why do republicans hate national healthcare?

Question

is it just because you're too selfish to pay a little bit extra in taxes to help out other people who might really need it?

Answer 1

It is one reason I don't get the Republican party. They claim to be Christians, but they don't want healthcare for kids and all Americans? That equals greedy to me! Who cares about another 10 or twenty dollars a month if you are helping others! Get over your selfish selves!

Answer 2

First of all you need to define what you mean by "national health care." A single payer system? Better access to health insurance for low income families? Mandate employer coverage?

In general, most Republicans believe that less government involvement is good and the market can create the best solutions.

Not all Democrats are excited about a single payer health insurance system either.

I think most sane people (including most moderate Republicans) believe our current system has some problems and could use some adjustment to help working families have ways to cover their health care costs. Generally the disagreement is over how to do that like tax credits vs single payer.

Answer 3

While all other Western Democracies (Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands, South Korea, Venezuela, etc.) think of the community first and of healthcare as a human need and right; U.S. citizens have been indoctrinated, through the conservative Corporate media, in fighting for themselves in a economic survival of the fittest-where the wealthy get the best healthcare, the majority get overpriced shoddy coverage or are uninsured and the Insurance Companies, HMOs, Pharmacuetical Corporations and the bought Politicians get rich.

Albert-but "throwing money at a problem" is fine with conservatives if it's for Military spending and wars!

Answer 4

I am willing to help anyone who is willing to help themselves..

The problem with National Health care is you not only force those who are able to help but those who are only two small steps above those " who really need it". The one thing we as a nation really don't need is another social service program to be run into the ground and mismanaged by the government. You think medical care is expensive now...

I am one of those "47 million" We live on one income and do not have insurance, by choice.. We pay cash for doctors visits when necessary, not when we have a runny nose or a simple backache... That's what Walgreen's is for...

But so many people see Insurance whether privately or government run as a discount on medical care... Its original design was to help with the unexpected..

I am in no way selfish.. I am a mother who understands what a national health care will mean to my children... And I don't like it..

Answer 5

name one thing that government intervention sloved without raising taxes and making some one wealthy in the process? It is unfair that those who refuse to work receive anything. While something needs to be done socialism is not the answer, espically when the burden is placed upoon the middle class and lower working class tax payer.perhaps if you found employemnt and watched your hard earned dollars go for handouts and perks for governmental officials your tune would change

Answer 6

No it's because we believe in providing for yourself and not looking for handouts from everyone.

Those without health care in American today are either choosing not to get insurance because of their good health or are covered with Medicaid and Medicare... Those people are included in the "47" million without health care. In reality it is more like 10 million. Even those 10 million can not be turned away at a hospital.

Anything that the government runs turns to mud. Look at the katrina relief... Liberals are always bashing Bush because of that handling. Well if government was to handle health care it would be just like that. Look at the VA hospitals. The VA hospital in Danville Illinois killed my Grandfather and Uncle.

Those that do are already pulling the load of those that don't enough... Get out of the wagon and start PULLING.. I'm getting tired!

Answer 7

People come from all over the world for treatment from U.S. doctors and the LIBS want to screw that up next?

Just move to Europe if you want to be a Socialist. You can wait 3-4 months for an operation like the rest of the commies.

I do say something has to be done and we should start with all of the frivilous lawsuits. Make people sign a waiver not to sue, so malpractice insurance can be lowered. Then pass the savings onto the patient.

Answer 8

throwing money at a problem just doenst seem to work...

people see how good it is on that system and the demands for the use of that system increase out of all control

true health care is a wonderful idea (same as social security) but human nature tends to get in the way and make it harder for the people who actually need the system to actually use it..

also too many beurocrats are needed thereby increasing the costs to use the system for both the government and the user (cost in time and effort not neccesarily money for the user...)

Answer 9

Republicans typically represent older, richer, white Americans. Rich people, as we know, own everything compared to the poorest 90% of us. So then, it makes sense that Republicans have no personal conviction for helping commoners because they have never been in a situation many poorer people face. The more likely answer is that national healthcare would all but eliminate the need for health insurance (most countries still have private insurances to cover overage costs on elective surgeries). Since the healthcare industry has gained such a presence in our national economy (i.e. insurance, pharmaceuticals, etc.), the rich class in America stands to loose alot of profit from universal healthcare. Access to expensive products and services is what seperates the rich from the poor--if the poor can access adequate, quality healthcare, part of the gap closes. Sorry if this answer seems quite biased; I entertain quite a few socialist ideas, including universal healthcare.

Answer 10

That's one of the reasons. Others simply have a knee-jerk aversion to anything they define as "liberal," "socialist," etc. Usually those types don't even know the meaning of those terms. You'll also find a substantial number who realize that national health care implies better access for minorities and Amfrican-Americans--and will seek to sabotage any measure (health related or otherwise) that does so out of purely racist motives.

Keep this in mind, though--not everyone who has reservations about national health care is selfish, stupid, or unprincipled. Some (real) conservatives--and liberals as well--have serious and real concerns--pointing to problems tha thave plagued such systems in other nations. That is not an objection to national health care as such--they have asked some tough questions about patient rights, cost controls, etc. And--the blunt truth is that the proponents of a national system have yet to come up with satisfacctory answers.

Answer 11

Look for nationalized health care tax's would go even higher than ever

1.45 MILLION people don't have health care in America so the rest of us who do would have to pay for those extra 45million people and they probably don't want more taxes seeing that they can't afford it or they just don't want it so lets just not have it.

2.The American public already pays enough tax's as it is so again i say lets not have it