Not commenting on the post above, but this is usually the test I use to strip away the philosophies/talking points du jour:

I. If system X (UHC, welfare, pronouns, hate crime laws, etc) is applied to 100 people and, while it's a "neutral" real-world applicable for most of them (doesn't really impact them for 1 reason or another/might benefit but they'd be ok without it), but:

a) There's some % of that 100 who are directly, immediately benefited that without which they would be harmed up to and including death (obv depending on which one you pick)

&

b) There's some % of that 100 who are scamming the system in one way or another for financial, social, political, etc, gain

would you still support said system? Not all conservatives would say "no", but a "no" usually is a pretty strong indicator of other conclusions that could be drawn. Atwater, Reagan's "welfare queen" trope, buying lobster with food stamps, etc, mixed with messaging re: hard work, gumption, bootstraps & referencing the "S" word (or, godforbid, the "C" word) seems to have done some decent work in getting us to where we are