5 ms·

> I cannot comprehend why anyone would be against health care for all? It seems like such a silly thing to vote against the idea that everyone is healthy. Ther

> I cannot comprehend why anyone would be against health care for all? It seems like such a silly thing to vote against the idea that everyone is healthy. There is a large number of people who are actively opposed to the "wrong" people receiving anything, even if it means cutting off their own nose.

ryandrake 6y ago
Yup a lot of Americans would happily vote for themselves to suffer, if it meant that a group that they didn't like would suffer even more.
- sharatvir 6y ago
  Just look at swimming pools and amusement parks for a parallel. White Americans felt that it was better to shut them down entirely rather than letting black Americans enjoy them also. They decided to remained something that they presumably enjoyed because another group was allowed to use it as well. Source: https://theconversation.com/the-forgotten-history-of-segregated-swimming-pools-and-amusement-parks-119586 https://theconversation.com/the-forgotten-history-of-segrega...
  - selimthegrim 6y ago
    Yes, New Orleans had an entire (very nice) public pool filled in Uptown thanks to this nonsense.
  - ryandrake 6y ago
    One voter quote I'll never forget sums this up: “I voted for him, and he’s the one who’s doing this,” she said of Mr. Trump. “I thought he was going to do good things. He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting.” 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/07/us/florida-government-shutdown-marianna.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/07/us/florida-government-shu...
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  And then loudly proclaim that they are adherents of a certain prophet.
threatofrain 6y ago
A lot of people feel that broad welcome in a policy means fewer resources to share with more people. If you're in an advantaged position, it may make sense to oppose such broad social care measures.
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  There is some merit to that argument, because we have artificially constrained the supply of doctors in order to sustain their high salaries. Perverse is a polite word for the situation.
  - vkou 6y ago
    There is no country in the world that does not have an 'artificially constrained supply of doctors.' Yet most of those countries have cheaper/better/cheaper and better health outcomes. 'The supply of doctors is constrained' is largely a red herring.
    - bumby 6y ago
      Not disagreeing necessarily, but I’m not sure the 1:1 comparison works with “most of those countries”. For example, the US is burdened by a disproportionate amount of R&D which helps to lower costs in other countries. It’s a complex problem and overly simplified comparisons don’t often offer a real fix
      - vkou 6y ago
        > For example, the US is burdened by a disproportionate amount of R&D which helps to lower costs in other countries. This doesn't explain the disproportionate costs of decades-old medications and procedures still using decades-old methods. You can maybe justify high drug costs based on that, but drug costs are a small fraction of overall medical costs.
        bumby 6y ago
        To an extent, it does. Particularly when other countries have cost control regulations, the companies are incentivized to make up those R&D costs elsewhere. Today’s drug profits are funding tomorrow’s novel medicine. Note in not saying this is ethically fair or optimal, just that it’s a consequence of the particular system
burlesona 6y ago
I don’t think that’s true. I think you’re misunderstanding the way some people perceive fairness. There are some people who feel very strongly that it’s unfair to give out benefits such that the people who worked hard and took care of themselves are no better off than people who did not work hard. For example, regarding student loan forgiveness, I have heard people say: “I struggled for years to pay off my student loans, but now the government is going to just cancel everyone else’s debt? That’s like punishing me for being responsible and rewarding people who didn’t sacrifice for putting the problem off.” And I can see how someone would feel that way. It would be more fair to track down everyone who had student loans and refund the full amount for all of them, including people who had already paid them off. I’ve also heard friends who are legal immigrants oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants because they feel it’s like punishing everyone who went through all the trouble of the legal process. I don’t think you can actually prove they are right or wrong in their argument. This is exactly like the parable of the prodigal son, so it’s an ancient human dilemma that giving grace and generosity to people who are in need tends to make people who are one notch up the ladder feel bitter that when they needed help they didn’t get it, and that their hard work is somehow invalidated by the fact that others got something for free when they had to work for it. Finally, there’s always a question of who pays for things, and some people just feel that - while they’d prefer some government benefit in theory - they aren’t willing to pay any more in taxes in order to get it. Considering the US has a track record of relatively high total taxation (when you add up all the local, state, and federal entities), while receiving generally poor public services, there are plenty of people who feel the answer is to stop “wasting money” on the problem and expect the government to become more efficient or better at providing services before they’d support any more taxes.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

ryandrake 6y ago

Yup a lot of Americans would happily vote for themselves to suffer, if it meant that a group that they didn't like would suffer even more.

sharatvir 6y ago
Just look at swimming pools and amusement parks for a parallel. White Americans felt that it was better to shut them down entirely rather than letting black Americans enjoy them also. They decided to remained something that they presumably enjoyed because another group was allowed to use it as well. Source: https://theconversation.com/the-forgotten-history-of-segregated-swimming-pools-and-amusement-parks-119586 https://theconversation.com/the-forgotten-history-of-segrega...
- selimthegrim 6y ago
  Yes, New Orleans had an entire (very nice) public pool filled in Uptown thanks to this nonsense.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  One voter quote I'll never forget sums this up: “I voted for him, and he’s the one who’s doing this,” she said of Mr. Trump. “I thought he was going to do good things. He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting.” 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/07/us/florida-government-shutdown-marianna.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/07/us/florida-government-shu...
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
And then loudly proclaim that they are adherents of a certain prophet.

threatofrain 6y ago

A lot of people feel that broad welcome in a policy means fewer resources to share with more people. If you're in an advantaged position, it may make sense to oppose such broad social care measures.

rootusrootus 6y ago
There is some merit to that argument, because we have artificially constrained the supply of doctors in order to sustain their high salaries. Perverse is a polite word for the situation.
- vkou 6y ago
  There is no country in the world that does not have an 'artificially constrained supply of doctors.' Yet most of those countries have cheaper/better/cheaper and better health outcomes. 'The supply of doctors is constrained' is largely a red herring.
  - bumby 6y ago
    Not disagreeing necessarily, but I’m not sure the 1:1 comparison works with “most of those countries”. For example, the US is burdened by a disproportionate amount of R&D which helps to lower costs in other countries. It’s a complex problem and overly simplified comparisons don’t often offer a real fix
    - vkou 6y ago
      > For example, the US is burdened by a disproportionate amount of R&D which helps to lower costs in other countries. This doesn't explain the disproportionate costs of decades-old medications and procedures still using decades-old methods. You can maybe justify high drug costs based on that, but drug costs are a small fraction of overall medical costs.
      - bumby 6y ago
        To an extent, it does. Particularly when other countries have cost control regulations, the companies are incentivized to make up those R&D costs elsewhere. Today’s drug profits are funding tomorrow’s novel medicine. Note in not saying this is ethically fair or optimal, just that it’s a consequence of the particular system

burlesona 6y ago

I don’t think that’s true. I think you’re misunderstanding the way some people perceive fairness. There are some people who feel very strongly that it’s unfair to give out benefits such that the people who worked hard and took care of themselves are no better off than people who did not work hard. For example, regarding student loan forgiveness, I have heard people say: “I struggled for years to pay off my student loans, but now the government is going to just cancel everyone else’s debt? That’s like punishing me for being responsible and rewarding people who didn’t sacrifice for putting the problem off.” And I can see how someone would feel that way. It would be more fair to track down everyone who had student loans and refund the full amount for all of them, including people who had already paid them off. I’ve also heard friends who are legal immigrants oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants because they feel it’s like punishing everyone who went through all the trouble of the legal process. I don’t think you can actually prove they are right or wrong in their argument. This is exactly like the parable of the prodigal son, so it’s an ancient human dilemma that giving grace and generosity to people who are in need tends to make people who are one notch up the ladder feel bitter that when they needed help they didn’t get it, and that their hard work is somehow invalidated by the fact that others got something for free when they had to work for it. Finally, there’s always a question of who pays for things, and some people just feel that - while they’d prefer some government benefit in theory - they aren’t willing to pay any more in taxes in order to get it. Considering the US has a track record of relatively high total taxation (when you add up all the local, state, and federal entities), while receiving generally poor public services, there are plenty of people who feel the answer is to stop “wasting money” on the problem and expect the government to become more efficient or better at providing services before they’d support any more taxes.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]