enemyofmyenemy on Yik Yak | 1. Economics 2. Morality 3. Practicality 4. The government would ruin it 5. Poor people would ruin it 6. Rich people would ruin it 7. We will make up new things to nationalize

Yik Yak

Download

Join communities on Yik Yak Download

🚮

US Politics 1d

enemyofmyenemy

1. Economics 2. Morality 3. Practicality 4. The government would ruin it 5. Poor people would ruin it 6. Rich people would ruin it 7. We will make up new things to nationalize

US Politics 1d

I don’t understand why people are against universal healthcare, free higher education, public federal grocery stores and public housing.

🪳

Anonymous 1d

Yeah, like, actually I think most people are on the side of it in reality, but bc it’s not our reality and it’s a political thing rn, that’s why people have reservations or hate for it. And in countries that have it, it def has limitations just as bad as in America. I think the worst thing is how much it mentally impacts people for the negative when then think about having to go to the doctor and after they get treatment. Which you don’t see in countries that have these social programs.

🫕

Anonymous 1d

I’m gonna need to see you expand on “morality” because I feel like universal healthcare usually has the morality side when I talk to people who have the other objections you listed. Like, when I was living in the South, I talked to a lot of conservatives, and they were always like “yeah, that would be ideal, but… [other objection on your list]”

Anonymous 1d

Universal healthcare - good if done right Free higher education - also good if done right, maybe stricter standards for public school and it’s free + heavy student debt reform Public grocery stores - LIMITED. They are an option for some food deserts but they are not amazing Public housing - LIMITED, I think we can expand a bit but more supply-side reform and also Social housing is better IMO

Anonymous 1d

Can you elaborate?

🚮

Anonymous

#1 1d

lol I was deliberately vague, I know vague posting is a high sin If you want to ask a specific question I’d be glad to expand, I generally believe everything I post, no promises

🚮

Anonymous

#2 1d

There are political activists who are seeking to enact these policies. They are very dangerous. They are activists, meaning they will support these policies no matter what. They will defend these policies no matter what happens, no matter what they are shown, no matter who is hurt. Some of my favorite conversations are with people who support these policies but can just talk to me without repeating DSA talking points

-2

🚮

Anonymous

cheese_of_the_world_unite 1d

People are confusing universal healthcare being a moral good with universal healthcare being a desirable outcome in a vacuum. You want people to be taken care of, but that is not the same as the policy of universal healthcare being morally good. Practicality is pretty important in public policy. There is no way to implement a universal healthcare policy without it having deeply immoral outcomes for individuals who aren’t on the receiving end of “free” services.

-1

Anonymous

enemyofmyenemy 1d

What do you mean? Are you trying to say the people that provide the healthcare wouldnt benefit?

Anonymous

enemyofmyenemy 1d

I’m just saying sure you can vague post if you’d like. That’s your right. Thing is, my question is meant for discussion so if you won’t give me more details so I can understand your points to ask proper questions, then your comment is better being unposted.

🚮

Anonymous

#1 19h

What should I elaborate on, there’s 7 points

🚮

Anonymous

#1 19h

I believe it is immoral for middle income healthy people to be forced to pay for other people’s healthcare. I also believe guaranteeing a service to people is immoral, someone has to provide the service, they should not be forced to if they do not want to. Any universal policy will require some people to be forced to take part in services they do not support (stem cell procedures, abortion, surrogacy) Universal healthcare also violates property rights

Anonymous

enemyofmyenemy 18h

Middle income healthy people are paying over a hundred billion dollars in government subsidies for large corporations. It’s not immoral to pay for other’s healthcare. It’s a moral failing to allow people to die from preventable disease or starve when we have an abundance. How would someone be forced into surrogacy, or any type of procedure? What are you talking about. Also brother a doctor can’t refuse you service now for their own religious beliefs. That’s a violation.

Anonymous

enemyofmyenemy 18h

Also your end statement quite literally is a morally bankrupt statement. You essentially said we should value capital and private property over the lives of others.

🚮

Anonymous

#1 18h

It’s a pretty basic philosophical position that the government should not use force to obtain an outcome that you see as beneficial at the expense of other people’s freedom and autonomy. Objecting to government subsidies is also not an argument for universal healthcare, that’s a simple logical error. I appreciate you engaging in good faith but I think you misunderstood or don’t understand every point I’ve made

🚮

Anonymous

#1 18h

You should read objections to utilitarianism, they explore why certain rights of some people should not be violated to benefit other people. I’m not sure I really respect the position that can be paraphrased as “we can save this one person so it’s immoral to not implement my preferred policy”

Anonymous

enemyofmyenemy 18h

But I’m asking what rights are being violated? Universal healthcare would be paid for by the federal government using taxes. Same with public grocery stores. Multiple countries pay the same in taxes that the US pays but still have more social welfare benefits.