It's a bit ironic that those of us who grew up in actual communism understand the difference between government-planned healthcare and government-funded healthcare better than Americans. Even as the communist regime was being torn apart, I don't remember anyone wanting to take down the health system. It's still chronically underfunded and many people also purchase third-party health insurance in order to have access to better facilities, but the rates never reach even within an order of magnitude of USA's.

Maybe it's not ironic at all, since you actually experienced it and know the difference.

Yes, that's why I think the word 'propaganda' is fitting, because for a lot of older Americans the 'C' word was bad full stop and didn't merit any further discussion on what parts were bad and what parts may make some sense.

Why would we trust the government that just fed us the propaganda you're talking about to run a healthcare system in our interest?

> "In fact I think we have the millennials to thank as they grew up after the cold war and did not experience much of the propaganda that older generations did, so they are more open to policies like universal healthcare."

So they haven't seen the negative consequences of too much government power and thus are too quick to call for government solutions.

Great question, one that I'll flip on you as well. Why would we trust private companies to make a healthcare decision that might sacrifice profit for my health? Anticipating your answer that the marketplace solves that issue, but that doesn't exactly help the people that were adversely affected before the marketplace stepped in to solve the problem.

Answering your question, I put more trust in my government than private corporations because government ostensibly works for me, and citizens get to influence the makeup of our government. (Note, I'm not American, if I lived under the US democracy I might feel differently).

> Why would we trust private companies to make a healthcare decision that might sacrifice profit for my health?

I would say that if there was no government involvement, then their profit would depend on providing quality healthcare service. Right now there are so many regulations and government controls that I can't even choose between multiple providers, pitting them against each other to offer better service.

I'd actually love to purchase private insurance from another country if that was an option. Let's use globalization for good to lower healthcare costs for all. Imagine consulting with a doctor in India over an iOS app and ordering drugs from Mexico...

All of that would only be possible by removing the government from the picture.

Because those private companies actually have some kind of incentive to keep you happy. If Company A doesn’t give you a good deal on your healthcare, Company B will, meaning Company A will lose out. It’s not a difficult concept.

You really trust the government to take care of you? How blind are you? The UK government wasted £12 billion of taxpayer money on an abandoned IT system.

> if Company A doesn’t give you a good deal on your healthcare

... well, too late, because your insurance was chosen and paid for by your employer (if you have one), and your clinical decisions were made for you. Oh, and if you try to change insurers you will be denied coverage for your "pre-existing condition".

The UK is far from perfect, but it does the basics well (antibiotics, contraceptives, emergency care, insulin). And there's zero risk of it making your state worse by bankrupting you.

And for those who want faster care, private insurance is still an option. It's just that: an option. Not something that people have to desperately scramble for.

That’s debatable, and I suppose relative. I’m still bitter about homeopathy and breast implants being given to patients on the NHS, which I am paying for through taxes.

> If Company A doesn’t give you a good deal on your healthcare, Company B will

Then when you need to make a claim you discover that Company B gave a good deal because in the fine print they added exclusions that result in your claim being rejected for some arbitrary reason. So yes, in the long term the competitive landscape works as word gets out that Company B's plan is garbage, but in the short term you are forced into personal bankruptcy or a worse health outcome.

Catching a cold is not a direct consequence of being cold.

An orange is not necessarily orange.

A government with social programs is not the definition of Socialism.

Socialism is two things:

- No profit

- No private property

The consequence in 100% of historic attempts has been immense suffering. More than even the Nazis could deal out.

It’s not propaganda. Open a history book.

Regards,

A left-wing liberal who’s ancestors suffered first under Nazi occupation, and then under Communism — which is the goal of Socialism.

> It’s not propaganda. Open a history book.

I've read about South & Central America's attempts to move towards the left and how after each attempt the US responded by spending millions to bring down legitimate democratic movements, or even worse installed devastating puppet right wing regimes with chilling affects that we still see today.

Regardless, my point was simply that the fear mongering against socialism bled into a fear of social welfare programs in general. If you took my comment as advocating for changing the US to socialism then I was unclear with my intent.