> Describing it as “free” is a marketing tactic that assumes people are stupid.

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.

But the doctor isn't working for free, the nurse isn't working for free, the receptionist isn't working for free, the machines in the office weren't free, the rent on the office isn't free. Yes, theres no bill that arrives that you pay for directly out of pocket, but the system very much isn’t actually free.

Who on earth thinks the doctor is working for free, or the nurse, or anyone else...?

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...?

They're not? If you're the type of person to pay taxes, that money gets used to pay the teachers. The pizza restaurant that offers free delivery - that's also not free. They use the money from the customer buying pizza to pay the delivery driver. If you're in a country that allows businesses to get away with that, that might explain your confusion, but not all countries, eg Germany, allow businesses to get away with false advertising like that.

I'm having a hard time taking this seriously.

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?

This is where you’re being naive. I meant this in other parts of the thread: Americans are more connected to the outcome of taxes because the government doesn’t control every aspect of life.

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

I'm sorry, but you're the one who seems naive here. European governments "control every aspect of life"? What are you on about? Europe isn't Soviet communism, or a dictatorship under Mussolini.

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.

Great. I suppose we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Time will tell. I’m still a bit confused about the right-wing remark though.

As I mentioned, my only claim here is that I’ve lived for years in various Western countries. I’ve paid taxes, held jobs, bought and sold homes, made friends, volunteered, and so on. I believe my experiences give me an edge over others who just are “traveling” or “spending the summer.”

I grew up in Europe, and I can tell you that you’ll encounter more right-wing perspectives in a random bar on a Tuesday than you’ll find anywhere in America. Europe has always been an ethnonationalist continent, which is why it surprises me that calling out its inner workings would result in accusations of being right-wing.

Like I said, time will tell.

I don't know what you're confused about.

Any political scientist will tell you that the American political spectrum is well to the right of the European one, no matter what personal conversations you have in bars.

And you're advocating for less social spending -- that's essentially the definition of right-wing on the economic dimension.

And there's no need for any "time will tell". Conservatives have been complaining about social spending for a solid three-quarters of a century by now. If three generations isn't enough to show that social democracy is a system that works in terms of delivering services, how much more do you need?

I’m not against public spending. US presidents from both parties have increased public spending when necessary.

Your perspective on the US political spectrum is where I suggest you reconsider. Most Europeans are ethnonationalists, regardless of their political leanings.

Consider the rise of the far right following immigration. While the outcome remains uncertain, I fear it won’t be pretty. It certainly won’t be something to boast about. Europe is on the brink of experiencing its most extreme, fascist, racist, and rightward shift in a long time.

This raises the question of why you’re so certain that Europe is “left-leaning.”