• thedarkfly
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    20 days ago

    Somebody listened to this and can tell me what his rationale was? The unspoken reason is probably like less taxation for the rich and profit in the medical industry, but what are the “sensible” arguments he would be brave enough to formulate in public at the time? If it’s about medical research and innovation, it could be assured by the government but “it’s not the job of the state to ensure the people’s well-being”? Or “people will get lazy if their health is not on the line”?

    • thedarkfly
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      20 days ago

      Okay, I had a listen. Basically his arguments are:

      • People don’t want it, it is forced through ruse by socialist politicians.
      • It removes freedom from patients to choose their insurance, health care provider etc.
      • It removes freedom from physicians to choose their working methods and living/practicing location. The state will control every aspect of their profession.
      • By slippery slope, it’s going to lead to the same for every profession.

      So it’s an attack point to impose socialism in America. Eh.