Hacker News Reader

Comment by grecy | Hacker News Reader

I spent my summer with a staunch Republican, and I think I understand now.

My friend explained (over many arguments over many months) he simply does not want to pay for anyone's healthcare. He goes to work, and pays his own. He expects others will go to work, and pay their own. End of story. It's that simple for him.

He doesn't even care if paying a little more tax would result in better healthcare for him. He'd rather have shittier healthcare himself than accept paying even a tiny bit for another persons healthcare.

It's completely unacceptable to him that he should have to go to work more (i.e. pay more taxes) to fund someone's healthcare.

I get it. He doesn't care about a "we" society where we all look out for each other and share the wealth and do well, he wants a "me" society, where me does well.

NOTE: Not my views, don't shoot the messenger.

View on HN

And I have a very hard time even trying to explain that attitude to people over here in Australia. It just doesn't register anymore than it would for Police or Fire.

Setting aside the ethics, this attitude doesn't even make sense on its own because very few people actually pay for their own healthcare costs in the U.S., they use insurance through their work, and that is all subsidized by the government anyways because unlike other compensation you get it has a tax break instead of being taxed as your other income.

IMO, it's just a complete takeover of the legislature on this issue by insurance lobbyists and certain sectors of healthcare, but they managed to get the original laws written so that any change looks like some kind of benefit, even though it's already being subsidized, it's just the businesses and insurance companies that get the subsidy and not the tax payer.

But he's not just paying for his own healthcare, even if he has insurance. He's paying into a pool of money, contributed to by all the members of that pool, from which the funds to pay his medical costs are pulled.

The major difference is that his pool is controlled by a company with shareholders who expect to leech off a certain amount of money every month. On the other hand, the government is forcing us to hand money to a private corporation with shareholders that expect to leech off a small amount every month, but the corporation has no say in who gets in the pool.

Single-payer. It's time, dammit.

That's the same view members of my family have. Yet some of them are on food stamps and mad that they can't get Medicaid. Well, duh, when you support the very politicians that are fighting against YOUR ability to get food and healthcare when you're on hard times, that's what happens.

I live in the South and there's so many people that are so ingrained in the belief that they don't want to pay for other people, that they forget that they could easily lose everything and need a crutch to get back on their feet.

Disappointing how many Republicans hold this view and simultaneously claim to be the party of Christianity. How does refusing to support people worse off than you square with this: "from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them."

From my Republican friends, it'd that they believe that it's there churches/Christian's responsibility to take care of the poor, not the government.

I still find this sort of idealism confusing.

Some insurance companies require employers to sign up a certain percentage of their employees to get the rates they have. Bigger companies often have better plans simply because more people are paying into the system as well. In addition to paying for other folks' care through insurance, he's also paying a premium for his care in part to pay for other people.

In addition, he'd actually work less. If you turned the rates folks pay for health care into a tax, it would make the tax rate fairly high - I dont have numbers, but I'm going to guess it would put it over and above what average tax rates in single-payer nations pay. He'd only really be "paying for himself" in either case. Not to mention the ridiculous out of pocket amounts. 2000-5000 a year deductible is nearly like not having insurance if you are making a low wage because that is a significant portion of your yearly salary.

And the sad portion of all this is that for many folks with such idealism, even showing how it would work on paper isn't enough to change their minds - mostly because it isn't an issue of even what is best for self. It is (sometimes nearly religious) support for an idealism they don't want to give up.

aah he has principles! I bet he never would call the fire department or police for himself either, because of those same principles. =p

Hilariously, he was a Policeman for 30 years :)

Interesting!

I think that those who work for the government are not participating in captialism, but I have met many who like to complain about those who participate in socialism, and criticize those engaged in capitalism.

It must be nice to be able to say these things while looking forward to a taxpayer funded annuity retirement and planning to enroll in Medicare, even hiring a consultant to maximize the benefits.

> It's completely unacceptable to him that he should have to go to work more (i.e. pay more taxes) to fund someone's healthcare.

Technically he would go to work less (pay less taxes) under a single payer system.

So I assume he opposes Medicaid for children and the disabled and Medicare for the elderly as well?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com