anything Darwinian about individualism. If you believe in such moral obligations, think about the moral obligation to respect an individual’s right to property. His work, life, dedication to his family. The man who doesn’t ask for anything, or demand that his existence entitles an unearned value. Why is this man/woman always last on the list? His existence requires only to be left alone.

 

You aren’t listening. We agree on absolute right to property. I am that man that wants left alone. I’m not asking for anything and believe everyone should earn their keep.

I am also a man that feels I have a moral obligation to help those less fortunate than I. Not those who are lazy, or dishonest, or authoritarian.

 

I’m listening and that’s fine. If you feel that way you are perfectly within your rights to help someone if you choose since you obviously have standards on who qualifies. But you or whoever forcing others to do the same coercively is not fine.

 

A lot of people prefer the private insurance they have now.

Medicare for all would result in the elites getting preferential treatment; and the rest of us schmucks would be jammed up in a bureaucracy which makes the California Freeway look like a smooth ride.

 

Thanks for letting us know how you collect data!

 

Agreed. What’s even worse to me is forcing others into benevolence without willingness to demonstrate it personally. If one is going to claim concern for their fellow man as a motive then they dang well better demonstrate such with their behavior. To me that’s the dead giveaway of a simple authoritarian masquerading as some sort of Mother Teresa.

But conversely, you make a very good point. Even Mother Teresa forcing others to give would be “evil” or not fine as you kindly put it.

 

You make a good point as well. I read somewhere Mother Theresa died an extremely unhappy person. Spending her life helping the starving and diseased all the while teaching against contraception. I don’t get it.

 

I agree that there is a moral obligation to help, but don't limit it to those less fortunate than I. I think that obligation extends to everybody. The only problem is that it's extremely difficult to help people. Most people think that giving to charity is helping them, but in actuality, you are probably facilitating their need, and in some cases you can actually be the cause.

 

That’s interesting. I’ve never heard that. I suppose she felt like she had been sprinting in a gerbil exercise wheel.

 

I understand what you are saying. I’m not using “less fortunate” as a synonym for “poor” or whatever. I mean it more broadly. For example, I’ll loan equipment to a neighbor that has need of it even though that neighbor is wealthier than I. Correct me if I’m wrong but I think you’ve intimated in the past there has to be some fair exchange of value in these transactions. Otherwise you end up with moochers.

Yes, giving crap for nothing generally doesn’t do any good. That’s a fact. That brings us to the question of why, if that is the case, do progressives etc. advocate so much for doing so. It certainly isn’t because they care.

 

They are afflicted with altruism. The same diseased mask every dictator in history wears. Its a key to power

 

A) There is no right to health care. This is probably the most basic problem with "Medicare for all", this idea that everyone is "entitled" to health care. No, you're not.

B) There is no right to health care provided at someone else's expense. This is the second problem with Medicare for all, this idea that everyone should get health care that is "free". Nothing is free. Someone has to pay for it, and the bigger the distance between the payer and the payee, the more expensive and the lower quality it's going to be. You have no right to expect other people to provide you with goods and services at no cost to you.

C) There is no right to health care provided at someone else's expense the same as a millionaire would get. This is the third problem with Medicare for all. Some 90% of the American public think they should get the same health care as a millionaire would get, but obviously the government is not going to be able to provide health care at that level because we don't have 300 million millionaires to pay for it. The actual level of health care everyone would get would be much more similar to what you can get at your local free clinic and not what you can get at the Mayo Clinic. Are you willing to trade the health care you get now for what you can get at your local free clinic?

D) Government-run business enterprises are models of inefficiency, expense, and low customer responsiveness. Think your insurance company sucks? How does it compare to the DMV? Because socialized medicine is going to be more like the DMV than it is to your insurance company. Have you been to a Social Security office lately? Think about sitting in a room like that for hours waiting to get your broken arm attended to.

E) Capitalism is the engine of innovation. New drugs, new surgical techniques, new technology for improved examination of the body all come about because entrepreneurs hope to get rich off of them. Take away the free market and innovation will disappear.

F) America can't afford it. I have gone over this at length in other posts. The best case scenario is that Medicare for all would cost 9 trillion dollars, 2.5 times the entire government budget, and the government's estimates are historically 1/9th of the actual costs, meaning you're looking at a cost of 81 trillion dollars per year, or about four times the entire US GDP.

G) It's immoral. Medicare for all would just continue to contribute to this idea that people should get something for nothing, that rich people owe the country something because they're rich, that people are entitled to **** just for existing, when they aren't. No one owes you anything just because you're here. We need to reverse course on this entitlement mentality and start teaching people, starting with kids, that you get what you earn, not what you want.

p.s. I'm not a Trump supporter but a conservative.

 

The exchange of value is vital, of course. For example, loaning your rich neighbor your tractor is being a good neighbor, and that rewards you with others who feel the same way. It's a win-win situation where everybody in your neighborhood profits.

It's not simply that giving stuff for free doesn't do any good, but it can often hurt more than it helps. If I decided to give a bum a sandwich, I'm doing several things. I'm making being a bum a viable profession. I'm also taking business away from the nearby sandwich store. I'm also lowering real estate prices by incentivizing that bum to stay exactly where he is.

 

Glad I could help.