|
|
|
|
|
by 27182818284
3481 days ago
|
|
>Because if something has even the hint of socialism, the discussion is considered over. It's why the U. S. doesn't have universal health care. It is a complex issue and the socialism-word boogeyman isn't all there is to it--there is more than just the vocab. From my anecdotal experience, I can say it isn't so much the socialism that tends to bother people, but the part where socialism is given to what are considered undeserving people. Those people might be immigrants that are perceived (incorrectly or correctly) of getting an unfair share of schooling and medical services. Those people might play off the older concept of the Welfare Queen. It varies from person to person that I speak to, but very few (zero?) people have told me they're against things like health care for all without also bringing up those parts as a con to why it either can't work, or shouldn't be implemented. (then after all that, you still have regular politics to hurdle) |
|
The people who disagreed did so not because they necessarily disagree with universal health care, but because they thought it was unfair that they had to spend their hard earned money to subsidise people who they view as freeloaders.