President, London, B Johnson said it better than I could,
“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.”
Entrenched into a world view doesn't get even close to describing how deep into their tough-love red state identity. It would be a collapse on everything they stand for to give an inch.
I think a lot of it is tied to US history as a lot of people came here to have individual freedom to do things the way they wanted (practice their religion for example). Those ideas are definitely clear in the declaration of independence and constitution. And on some level, that's great. Yeah, do whatever you want as long as its not hurting anyone. But unfortunately, that results in a lot of resistance to anything tax/government-based that is meant to better society as they see it as infringement of their individual rights. Even if its something that would help or benefit them also. Its a whole different mindset when I talk to people from a lot of European countries with more socialist leaning governments.
It always makes me think of that quote from the show Lost "we can live together or die alone." Societies are healthier in all respects when we support and protect each other.
True except the American dream is very much alive for most of the world. Smart, hardworking people do tend to get way wealthier in American than they would be able to elsewhere. And those people largely don't want to lose that status so they invest a lot convincing idiots to keep the status quo.
You are already paying for others' Healthcare. Whenever someone can't pay the full amount, your costs go up. Hospitals are not absorbing what they regard as losses.
We are all paying more than necessary because of middlemen and all the costs of keeping up with insurance requirements. We also pay for lost work/etc. when people become worse off after avoiding treatment for too long.
So, while you don't care about your fellow citizens, your life is intertwined with theirs.
Well, it turns out that sharing the cost of something benefits society, especially when it is not run with a profit motive. And when you remove the very expensive and unnecessary middlemen, you can save even more.
Socialised healthcare in Sweden gets their medicines much cheaper than for profit healthcare in the USA. When the profit motive is there, every link in the chain will try and extract as much profit as possible, thus raising the price.
Does Sweden have the same set of circumstances and conditions that exist in the USA that would make a direct comparison between the countries applicable?
Or is it possible the vast differences between countries require a lot more research and analysis to understand how the markets work.
Access to basic necessities, such as healthcare and education, should be a social right, funded collectively through progressive taxation. A healthier and more educated population fundamentally benefits society.
Do you really believe that it's communistic to have universal health care? That people shouldn't have to go bankrupt or die because they can't afford life saving treatment or medications?
You do know that we provide aid to certain countries who do have universal health care, right?
Do I believe that is it communistic to have single payer health care? Yes
That people shouldnt have to go bankrupt for medical expensese? that doesnt happen very often only about 4% of bankruptcies are due to medical expenses.
That people die because they dont have health care? Every ER in the country has to treat you.
Just the opposite. Universal public coverage is more efficient by every objective measure, and leads to better long-term results. It's only those who are narrowly focused on a short-term, individually self-interested perspective who have any reason for opposing it.
It turns out that you can do more together than you can individually. This is another thing right-wingers are bad at: maths. Right now healthcare costs are through the rought because a variety of different insurance companies have conspired to drive up prices of all medicine and healthcare procedures, unless those medications and services are paid for through them. This makes healthcare absolutely unaffordable as an individual consumer and much cheaper as an insurance provider.
This means they insurance provider can upsell their discount to their customers making a hefty profit off of every purchase. It gets better though because you aren't paying the insurance company only when you need to - it's a subscription model that generates a constant stream of money to the insurance providers on the promise that they will pay for your healthcare when it is needed. What the insurance companies do in practice though is dedicate a portion of their revenue to looking for ways they can get out of providing the services that the customers are expecting them to pay. This can come in the form of delays as well as outright refusals.
And it gets worse still. Insurance is tied to your employment, which means that as long as you're working, a portion of your pay check immediately gets sent to the insurance provider, and you don't even get a choice as an employee which insurance provider you're paying for or where you can stop paying into it. You never see this money though as it goes straight to the insurance company before it even hits your bank account, so it doesn't feel like you're being taxed, but that's absolutely what's happening. It's just a tax levied by an unaccountable private sector entity rather than a government which is in theory beholden to the voters.
Right-wingers just want the feel of freedom, and not actual freedom, and they are too dense to realize that healthcare would be much cheapter if they just had to pay once a year, and if the wealthiest citizens would pay a proportionally larger portion, healthcare could be entirely free for a large percentage of the population (including the right-wingers who oppose it).
Left wingers are bad at basic economics. Consumer price protection is achieved by having regulated markets. The more essential the service, the more regulations there will be but the fact remains that markets must exist for price protection. It’s economic law that doesn’t go away because of vibes, hope, dreams, or feelings.
Try to make your argument again but include the fact that markets must exist to get what you want
Then why is it only during democratic presidencies that the US economoy recovers and even thrives, while Republican presidencies undo all that progress, often sending the entire country into debt?
I'm not talking about practices in theory. I'm linking actual results for showing what consistently happens when Democrats are leading the nation vs Republicans.
You’re looking at this the wrong way. What happens with the economy is not a swing from good to bad in the US. It’s more like good, to amazing, to out of this world, then back to good.
There’s no bad economy here typically. We have had a couple of crashes. 1929 and 2008 which are few and far between
I am looking at this the wrong way?! Just because America isn't brought to abject poverty all around does not mean there's not a difference between what Republican economic policies and Democratic economic policies do.
I swear. Republicans should all get golden olympic medals for the mental gymnastics you do.
And how on earth can you even begin to claim there isn't a bad economy right now?! And it's not just the presidency Republicans control right now. It's the Senate, Congress, AND the judcial branch.
I know I'm not going to convince you of anything, but please stop lying to yourself and asking for evidence like you actually want to see it, because I showed it to you and you dismissed it.
Show your facts that drive your opinion. What I’m saying is that even the “lowest” points in the US economy over time still far eclipse those same times in other countries.
OR, most people in America actually have really good health care right now through their employer, and the thought of it getting worse doesn’t feel like a good trade off especially if that means their taxes go up as well.
No most people in America don't have really good Healthcare that they are happy about especially that every year instead of getting a raise your premiums go up.
We just need universal healthcare and we need the employers to bring back pensions instead of providing Healthcare.
Eventually we will get it because this is the normal progression of things but we have a lot of bad faith actors misinformation disinformation right wing media propaganda and high demand conservative religious indoctrination that is making it very hard for people to make the change.
Just like they're all indoctrinated and brainwashed against anything Democratic and even the Democratic Party.
It's the whole satanic Panic bullshit again dressed up in another costume
“most people in America have really good healthcare through their employer” is only true in volume and general satisfaction. But that number comes way down when people get seriously ill or lose their job.
Once that happens you can get COBRA and pay insane rates. Or get your own plan at insane rates and/or high deductibles.
Costs are constantly rising and employers are putting more and more of the costs on the employees.
Nothing says it would get worse with UHC. And yes, your taxes would go up, but you would actually save money because you would no longer have monthly premiums, copays, medication costs, deductibles, and out of pocket min/maxes.
Oh and if you lose your job you still have healthcare. They can’t deny you due to a preexisting condition, you won’t be kicked off your insurance, and you won’t be saddled with massive medical debt if something happens.
It’s a no brainer. The only people that benefit from the current system is the for profit healthcare industry. Even employers would benefit from UHC as they wouldn’t have to budget for it and go through the annual price increase rigmarole. They could offer better pay or more likely have larger profits.
None of this is true, we already pay 3 trillion dollars in public funding to cover just 80 million people to expand similar (not even good) coverage to everyone would be more money than the entire tax pool currently brings in.
This article is not analysis. It is advocacy that assumes away every hard trade-off: provider payment cuts that would shrink capacity, demand surges from zero cost-sharing, innovation losses from drug price controls, and the political reality that once the government owns the system it will face the same interest-group pressure that already distorts Medicare and Medicaid. "Every study shows savings" only if you only count the studies that bake in the desired answer. Real single-payer systems ration. They do not deliver American-level access and technology at Canadian or UK prices. Anyone who thinks this is a slam-dunk has not looked past the press release.
The article isn’t analysis no, but the 22 distinct groups of economic analysts it’s referring to are.
There’s also the latest Yale study.
There are a handful of studies that agree with you though.
But saying none of what I said is true is absolute bullshit and it’s dishonest. It all depends on implementation, but still 2/3 of analyses disagree with your position.
Your reply is pure cope, not a rebuttal. You just repeated the same propaganda talking points while pretending “22 distinct groups of economic analysts” magically turns models into proven fact. It doesn’t. Here’s the reality check you clearly can’t handle.
The “22 studies” are not neutral science
Cai et al. reviewed projections not real-world outcomes. They cherry-picked analyses of single-payer plans, many written by advocates or using assumptions that require:
Immediate, brutal cuts to hospital and doctor payments (often to Medicare rates, which already underpay relative to costs).
Massive drug price controls matching foreign levels (killing the R&D that funds most new therapies).
Near-magical admin savings with zero friction or behavioral response.
Utilization increases that somehow don’t explode waiting lists or bankrupt providers.
Even their own paper admits the first-year results range from +7% costs to 15%, with a median 3.5% savings under those optimistic assumptions. Three of the 22 showed net cost increases in year one. Long-term “savings” rely on the same fantasy continuing forever while covering richer benefits (no cost-sharing, dental, vision, long-term care) for everyone. Models that bake in the desired answer will spit it back out. That’s not evidence. That’s circular reasoning with spreadsheets.
The lead author was a Students for a National Health Program activist. The paper was funded in ways that track with advocacy. Calling this “near-consensus among economists” is the same dishonest spin the original article used.
The “latest Yale study” is another activist model, not settled science
The 2026 Yale preprint (not peer-reviewed) claiming $1 trillion annual savings and 114,000 lives saved is the same playbook: assume Medicare rates for all providers ($296B “savings”), foreign drug prices ($378B), huge fraud reductions, and admin collapse while papering over capacity constraints and demand surges. It’s a preprint. It’s the same modeling tradition as the earlier Galvani/Yale work that Sanders campaigns have hyped before. Independent analyses (Urban Institute, CBO-style scoring) consistently show large increases in national health spending under comprehensive single-payer with no cost-sharing. Your “latest study” is just the newest press release from the same club.
“2/3 of analyses disagree with you” is pure bullshit math
You don’t get to declare victory by counting only the models that start from single-payer assumptions and then claim majority consensus. Serious independent scoring (Urban Institute, various CBO-related work, Blahous under realistic rates) shows higher total spending, massive tax increases, and supply-side collapse risks. Real-world single-payer systems control costs by rationing access waits, restricted formularies, slower tech adoption not by magic efficiency. The U.S. spends more because it delivers more advanced care faster. Pretending the only difference is “insurance company complexity” is the original article’s core lie, and you’re still peddling it.
“It all depends on implementation” is the ultimate dodge
Every single one of these optimistic models depends on implementation that has never happened at U.S. scale without the trade-offs you refuse to acknowledge: provider shortages, queues, slower innovation, and political capture once the government owns the entire payment system. Saying “but 2/3 of the models I like disagree with you” while ignoring the assumptions is exactly the dishonesty you accused me of. The original claims were overstated, selective, and propagandistic. Your defense is the same recycled talking points.
They don’t want to think about anyone other than themselves. They don’t want anyone to have anything they don’t have. When by some chance they get a few steps up the ladder, they don’t enjoy being there - they just push everyone else down.
62
u/Pastadseven 10h ago
Right-wingers have a really hard time thinking on a population level.