Broadly speaking, you probably agree with the large majority of the views commonly attributed to whichever group you identify with - what are the exceptions? Something that if you mention without a caveat immediately makes people jump to conclusions or even attack you?
I’m all for healthcare “rationing”, that is cost-effectiveness analysis for both public and insurance-funded healthcare and setting a cap that will exclude even some evidence-based interventions.
Why though?
Why I think so or why it gets me weird looks?
Healthcare is expensive. For public healthcare, it’s always a balancing act between how much to tax, and how to distribute taxed funds. I don’t want sky-high taxes (already live in Finland, not exactly a tax haven); and 100k€ spent on e.g. education is better than 100k€ on a treatment that will likely give someone a year more of life.
For insurance, same, I just don’t want to pay as much as “truly full coverage” would cost. I’m fine dying if a year of keeping me alive would cost over 50-100k$ to the shared pool, whatever it was, and would want to share the pool with others who feel like me. I wouldn’t grudge more costly premium plans for other people though.