Do Conservatives oppose universal healthcare on principle, more than practicality?
Create a magical scenario where the US government could implement a universal healthcare model without driving up taxes, blowing up the budget, or whatever other fiscal requirements you would require for it to be a good decision.
Would you still oppose it purely based on principle, since it’s not an enumerated power on the Constitution?
I ask because a lot of the conversations around UHC get into the weeds about the costs.
Dems tend to point out that the aggregate of everything we pay for healthcare now (premiums, deductibles, OOP expenses, out-of-network charges) amounts to costing more than the cost of UHC would be, so even if your taxes go up, other expenses go down and you actually end up paying less for healthcare than you would with the current model.
Conservatives tend to point out our massive debt, being forced to pay for the health care of others, and the government taking more money out of their paychecks.
So am I correct that the objection is based on principle? i.e:
It’s not specifically enumerated as a power of the federal government in the constitution.
Opposed to any socialist policies, especially if it benefits “freeloaders”.
It’s anti free-market.
“Forcing” others to work (still don’t get that one, since doctors and hospitals would still be getting paid).
Government telling you what you must do with your money.
Any others that aren’t currently on the top of my head.
So is there any scenario in the US specifically where conservatives would support and push for UHC?