in the wake of the fairly substantial polemic separation, as well as all the somewhat "la la la la la! i can't hear you! especially when i shout horrible half truths louder than you!" campaigning tactics, i still haven't gotten to the bottom of WHY people are so opposed to universal coverage.
what's so objectionable about it? really objectionable, I mean. What are the real CONS to hammering out some kind of system in which everyone has health care? i'm not talking about costs, nor about illegal residents. Those are somewhat separate facets to the convo, that i'd like to keep separate for now.
No, what i want to know is why is it a BAD IDEA to have health coverage for everyone? I'm really interested in what could possibly be the drawback to achieving SOME sort of system where everyone has some kind coverage?
Up to now i've not seen anyone address this, not even the staunchest republican detractors. I just can't believe that even these detractors feel that our current system is effective. But perhaps i'm wrong maybe they really DO think our way of getting healthy and staying healthy is effective; i mean they haven't really offered any possible OTHER options. Like, Well Mr. President, democrats, and us citizens; we hear what you're saying, we need health care reform. Here's what we came up with, what d'you think of these ideas?
To this point they haven't brought anything to the table, so i need to know, Is this whole thing a terrible case of typical republican game strategy, or d'you think they really think it's disadvantageous to have some sort of coverage for all americans?