So there are many different ways to go about deilvering single payer healthcare, healthcare for the citizens provided by the state. Various western governments have various models. They vary in private v public, coverage, how they handle immigrants, how they distribute funds, they are not universal in the true spirit of the word. I understand this in principle and my question is more first principles, not dissecting medicare for all.
First principles being if you have an accident or get sick, the state will look after you, you won't go bankrupt, you wont expected to enter heavy debt, or endure chronic pain or sickness.
What is the real level of support for some model that more closely resembles that of canada or other western countries in delivering some system which delivers on this first principle?
Where do the bulk of democrats fall on this?
Where do yhe bulk of republicans fall on this?
Where do the economic libertarians fall on this?
I do understand the power of the idea that big government is bad and governments are inefficient compared to the free market.
It seems agreed upon near universally in america that if a terrorist or foreign nation seeks to harm usa citizens, spending taxpayers money to combat this is wise. And if the threat of terrorism or foreign militaries grow, increased taxation to combate this increased threat is also seen as wise. But the desire to extend this logic to falling down a stairs or getting cancer is nowhere near as universal.
I understand this topic has been thread upon heavily but I appreciate people's insights.
First principles being if you have an accident or get sick, the state will look after you, you won't go bankrupt, you wont expected to enter heavy debt, or endure chronic pain or sickness.
What is the real level of support for some model that more closely resembles that of canada or other western countries in delivering some system which delivers on this first principle?
Where do the bulk of democrats fall on this?
Where do yhe bulk of republicans fall on this?
Where do the economic libertarians fall on this?
I do understand the power of the idea that big government is bad and governments are inefficient compared to the free market.
It seems agreed upon near universally in america that if a terrorist or foreign nation seeks to harm usa citizens, spending taxpayers money to combat this is wise. And if the threat of terrorism or foreign militaries grow, increased taxation to combate this increased threat is also seen as wise. But the desire to extend this logic to falling down a stairs or getting cancer is nowhere near as universal.
I understand this topic has been thread upon heavily but I appreciate people's insights.
Comment