Originally Posted By: Captain Sammitch
Giving everyone health care is just a short step away from making everyone dependent on the government for health care. History tells us that totalitarian regimes of any stripe get their start by becoming 'provider' societies. The primary difference is that far-right regimes secure the dependence of their citizens by promising intangibles like total security and national glory while leftist regimes do so by promising material things like universal healthcare and equal pay for everyone regardless of, well, anything.

police, fire, ambulance.
we already depend on the government for security. you dial 911 and expect it to be there and it is. that is government provided support that we're all dependent on in our daily lives for simple order and safety.
fbi, cia, the army.
we already have an expectation of protection from foreign threats and domestic problems. you go to sleep not checking the horizon at night because you're dependent on them for that support.
fda, epa.
you already have the dependency of going to the store and feeling safe buying food and medicine.

so if the government fails in any of those other jobs, why shouldn't they get you better? is a business trying to make a profit really better than an agency run by people who can be dismissed for any public fuck ups.
and since they're held responsible for protecting us from unnatural death that can be prevented, why not keep you healthy?

the difference between private insurance and government provided insurance is that the government care is guaranteed. there's no profit margin for the government. no businessman deciding whether to treat you based on money. private insurance companies are worse than the government, they have more power.

Bow ties are coool.