Again yes for the same reason as mentioned in the previous point, and since the cost of it is not to the society as a whole but rather to business interest it wouldn't cost the tax payer nothing.
You have no idea how business works, do you?
You on the left think that when business takes a hit, they just dig deeper into their pockets.
I have bad news for ya, and that is when business takes any kind of financial hit, they pass that burden to the little guy. They either increase the price of their product, layoff workers, invest in automation, outsource work, ask for more contributions for their employees medical care, or cut down on other benefits.
Yes since there is a direct correlation between poverty and stuff as life expectancy, incarceration rate, social mobility, etc. The cost to society is negligible compared to it's benefits.
We on the right adhere to the cart theory:
A village makes a huge cart, and the townspeople are able to pull that cart down the road effortlessly. After a while, some don't want to pull the cart any longer, so they jump inside the cart instead. Before you know it, half of the people quit pulling the cart and jump in the cart, and then the cart stops.
How long have we had these social programs anyway? And if they are so great in regards to life expectancy, incarceration rates, social mobility, why is it that the liberal welfare cities are places you wouldn't dream of walking at night? Why did their businesses close and property value decrease?
There is no such thing as FREE healthcare. What Libs want is everyone covered, most of the industrialized world has this already and they fund it mostly, out of public funds. As a result they are cheaper.In fact the American healthcare system is the most expensive in the world, if you look at the cost of out of pocket plus publicly funded it is way more expensive. So when you are trying to make a case for it being to expensive one should take in consideration that it already is,and for abysmal results compared to other rich nations.
Health expenditure, total (% of GDP) | Data
One of the reasons our healthcare is so unaffordable IS because of government.
Government typically only pays about 2/3 of the cost of their patents expenses. Medical facilities and personnel have to increase their prices to recoup those losses. That's why when you see such facilities close down, they are usually in lower income areas where there are mostly government patients; there are not enough privately insured patients to make up the loss.
So where would these facilities get the money to recoup the losses of government if government was the only provider?