As a sibling poster to you said, the ridiculous pricing is part of a game between insurers and care providers. Throwing more money at insurers might not be the ideal answer.
Is everyone against that really a "person that hates others so much"?
> we have movement in the other direction because a lot of people hate others so much they do not want them to have healthcare
Last I checked nobody was opposing healthcare discussion and debate, so the "opposing" you're talking about appears to be in reference to Obamacare. Obamacare allowing healthcare providers and insurance companies to game the system more than ever before, by providing the backing of government coffers.
One either throws money at something that "obviously won't solve the problem"[0] or one "hates people to the degree that one does not want people to have healthcare"[0].
> That viewpoint is inexcusable in my opinion
What was that you were saying about inexcusable viewpoints?
[0] Paraphrased, but sentiment remains the same.
I drew the Obamacare conclusion from the reason in my above response. Nobody is adverse to discussing healthcare solutions, so what are you talking about when you say there is a movement of hate to the degree such that people are actively rejecting the idea of others having access to healthcare?
You might try to see how some of them might (reasonably) feel that the individual mandate was removing choice from them, rather than adding it. You might try to see how some of them felt that the cost of the mandated insurance was breaking them financially. Then you might not be so quick to ascribe their motives to nothing but hate.
You could have that level of empathy and still disagree with them.
You need to remember that healthcare and education taxes are literal robbery on the rich, who never have, and never will use those services.
I'm going to say something that is controversial, and I myself haven't decided is fact, so please don't interpret it that way. Most people who work hard and are smart, can get themselves out of the lower class, regardless of their start in life (assuming they are in a first world Western country).
For reference, I live in Australia and I pay a Medicare levy (public healthcare tax). I do not have private insurance and regularly use public healthcare services. Additionally, I have been on welfare in the past. I do not believe that public health care is a Bad Thing (c), but I believe that robbing from those that have never used the services is deeply immoral.
I am not arguing for or against public healthcare. This is a difficult problem to solve. Im just trying to tell you that the decisions and opinions are not necessarily hate fuelled. If you went outside and spoke to those who disagree with you, and listened, you would see that there are reasons besides hate, that people vote the way they do. If you can see my perspective and agree with what I've written in this comment (it's a hard problem, and I'm not arguing whether healthcare is bad or not), perhaps you would consider mailing your state rep about considering a healthcare plan that is only available to the lowest earning in society, and is funded by those who required the services in the past and have "made it". Perhaps something similar to an education loan in Australia (government pays for your education, you owe them the fee plus 30% (fixed, not annual interest), paid out of a fixed % of your salary whenever you earn more than a certain amount).
While this went through my head, I just thought about the idea of bank loans for medical expenses. Why is this not a thing? The person gets their healthcare (human life value) and then they pay the bank back over time, and don't have to rob other people (anti-theft value). I am absolutely sure that I'm not the first to come up with this idea, what down-sides does this have, such that it hasn't been considered as a viable solution?
By the way, I never said anybody should die. If you had actually read my comment, you would see at least one potential solution to the problem. If somebody with 5m gets sick and the medical bills cost 10m, then they could theoretically get a medical loan which they pay back over time. They might be paying it back for the rest of their life, but at least they're not dead.
I don't have statistics that indicate one way or another about the majority of people voting against public healthcare being those that need it the most. It doesn't really make sense to me, but I'm not arguing that point so I won't debate that.
I don't know what is considered middle class in America, but in Australia, 120k household income before tax is considered basically the bottom of the middle class. I could afford private health insurance in a single income family working as a cashier. So I would question the validity of the middle class being "People who are literally one job loss, accident, or injury away from homelessness".