Does anybody have a logical conservative argument against socialized healthcare?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
 

dmase:
You can't compare Medicaid to socialized medicine.

A mea culpa here, that was a topic spun way off-topic. I won't compare a social program like that to a public health fund or universal healthcare systems. A closer comparison might be a health insurance mandate, the crux of Obamacare.

Vegosiux:
But that's the core of the problem, that medicine and healthcare are seen as "business".

I understand they're essential, but so is food (a business from the field to the grocery store), housing, construction, clothing, water...

Bottled water is outrageously overpriced, but I don't want a universal water system. Also, I'll note a distinction between cost and access.

Arakasi:

Silvanus:

Arakasi:

For the military, for police and for the justice system.

How can you support theft to subsidize those systems?!

Taxes, equal to all, because everyone uses these systems equally.

If you're going to say that everyone benefits from the justice system equally when some have never used it you're going to have to explain how the indirect benefits of people getting treatment for their illnesses doesn't compare.

Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government has to provide (or officiate) health care to its citizens?

Aur0ra145:
Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government has to provide (or officiate) health care to its citizens?

Why would you look in a document that's from the 18th century, looking for something that only first arose in the 19th century? Because at that time surgery was still more like butchery and 'healthcare' meant that very occasionally you could get taken to a poor quality charity run hospital that was more likely to kill than cure you, or a few very rich people could afford a personal doctor.

Not the best place to look for stuff about healthcare.

Regardless, even conservatives often have to agree the preamble of the US constitution speaks of "promote the general welfare" of the people as a government task, and that's impossible to do without healthcare.

Aur0ra145:
Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government has to provide (or officiate) health care to its citizens?

The constitution is a very short document cementing the basic interactions between the people, the states, and the union. The values and rights it commemorates are the essence of the American way of life.

It doesn't speak of automobiles or aeroplanes, but you haven't banned those in the USA because the constitution didn't talk about them or guarantee people the right to use it.

Blablahb:
Not the best place to look for stuff about healthcare.

Regardless, even conservatives often have to agree the preamble of the US constitution speaks of "promote the general welfare" of the people as a government task, and that's impossible to do without healthcare.

You're taking your own liberty with the word welfare and warping the context. The Preamble is basically a mission statement of why the People enacted the Constitution. "Promote the general Welfare" could be plainly rewritten as "support everyone's happiness and prosperity". Modern government goes far above and beyond "promoting" this idea and subsidizes billions into healthcare, education and other social investments.

The takeaway from that point in the Preamble isn't about a government role to advance health and happiness, it's the mission of the People to better help and support everyone, and in order to do this they set out a Constitution.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked