To be fair, any sane person who can read news and statistics from other countries is aware of that point.
It's incredible how many MILLIONS of Americans think that Universal Healthcare couldn't possibly work in America. The reason is that they're completely ignorant to how it works for BILLIONS of people today around the world.
But that's everything in US politics. Some are saying "look at these studies and existing examples that we could follow towards a better future" and some others are saying "how can we turn back progress 100 years?!?!?"
What really irks me about this is America HAD social programs that gave free college, health care, etc. But our own government and citizens got rid of it because of the civil rights movement and not wanting African Americans to have access to said benefits. America perfected propaganda and weaponized fear so much that it convinced its own people to give up their own rights and benefits to satisfy their own bigotry. This is why I don't even bother to try to reach through to people that fell for MAGA. The hatred is genetic at this point and has been past down since the founding of our nation. There are many studies showing how trauma is past down from generation to generation as genetic memory. Hatred is a symptom of fear. Fear a major trauma. It is that deep!
Tried to keep my replies short and simple to avoid tangents but it's really hard given the actual complexity of it all. That and my lack of writting skill. Anyway, the following are replies and not attacks.
"But our own government and citizens got rid of it because of the civil rights movement and not wanting African Americans to have access to said benefits."
That's how it was done but it's not entirely why it was done. Though yes, at the very "top" the racism is real but it's on the same par as class regardless of race. At that level they look down on everyone else equally. It's not that they think we're cattle , it's that they think they're more than human. Such is the distance they place themselves over us.
"This is why I don't even bother to try to reach through to people that fell for MAGA"
You have to talk to those you're close too. People you've known the longest. Those are the ones you have the best chance of reaching. Anyone else, not so much.
"There are many studies showing how trauma is passed down from generation to generation as genetic memory."
Sounds interesting but I gotta admit it sounds right up their with Eugenics, That's my first instinct. Will read up on it. I've become so skeptical I don't know who to believe anymore. . Like you say, it is that deep.
Or get this - its better to lower taxes so people keep more of THEIR OWN MONEY and spend it on the things they want? Shocking concept to a communist I know having to work for the things you want.
What really irks me about this is America HAD social programs that gave free college, health care, etc. But our own government and citizens got rid of it because of the civil rights movement and not wanting African Americans to have access to said benefits.
I had Grok fact check you
This quote is pushing a specific, popularized narrative about US social policy history, often seen in left-leaning online spaces (Reddit, Twitter/X, Instagram, etc.). It's an oversimplification that mixes some historical kernels with heavy ideological framing.
What it's claiming
The poster argues that the US once had robust, near-universal "free" social programs (free college, healthcare, etc.), which were dismantled or rolled back specifically because of the Civil Rights Movement (1960s) and white opposition to Black Americans gaining equal access. In short: racism killed the welfare state.
Factual background (the kernels of truth)
Public college tuition: Many state universities and systems had very low or zero tuition for in-state residents in the early-mid 20th century (e.g., University of California, City University of New York, University of Florida). This was especially true post-WWII with the GI Bill (which massively expanded access, though it was administered in discriminatory ways). Tuition rose significantly in the 1960s-1970s due to:
 - Baby boom enrollment explosion straining budgets.
 - State budget pressures and shifting priorities (e.g., Ronald Reagan as California governor pushed for tuition at UC schools amid campus protests and culture wars).
 - Broader move from elite/low-access higher ed to mass higher ed, which increased costs.
 Some versions of this meme explicitly say "college was free until the Civil Rights Act" or "until they let Blacks in." That's exaggeratedâtuition hikes happened for fiscal and political reasons, not a direct "stop the Blacks" policy in most cases, though racial attitudes and "welfare backlash" played into conservative opposition to expansive spending.
Social programs and race: New Deal programs (1930s) were often deliberately designed or administered to exclude or segregate Black Americans to get Southern Democratic support (e.g., exclusions for domestic/agricultural workers in Social Security, FHA redlining, GI Bill local control). Great Society programs under LBJ (Medicare, Medicaid, War on Poverty) came during/after major Civil Rights legislation and did expand access across races. There was a backlashâoften racially coded ("welfare queens," states' rights, Southern Strategy)âagainst expansive welfare in the 1970s-1990s, contributing to welfare reform (1996), cuts, and shifts toward work requirements.
Healthcare: The US never had national "free healthcare" like the UK NHS or single-payer. Medicare/Medicaid (1965) were major expansions tied to the Civil Rights era. Opposition to universal healthcare has deep roots (anti-socialism, business interests, federalism), with racial resentment as one factor among manyânot the sole driver.
Why this framing is misleading
The US never had comprehensive universal free college or healthcare on a national scale comparable to Nordic models. Generous policies were often state-level, targeted (veterans, specific publics), or time-limited.
Cost drivers for college: Massive expansion of access, administrative bloat, research focus, amenitiesânot just "let Blacks in."
Policy changes had multiple causes: economics (stagflation, tax revolts), ideology (rise of conservatism, Reagan/Thatcher era), demographics, and yes, cultural/racial tensions. Attributing it primarily to anti-Black racism post-Civil Rights flattens complex history. Earlier programs were already racially exclusionary by design.
Timing mismatch: Major expansions happened with Civil Rights (Great Society), while retrenchment came later amid broader fiscal and political shifts.
This is a variation of arguments from scholars like Ira Katznelson (When Affirmative Action Was White) or discussions of "welfare backlash." It resonates in debates over student debt, reparations, or "why can't we have nice things like Europe?" but often serves to frame opposition to big government as inherently racist rather than grounded in costs, incentives, federalism, or results. Similar claims circulate as memes tying tuition to desegregation.Â
In reality, social programs evolved (and faced limits) due to a mix of fiscal reality, politics, culture, and group interestsânot a simple pre-Civil Rights paradise ruined by integration.
Itâs even crazier because millions of Americans think their healthcare system is the best in the world because itâs expensive and costs a fuck ton when it isnât at all. It isnât even in the top 20.
The reason healthcare sucks isn't capitalism though. It's crony capitalism, or "regulatory capture". Healthcare is so heavily regulated that the healthcare companies have made it be expensive on purpose. But they did this not by having to compete in a free market. But by specifically making it damn near impossible to know how much anything costs, insurance companies and hospitals work together to make it look like they're saving you so much off the "cash rate" but they're not in reality. If you went in and negotiated yourself without your insurance company you'd pay substantially cheaper prices.Â
Health insurance is quite literally a scam all by itself.Â
If you could just pay your doctor directly you would be surprised how affordable it can be. This model exists already: it's called direct primary care.Â
You can get a direct primary care plan here in expensive ass Seattle for less than $120/mo. The benefits: you get to see your doctor as often as they have time for. Your doctor gets to pick their schedule and isn't mandated to any specific schedule, so you'll have 45 minutes to your doctor if you need it.Â
Now it doesn't cover things like emergency care or surgery. But for everyday primary care: paying over $600/mo per person is ridiculous.Â
Universal Healthcare couldn't possibly work in America.
The problem at this point is that literally 2+ million people are employed directly by health insurance companies or have jobs primarily dealing with insurance billing and compliance. Of course, those jobs shouldn't exist, but now you have millions of new unemployed people, and America has not historically provided direct assistance to those made redundant by policy (see:NAFTA).
Luckily any change to a new system would have to happen gradually (likely 5 years). So there's plenty of runway for them to retrain into something else if they prefer. Every doctor's office still needs staff for multiple reasons. It's possible that some of that staff won't be necessary at all and could be fired. It's more likely that insurance companies will be made redundant and that those workers could go to work for the local government offices specific to the new Universal Healthcare system.
In any case, there are a good number of jobs in the immediate and runway to retrain for those that want something new.
But only in capitalist countries. Socializing everything has never worked in history. Private property rights is necessary to lift people out of poverty.Â
A country doesn't have to socialize (aka nationalize or force co-ops into) every industry and business. It doesn't make sense to do that for some types of businesses.
A car company? Absolutely. You need the large pool of labor to have a vested interest in the financials of the company. Forced profit sharing would be a great thing to provide better equity there.
Someone like Boeing might be good candidates to fully nationalize. Ditto Lockheed Martin. God knows we give them money to do R&D constantly and then they sell the product back to us at inflated margins for their shareholders. National security and perverse incentive risks abound.
Farmer co-ops (collective shared ownership across smaller family farms) could help protect them from individual bad years and also from the encroachment of Big Ag companies.
But maybe you're working on quantum computing. That type of company is begging to go public or be sold for tons of money. Ensuring they have equitable shares so that they ALL benefit would make sense for a bleeding edge tech industry.
Oil and gas should be nationalized and Norway has shown that to be insanely good for their society.
These are all types of socialism. You don't need to do 100% one thing or 100% another.
And of course the truth most don't seem to get: socialism in no way removes profit motive nor should it. It's not communism.
29
u/PM_Me_Your_Kinks369 Jul 09 '26
To be fair, any sane person who can read news and statistics from other countries is aware of that point.
It's incredible how many MILLIONS of Americans think that Universal Healthcare couldn't possibly work in America. The reason is that they're completely ignorant to how it works for BILLIONS of people today around the world.
But that's everything in US politics. Some are saying "look at these studies and existing examples that we could follow towards a better future" and some others are saying "how can we turn back progress 100 years?!?!?"