[stavros]

That's exactly what I think when I read one of these "EU stifles innovation" comments. It sounds to me like the equivalent of not wanting socialized healthcare because "the poors" might get it, not caring about the fact that you're the one who will benefit.

This is the "everyone in the US is a temporarily embarrassed millionaire" of consumer rights. Everyone in the US is a temporarily embarrassed capitalist overlord.

[danem]

The resistance to socialized healthcare in America can be easily understood without resorting to bizarre strawmen about hating poor people. Healthcare is of course a huge part of our economy and lives. Many (most?) people are satisfied with the status quo and are hesitant to see (what they consider to be) a huge increase in government power, spending, and general involvement in their lives. It's the same impulse that motivates people to oppose new housing -- people are loss averse and hate change.

[stavros]

Will it be a huge increase in spending? Isn't it estimated to reduce costs by a lot?

[antisthenes]

Yes, the resistance is because the private sector will lose a lot of (parasitic) jobs. It's a non-starter to attempt to reduce health insurance companies power, because it would gut their employee numbers.

It's an unsavory thought, but the US has a significant amount of people employed in the business of denying healthcare to other people, which amounts to hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Any politician attempting to fix this would be committing political suicide.

[rockemsockem]

I think they mean it's an increase in government spending, which would of course be true even if overall healthcare overhead spending is reduced.

[moduspol]

We do not have an established history of accurately predicting or managing the costs of overwhelmingly expensive government programs, at least here in the US.

[marcinzm]

The US already runs two government healthcare programs. There are 65 million people in Medicare and 83 million in Medicaid. For less money per patient than private insurance.

[newfriend]

This is a strawman.

"Rich" people don't want socialized healthcare because of perceived or real disadvantages of that system. Not because "the poors might get it".

Also the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" is another strawman, used by those who dislike capitalism. People can and do support a variety of causes and policies without they themselves benefitting from them.

[stavros]

> "Rich" people don't want socialized healthcare because of perceived or real disadvantages of that system. Not because "the poors might get it".

That's fair, I should have said "because the poors might benefit". Rich people don't like socialized healthcare because they, by definition, will pay for people who can't afford it.

The problem is when people who will benefit from this identify with people who will lose from it.

> People can and do support a variety of causes and policies without they themselves benefitting from them.

They do, but here we're talking about the opposite: People being against policies they benefit from, because they identify with the group that will not.

P.S. I liked your comment, it was a reasoned reply that furthers the debate, thank you.

[EgregiousCube]

You'll find very few people who don't want poor people to have things and it's disingenuous to put it that way.

The two commonly held arguments against socialized healthcare in America are: First, a distrust that the government will create a system that is good and a belief that quality will decrease under such a system, and;

Second, that such a system would be funded by a large tax increase and that Americans are in general hard to get excited about tax increases. The financial concern is in the taking, not in the getting.

[danaris]

> You'll find very few people who don't want poor people to have things and it's disingenuous to put it that way.

I'm afraid your experiences are not universal.

There is a very strong streak of this in the US, significantly (though probably not wholly) traceable to the Calvinist roots of the Puritans who were a profound influence on the early culture of the country. When you believe that people's position on Earth is due to their level of deserving (Just World Fallacy), it's very easy to extend that to "and therefore we shouldn't try to help poor people; they're just being punished for being bad people."

[EgregiousCube]

There is a wide gap between not wanting to be responsible for helping the poor and actively wanting the poor to fail. You're confusing the two.

[danaris]

You're right about the first part, but I'm not confused about anything.

There are genuinely many people who wholeheartedly believe that the poor deserve to be poor, and that helping them is bad. Some of them aren't even that well off themselves, but have bought into an ideology that's detrimental to them.

If you haven't encountered these people, then count yourself lucky, but don't try to deny their existence or assume your own experiences are universal.