Why do conservatives oppose universal healthcare and free college?

Originally answered by Steven Miller · April 28, 2018

Socialism cannot recognize individual rights.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wealth.

Christians voluntarily take care of the less fortunate. They do this out of love. Christians love their neighbors as they would love themselves.

Liberals force others to take care of the less fortunate. They use force, threats of fines, garnishments, violent evictions and asset forfeiture.

I can spot the difference between love and violence. Why can’t you?
I can spot the difference between responsibility to your fellow man, and avoidance of responsibility.
Christians cannot associate with freeloaders. Second Thessalonians 3:14 (start reading at verse 6).


Regulated healthcare is un-American.

Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, during the Constitutional debates in 1787:

“The Constitution of this Republic should make special provision for medcal freedom. To restrict the art of healing to one class will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic. … Unless we put medical freedom into the constitution the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship and force people who wish doctors and treatment of their own choice to submit to only what the dictating outfit offers.”

Before the original 13 State Constitutions were written, the ONLY prescription drug law was for slaves. Slaves needed their owner’s permission to take drugs. When America became a free country, the Constitution abolished the only drug law that existed, even though the slaves were not yet free. Law textbooks said that Slave rights had been “wholly annihilated, or reduced to a shadow”. (quote is from Tucker’s 1803 Virginia law update to Blackstone’s law encyclopedia Book 1, Part 2, Note H “The state of slavery”)

Government has a right to regulate what it funds. This gives them jurisdiction. But Socialized medicine cannot work. This has reduced America’s infant survival rate to 34th in the world and American’s life expectancy to 35th. U.S. regulated “healthcare” is no longer about healthcare.

England has socialized health care. Hospitals make millions euthanizing patients http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/Europe/item/13477-british-hospitals-make-millions-euthanizing-patients

If you think others should be forced to pay for your problems, then you just might get what you deserve.

The document Shattered Lives has one hundred horror stories of the misery promised by socialized health care in Britain, Canada, Australia, Japan, Sweden and New Zealand.
Link: https://nationalcenter.org/2009/09/09/100-stories-of-personal-struggles-with-the-health-care-system-you-wont-hear-from-president-obama/

Hitler was a socialist. He had a solution for useless eaters.

Communist China has death vans. 24 death vans in every big city. Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1165416/Chinas-hi-tech-death-van-criminals-executed-organs-sold-black-market.html
By the way, China is our highest creditor and you are the collateral for our national debt.


The General Welfare clause in the Constitution DOES NOT provide for individual welfare.

President Franklin Pierce in 1854 vetoed our nation’s first health care bill — a bill to help the mentally ill. His veto said

“I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity…. [this] would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”

And Congress cannot impose health care costs on employers according to the US Supreme Court in Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co. 295 U.S. 330:

“The catalog of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical attendance, nursing, clothing, food, housing, and education of children, and a hundred other matters might with equal propriety by proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things? Is it not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power.” [May 6, 1935]

If health care costs are out of control, it is because Congress wanted the problems. Hospitals are forced to give away their best services to people who will not pay. You end up paying. This is outright socialism. Government interference with health care is part of the planned destruction of America.

  • Food is a human necessity. What would happen if congress forced the best restaurants to give away their best food to people who will not pay?
  • Shelter is a human necessity. What would happen if congress forced the best hotels to give away their best suites to people who will not pay? We are already half-way to outright socialism. (housing is a necessity of life according to the Supreme Court Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 and Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, etc.)

The problems caused by too much government interference are not a logical excuse to demand more government interference.


United States Supreme Court keeps persisting, over and over and over again that it is the parents’ duty to educate their children. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, and there are dozens of cases on family privacy.

Parents’ have a duty to educate their children.
In 1993 a federal court ruled in Qutb v. Strauss, 11 F3d 488: “Parents right to rear children without undue governmental interference is a fundamental component of due process.” Even the U.S. Supreme Court repeated Blackstone’s principle of natural law in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, by concluding “it is the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life…”

For more information read my essays at www.NotFooledByGovernment.com

Leave a Reply