Why do Reublicans oppose nationalized health care?

Question

I found a question asking why Democrats favor nationalized health care. So, why areRepublicans so opposed? Can they possibly own all the stock of insurance companies? Private sector insurance pays out less than 70 cents on every dollar paid in. Federal programs is over 97 cents (Medicaid, Medicare, VA). Governments don't seek to make profits, industries do.
What part of "provide for the general wellfare" is unclear?

Answer 1

Officially, Republicans are suppose to be pro-small government and lesser taxes. Having nationalized health care would mean bigger government, heaftier taxes, and more people getting screwed by the entire system because the government is currently the WORST when it comes to being fiscally responsible.

Then again, the liberalized republicans (such as the current administration) are against it just to be obstinant.

Answer 2

Not a republican, but I think government interference in the health care market is a very bad idea. In general, what the government does, it does badly. If you want to be really sure something will get there on time and in good condition, do you send it by the US Postal Service or by the private carriers FedEx or UPS, etc.? Have you seen what "government housing" looks like?

I've lived in the UK and seen what nationalized medicine is like: it's rationing, plain and simple.

An additional argument against nationalized anything is that it is a form of slavery: you are forcing people to work for someone else involuntarily. To pay for the doctors, equipment, medicines, and lots more bureaucracy you'll tax people whether they want to pay for other people's health care or not. If your argument is that most people want to help others, then why do you have to force them to do it through taxation instead of just setting up a charity to collect their voluntary donations?

Answer 3

There's nothing unclear about "provide for the general welfare" at all. It appears in the Preamble, and therefore is not a grant of authority. It is merely a general statement of purpose, but does not authorize nor require nor forbid anything.

The operative part of the Constitution on the issue of nationalized Health Care is found in the Tenth Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

So, to answer your question, the whole concept of nationalized health care is wholly unconstitutional. That's why I oppose it, and I'm not even a Republican.

Answer 4

Well, from your question, I take it you do not know the history of Universal Health Care in America.

In 1973, Richard Nixon was the first President to propose Universal Health Care and submitted a bill to Congress.

The Democrat controlled Congress, promptly tabled his bill.


In 1978 President Jimmy Carter proposed Universal Health Care.

Again, a Democrat controlled Congress tabled his idea.


In 1993 President Bill Clinton proposed Universal health care.

A Democrat controlled Congress refused to allow any of Three competing Health Care Bills to move out of Committee.


So no one knows just how the Republicans in Congress would vote on Universial Health Care, they have never had a chance to.


As to your general welfare statement:

Aren't Food, Clothing and Shelter the three basic human needs, shouldn't the Government provide those for everyone, Before worrying about health care?


Then there is the problem of paying for universial health care.

A medicare style system, would cost 1.5 trillion dollars a year.

Approx: $5,000.00 per patient per year

The 5,000 is what medicare spends now and is similar to what all other countries with universial health care pay per patient per year.

The United States federal government spent approx 580 billion for health care in 2006 ( medicare, medicaid, VA).

Which leaves 1 trillion dollars per year the government has to come up with to fund a universial health care system.

Total Federal tax revenue from corporate and individual income tax receipts in 2006 was 1.4 trillion dollars.

Which means to generate an additional 1 trillion dollars, federal tax receipts would have to be increased 71% to keep current spending levels on other programs and to fund universial health care.

Answer 5

Nationalized health care always results in rationing and a lower level of service. Think Canada and the long waiting lists in the UK . Stock ownership in private sector insurance is held by republicans and democrates alike particularly in the form of pension funds. Provide for the general welfare does not mean provide welfare in general. Profit is a good thing as it motivates advancements in health care and helps to eliminate fraud and abuse. Democrates favor national health care because their vision of America in a socialized nightmare that will spread the misery in the quest for fairness

Answer 6

It places the financial health of the nation at serious risk. Americans have developed a certain entitlement mindset that will prove to be the downfall of this country financially. People tend to abuse that for which they do not pay and do not feel responsible. The tens of $billions wasted now will pale in comparison to the hundreds to be wasted in the future.

That is not including the devastating effect of the bungled Social Security program on this country's finances. If you have young children, I would not feel very good about the future prospects of what will be their country, and that of their children.

It will be a sad time for America.

Answer 7

Obviously you are not from New Orleans.

If you say the HORRIBLE job the government is doing in distributing funds already promised to hurricane victims, you wouldn't want them anywhere NEAR your health care.

Look at what a great job our government has done with Social Security.


--I do think that most Republicans, like myself, believe in TAX BREAKS so people can buy their own health care. Therefore, everyone in the country has health care, without the usual government inefficiencies.

Answer 8

Go take a trip to a country that has nationalized healthcare, like say, Canada. If you need any type of medical procedure, you may die waiting for it. Why do you think a lot of Canadians come here to have tests and surgeries. Our system is not perfect, but it is certainly not better than that. I don't know about you, but I don't want to pay for EVERYONE'S health care. I am spending enough for my own.

Answer 9

Because we can't afford it. Medicaid, medicare and Social security are sinking ships going down fast. Why would another social program be be a good idea when none of the other ones are working now.

Answer 10

Re: "What part of 'provide for the general welfare' is unclear":

The part that doesn't specify any limits on how much the govt can confiscate from the people who earn it. It's impossible to specify things like that, so the framers of the US Constitution left it up to the people and their representatives.

Now do you understand what part is unclear?