zlacker

>>wallfl+(OP)
There are three things a nation needs to accept about universal health care:

(1) It’s expensive (2) Everybody has to pay (3) The government’s gotta run it

>>GnarfG+Th
>The government’s gotta run it

But there are plenty of countries with functioning healthcare systems that are private? The Swiss, for instance. Moreover depending on what counts as "government’s gotta run it" (paying for it? administering it? actually providing care?) you can argue that the German or even Canadian systems aren't government run, at least to some degree.

>>gruez+zk
So why don't we see Republican Americans advocating to adopt the Swiss system which provides universal coverage at a lower per capita cost?

>>olddus+hm
In speaking with my republican father in law on his opposition to universal healthcare, it dawned on me that he views it as a sort of zero sum game. If he has healthcare today, and then universal healthcare offers it to folks that don't have it today, it is a loss for him.

>>Montgo+jx
Something I've run into in similar situations is the "moral necessity of punishment", sort of a reverse just-world fallacy.

"There are people not good enough for health care and helping them would violate this natural order".

>>wredco+9B
It’s absolutely the case that public health coverage will benefit some people who make bad health decisions at the cost to some of those who make good decisions (or the decisions themselves must be made by a central authority).

That doesn’t make it the wrong policy decision. Lots of systems we happily manage with similar dynamics. But I don’t think denying that basic fact is the right path forward. The moral hazard is real and worth acknowledging.