The Obama administration's claims that healthcare can be fixed without extra taxpayer funds leads some healthcare haves to fear their treatment will be taken away, and redistributed to the healthcare have-nots.
Clearly, Obama's health care plans are going to involve some form of redistribution of resources, and understandably enough, those who stand to profit (materially or ideologically) from it are for the plans, while those who stand to lose from it are against them.
However, it's not just that. Underlying and undermining this whole debate are VERY different views of and attitudes towards towards society itself, one's fellow citizens, and the STATE.
All states claim to be - and create national myths to reinforce it - the legitimate heir of its subjects' (citizens') TRIBE, within the context of which most human social behaviour (including feelings of loyalty, commitment and altruism) evolved, long before the advent of civilization.
If this myth of the equivalence of state and tribe (nation) were true then, of course, one would rightly expect the state (representing one's tribe or nation) to provide the highest possible level of social welfare, including equitable universal health care.
But it's not true. It's largely a myth, perpetrated and defended by the state to facilitate its primary purpose (ever since it was created by a coalition of aristocracy and clergy back in the Middle Ages) of facilitating society's self-exploitation, to the advantage of its dominant and privileged elites.