Why are people so opposed to universal health care, but no one minds paying for everyone's education...?

Question

I've never seen the provision of free public schools questioned... when this benefits far less people than health care would.

Everyone keeps saying "why should i pay for anyone else's healthcare?" If you feel that way, then why should you pay for anyone else's kid's schooling? Why not get rid of public schools, and let parents pay for their kids own schooling?

It can't be just because it's about kids- health care involves kids too.

I'm not saying I agree with one or the other, I just wonder why no one seems to bat an eyelid about government provided schools and yet so many are terrified at the prospect of universal health. What's the big difference?

Oh yeah the public schools are a joke- i couldn't agree more. So why are the people who don't want universal health care because it would be bad quality, complaining about paying for the crappy schools?

Giliathriel, I meant K-12 not college!

lana_sands- When was the constitution written?! Health care was nothing like it is now, modern medicine and the subsequent costs (and the health insurance industry) are much newer than the constitution so it's omission is meaningless. Personally I think if the constitution is pro- state provided education, it would have been pro- state provided health care too, because the principles are exactly the same- everyone deserves a certain quality of life. Arguably, medical care is even more important because it's life/death.

Answer 1

People are brainwashed by the medical insurance industry that wants Americans to think universal health care is bad. I mean, everybody already pays insurance premiums that pay for others. Unfortunately a lot of Americans have it stuck in their mind that the government would do a worse job than these "for profit companies." But believe me, insurance companies can be pretty difficult too. They have far too much to lose to have their billion dollar industry be handed over to the government. That's why people are opposed. The insurance companies are doing a great job in making sure we are all fooled.

Answer 2

Because when was the last time you heard of a government run agency being more efficient and less costly than a privately run organization? Think about how much better/efficient UPS is at delivering things than the USPS. How's Universal Health Care working in Canada and the UK? I guess all those Canadians cross the border to get MRIs for the heck of it, not because the waiting list is months, if not years. I don't understand why you think it will be cheaper or better than the current system. There WILL be rationing of health care, there WILL be higher taxes; the list goes on. If you don't realize that, then I think you're the one who needs to wake up. (Btw, it's not just conservatives who feel this way..there's a reason why Congress has been hesitant to pass this legislation)

Answer 3

Most public school systems are paid for primarily by the states. There is some Federal involvement, but overall, they are state programs. (In my opinion, they should have stayed completely and totally state programs and the Feds should butt out.)

We didn't always have public schools. Most public schools came about in the late 1800s / early 1900s as a result of the Industrial Revolution - companies needed educated workers to handle the complexities of the new technology. Overall in society, public schools pay for themselves by providing our nation with an educated work force, a work force that can be employed in high-tech manufacturing, service, and other industries.

Public health care does not have the side-effect of paying for itself. Yes, a healthier work force will be on the job more often, will have less down-time, will be less likely to become a burden on society. Healthy kids have a better chance of growing into productive adults. But it's hard to make the case that this reduction in down time is going to cover the costs of national health care, or even if such a reduction will occur.

Also, public school education is fairly low-cost, and the costs are fairly stable, growing roughly in synch with the economy overall. Health care costs are soaring 5-10 times as fast as the economy. If we implement health care, there's no limit on how big that cost could grow, and it's already growing faster than GDP. Every year, a greater percentage of our taxes would have to be devoted to it.

When you consider that we're currently 9 trillion dollars in debt and getting deeper ever minute and we don't know how we're going to cover our Social Security promises when the boomers start to retire, this would seem like a poor time to implement another big-ticket entitlement program.

Question: If you PERSONALLY were carrying an unsecured debt that was four times your annual income and had nothing put away for your retirement, woud that be the time to buy a new car?

If something is stupid for a person to do, it's 300 million times more stupid for a government to do it, don't you think?

Answer 4

The difference is public schools are funded at the state level, and run at the local level. Universal health care, run by the federal government, would be a bureaucratic nightmare. If I, or a member of my family needs surgery, I want to choose the doctor,hospital, and time of surgery. I don't want those decisions left up to some government employee, who is on a coffee break. I do believe that health care insurance should be more affordable - especially for the self employed, and people not covered at work. One thing my state is considering is allowing those people to join the same insurance pool as state employees, which would be very helpful, since individual policies are very expensive.

Answer 5

Well, where to start.

First, free public education, is a State Right, not a Federal Right.

It is in almost every states State Constitution.

So if States want to offer universial health care, they are free to do so.

As to K-12 public education costing more than Universial health care, thats just not true.

The average spent per child, for K-12 education, would be less than the average spent per person, with universial health care.

Then you have to add in all the adults to the health care.

In 2006, the US spent about 550 billion dollars on K-12 education, thats federal, state and local spending combined.

Universial health care, would cost about 1.5 trillion dollars per year.

Answer 6

We have to provide education to all people because it provides employers with young healthy vital workers to replace the old sick dieing ones .

Only the smart people who go on and graduate from college and become real producers in society are needed .
So those who fail to acquire an education serve those who can educate themselves .

Who needs the sick and dieing anyhow . Health care only prolongs the inevitable and drains the resources of the healthy contributing members of a community .
If the rich want to have health then the majority needs to charge them huge amounts of money to care for them .

Health care only benefits the rich by making all the poor equally absorb the cost of care at a set price .

Answer 7

Many of us do complain about our public, government run, school systems. As a result of having tenure, which is nothing more that a huge union that protects those who can't teach, our children continue to be 'dumbed down' and every years it continues to worsen.

The fault doesn't all lie with our teachers because parental responsibility isn't what it used to be. Kids are now relying on TV sets, computers and teachers for guidance and that too is dumbing us down.

We need to take that responsibility from a government that is far to big, and turn it over to private industry. I do not want health care that depends on bigger government to make my decisions for me.

Answer 8

Because people have not thought about it properly.

I live in a country with universal health care. We have the option to go private as well. Most do not . I am proud that my country does this, and our life expectancy figures better than the USA.

Lets face it, the USA is the richest, most powerful country in the world. For those who can pay, and for those who's insurance policy decides to fund treatment, the care is among the best in the world.

But, the USA has worse life expectancy figures than most countries in the developed world. You are more likely to live longer if you are born in Puerto Rico, Costa Rica and even Cuba.

And although the figures on infant mortality are hard to compare from country to country, look at the figures.

Is that right for the most powerful country in the world? Is it something to be proud of?

Answer 9

I'm sorry where in the Constitution does it say anything about providing health care???? Besides would you really want health care run like TSA, the Post Office or The Katrina clean up? Would realy like to wait months for treatment as those in the UK & Canada do?

Answer 10

I've seen many without kids opposed to public education on here. I've got kids, and I believe socialized education is a joke at best, a breeding ground for dangerous ideologies at worst. I was born in a great country, founded on individual freedom and responsibility. Too bad the socialists have turn it into every other sorry country on this planet.

Edit: The difference: Parents have an option to public education....private schools or home school. We won't have the same luxury with health care.