I’m a conservative, and my guess is that my views are broadly in agreement with other American conservatives. In my opinion, there are two main reasons to oppose these measures:

• A lack of faith in the federal government’s ability to do a good job.
• The American people’s total inability to hear the word “no” when it comes to things they want.

Going in reverse, if you look at “free” services in other parts of the developed world, they’re based on rationing service.

In Germany, for example, only demonstrably promising students get the state to fund their college – others get sent to what we in the US would call community college or trade school. In the US, progressives can only even propose pie-in-the-sky fantasies like “everyone gets to go to as much college as they want for free” because anything less than that – i.e., parents and children sometimes being told “no” by the state – is a total nonstarter in our “everyone’s a winner” society.

A German approach would collapse by year 2 – and I’m being generous by saying it would make it past year 1 – in the US.

The same is true with healthcare. In much of the world, if you want an expensive procedure done, you have to get in line, and that’s assuming that you qualify. I live in Houston, home to some of the world’s best hospitals, and the number of people from places like Canada and Europe who come here would surprise many. Why?

Because they don’t want to wait months for major surgeries or cancer treatments. Americans are used to receiving the services they want now, now, now. Again, as with college, the only thing that people could likely agree upon would be an “everyone gets everything they want, whenever they want” approach that simply isn’t financially feasible.

And then there’s the government itself. Our problems with healthcare/college didn’t magically appear this year – rather, they’ve been brewing for some time, and people have just ignored them because admitting there’s a problem bursts desirable narratives and dealing with everything is colossally difficult for the reasons discussed above.

But at core, the biggest issues in both systems are due to our federal government (1) injecting tons of money without regard to quality/outcome, creating zero incentive for efficiency/cost control and (2) burdening both with tons of well-intentioned, feel-good regulations that drive up costs in the real world. And yet, these same bureaucrats – most of whom have no idea how markets work – are going to be our salvation if given more power? It doesn’t make sense.

I’m actually not opposed to “free” healthcare or college, and will readily concede that at least some nations do one or both reasonably well. But in order to work, “free” systems – i.e., those paid for by taxpayer funds – have to be responsible with taxpayer money, and being responsible means saying no, even when people and special interest groups stomp their feet and cry.

I have zero faith in childish voters and pandering politicians – the same people who have run up a colossal national debt yet contend we must continue running enormous deficits – to be responsible.

---

The framing of this question expresses a real frustration I have as a conservative.

I’m a conservative. A strong conservative. That isn’t the same as right-wing, though the media presents them as the same thing, and many of the answers here make the same assumption.

Obviously, if you are truly financially conservative, you will support some version of universal health care. The numbers add up. Either we’re willing to kick people to the curb and watch them suffer and die when they can’t pay for their health care, or we are a compassionate culture who will care for the ill.

I want to believe that we’re a compassionate culture. I do believe that. Being Progressive doesn’t give you a monopoly on compassion, right? Once we take that leap and accept that we will care for people in our culture, then the math makes it clear that a fiscal conservative will support some form of universal healthcare. What does it look like? How do we build in some incentive for personal accountability?

That’s what has to be figured out, but I can’t imagine anyone being able to make a fiscally conservative argument for our current system that feeds a massive insurance layer between the provider and the recipient, a layer that adds zero value, reduces quality, and increases our cost enormously.

So please, reframe your question. I’m a conservative who loves the idea of universal healthcare.

Maybe a better question is why do those on the far right oppose universal healthcare. If you asked it that way, I’d say that the most obvious answer is that the survival of the insurance industry (health insurance industry) REQUIRES that we maintain the status quo, and that we continue to leave them as the death panel and arbitrator or all things health related.

Understanding that, is it any surprise that they spend billions buying congress members? And then, is it any surprise that those congress members do all they can to thwart the kind of reform that Conservatives and Progressives both will like?

Of course not. The answer is simple. Money. Insurance companies pay it, congress members take it, that’s how the laws get made since Citizens United.

But please stop assuming that conservatives are right-wingers. There are a ton of us out here who are not. The right wing is further from true conservatism now than it has been in my entire life, and moving further away every day.

UPDATED ANSWER: I think I have only partially made the point I want to make, based on the comments.

The Republican party are masters of manipulating the media. As they’ve moved further to the right, they’ve clung fiercely to the “conservative” label because it is that label that many identify with.

And what is conservatism? Many comments suggest that it’s nothing but a label, and it has no meaning. I disagree. Conservative positions should “conserve”, as the late great Teddy Roosevelt taught us. They should conserve fiercely. Yet the R party today is the antitheses of the meaning of conservative in that most obvious sense, right?

Whether it’s conserving the environment or conserving resources or conserving human dignity. A fiscally conservative position (as I imply above) believes is spending less than you take in, and would NEVER advocate that we should buy the most expensive and worthless bauble on the shelf, which is what we do with our health insurance structure.

I could go on for days on this stuff. The point is that if Democrats want to contract their party, they can continue to look for ways to draw heavier lines between themselves and “conservatives.’

However, if they would like to capitalize on the opportunity that Trump, Ryan, and McConnell have given them, they can recognize how far things have moved to the right, and recognize that today, Democrats no longer represent a far left position (though there are a few who do) but instead represent a center position.

What a coup it would be for them to begin to capitalize on this by claiming the “conservative” label, and marrying it to the “progressive” label, leaving the Republicans to search for some new label that represents what they have truly become?

I might actually identify as a Democrat then. What Ds would they lose? Only those who can’t let go of outdated use of labels. Reagan and his bunch did that back in 1980, effectively labeling the Ds as far to the left and inviting lots of moderate Ds into the Republican party, where they have been voting ever since.

Words matter. Labels matter. Look how brilliantly the anti abortion movement started calling themselves “pro-life” back in the 70’s, reframing that debate permanently.

I happen to disagree that most of those people are in fact pro-live based on their voting record in other areas that actually do impact human life, but the fact that they have effectively labeled themselves shifts the debate permanently, right? (I happen to believe that abortion is a deeply tragic choice, and would rarely advise for it if I were asked for advice. I also believe that it’s a choice to be made. I know lots of folks who identify as R and believe this.)

Look back on the political landscape over the past 35 years, and see how brilliantly the Rs have used labels and words to reframe things to their advantage. When have the Ds done that? How about now? Just start by referring to these jokers as extreme right wingers, and publicly point out at every opportunity that they are not conservative? Invite the “me’s” of the world into your tent.