No... it's a statemet of fact that means when I leave the doctor's, I don't have to pull out my checkbook or credit card or wait for a bill to arrive.
This is the most strawman of strawmen I might ever have heard.
By your logic, the word "free" should be banished from the English language, because literally nothing could ever be free.
Except, for people who have common sense, "free" means you don't have to pay for the thing directly.
In this case, your taxes get aggregated with everyone else's and then some gets split up into health services. But since there's no direct connection between the two -- you don't get more healthcare if you pay more taxes individually, and you don't get to pay less taxes if you don't go to the doctor -- it's conceptualized as paying taxes on one end, and getting free health care on the other. This is just common sense. Everyone understands how this works. It's the same way we have free schools. Or you think schools aren't actually free either...?
Again, by your logic, nothing provided by someone else could ever be free. Right?
So then what exactly is the point of having the word?
So let's get rid of the word. Now, we need a word to mean things you don't pay for directly, since that's a very useful and practical concept when it comes to your personal budget. What do you think of the word... I'm just brainstorming here... "free"?
Am I missing something here?
For Europeans, while they understand the concept of taxes, the government’s vastness and involvement in everything make it a black box that they fund without having a say. They can just hope it’s being used effectively (although many believe it isn’t).
Most European elections revolve around sentimental signaling and rarely present concrete plans that explain practical solutions to problems.
Americans assume the rest of the world is on the same page, but that’s not the case IMO
You're taking a bizarrely extreme ideological position that does not match reality. Elections in countries like France and Germany are vibrant and heavily contested and citizens are greatly interested and involved.
Whether there's more sentimental signaling than you'd like, or too few concrete plans -- that's true across the world, and in the US.
But that has nothing to do with whether it makes sense to call government services provided at no direct cost "free".
You've made it clear you want to redefine language to suit your kind of right-wing ideology, where you seem shockingly judgmental and dismissive of your fellow citizens. No thanks.
