Why so much hate of Universal health care in the USA?

Post Reply New Topic

The US is the only country in the western democratic world that does not have a universal health system because of the moronic fears of Socialism/Communism pushed by the militant Neo-Conservative right wing ranters that make up over 50% of the American population. It will cost too much money and the Communists/Socialists will destroy health system for everyone.

Europe, Australia, Canada and other places from the world have benefited from having both public and private health systems working together to deliver health care for everyone regardless of the bank account balances of people. Socio-economic status is just a silly class divide of who has the biggest/most wealth or assets. Overseas universal health care system has been a staggering success and crime rates in those countries are so much lower than the high crime rates in the USA.

The US is drowning in trillions of debt trying to win multiple wars against phantom enemies in foreign lands in pursuit of maintaining Imperialism. The Republicans support killing and maiming millions of innocent people in foreign land by the US military to the tune of trillions to tax payers every year but they do not care about helping the sick poor people of America.

In the US when your private user pay health insurance runs out you literally get thrown out of hospital onto the street like piece of garbage. The US calls itself the land of the free but is so over run by corruption in government and is the nation of hypocrisy.

One of the concerns - as related to me by a rabid Obama-hater - is that the law would require every citizen to purchase health insurance, thus opening the opportunity for the insurance companies to exploit the desperation of those who need health care the most.

Personally, I like the idea of universal health care, but I would not like having to wait months for a surgical procedure to help me stand and walk without pain, or for a panel of non-medical bureaucrats (e.g., "Bean-Counters") to decide whether or not my heart condition was serious enough to warrant invasive surgury when, in their words, "Medication will work just as well".

I think we have a very serious problem with high medical costs that needs to be sorted out first. If we implement universal coverage or single payer I'm concerned the costs will go up even more since the customer doesn't see the bill.

Also I don't like the idea of central planning social programs coming from Washington D.C.. I just don't think the American Congress can handle it or be trusted with it.

However I'm open to the idea of States and Governor's trying to solve their local healthcare problems. Unemployment Insurance is handled by the States so why not do the same with a health care social safety net.

I am fortunate to live in a country that has universal free health care. I pay nothing to get medical treatment and see a doctor. I live in a country that has lower crimes rates, lower unemployment rates, better public education system, better public transport system, adequate welfare system and a decent public health system. So what citizens of my country pay higher taxes but society is better off than the free market free for all in the USA.

Where do you live and how can I move there?

When our government cannot even handle our current budget with the current tax revenue, I am terrified of what they'll do once we give them even more. We don't trust our government. It has been ingrained into our culture to hate it for better and worse. We are also one of the most diverse countries in the western world which means that things that commonly work in one country with a population that is roughly the same would not work for our country which the population often fights each other over.

The trouble is trusting our government with competent management, controlling costs, not causing a shortage of services, keeping out illegal aliens and protecting privacy (ex: no "national security" excuses). Our government was never designed to have cradle to grave nanny state social programs and it shows when we try.

And is there any reason to believe that a privately-run insurance company will not cause these same problems? Especially given that they already do exactly that?

None at all. I'd just rather work with a corporate bureaucracy (the devil I know) than with a government bureaucracy (the devil I don't know).

Other countries with universal health care have a much better system that allows it to survive.

In the US drug companies are allowed to price drugs however they want, and in turn we have some of the highest priced meds on earth. Ex: The same exact meds, from the same exact company in canada vs US, the canadian drug is much cheaper!

Also the focus in any successful universal healthcare system is on primary care. In the US it is completely opposite, we are heavily focused on specialities. I am not sure if this can be changed, pt's expect their diabets to be managed by endo even though a Family practice or IM could do just as well. Specialists also would not accept a paycut and would fund movements to crush such acts.

The US is also one of the most sue happy western countries. Because of this its impractical to apply data guidelines that would eliminate unnecesary tests because that 0.01 you miss will sue you into homelessness. EX: Guidlines to limit use of CT-scans of the head, you can save hundreds of millions-but that Dr who WILL miss a head bleed will be sued for millions

The state of Pennsylvania DID work out its own helath care programs for all citizens starting with children. Thanks to the upcoming Obama care the adult version has been closed down. I wish the federal government would have looked more closely at letting the states fend for themselves - with implementation guidance - and the federal government tackled the issue of medical care reform as its main issue.

I've heard in general that local level efforts to create medical coverage that makes more sense is often crushed by Big Government and Big Business.

One idea I heard was a Clinic offering coverage for a monthly fee like a subscription. Kind of like cutting out the Insurance middleman. Of course local authorities said they couldn't do that and it was threatened with legal action.

Fnord, I live in Canada and have never experienced firsthand, nor have any of my aquaintances, the concerns you have raised.

My American relatives, on the other hand... Some of them cannot even afford the medication they need - even with private insurance. Every time they go to fill a repeat, the co-pay has increased exponentially.

I think a lot of the trouble facing the implementation of universal health care in the US is driven by the media. You hear "horror stories" of what universal health care is like in places like Canada - but if you ask an actual Canadian about their experiences, you'll hear a totally different story.

Also, there is not much in the way of "government bureaucracy" to be seen when I visit the hospital or doctor's office here in Toronto. I go in, show my health card, see a doctor, and if they want me to have additional tests, they write up the requisition. There aren't any "bean counters" sitting there watching over the doctor's shoulder to make accounting decisions about the necessity of a medical procedure or test. My doctor does what he/she feels is medically warranted. The healthcare system pays the bill.

My understanding of HMO's is that doctors can make recommendations for medical procedures or tests, but that the HMO's "bean counters" make the ultimate decision as to whether or not it is covered. I'd be much more afraid of such a system than Canada's universal healthcare system.

Isn't Canada's health care system run primarily by the Provinces?

I just wonder because in a similar way I think American health coverage should be run Regionally or by the States, but not Federally. However every time any social program is proposed here all candidates want the Federal Government to run it.

Religious Right groups who have complete control over the Republican party claim that universal health care is pure Communism and health care should only be available to personally responsible people who can afford it. What the religious right fails to realize is that in their bible a tithe or ten percent tax was imposed on all of the people in ancient Israel and this tax went to the Levitical priesthood that was in charge of all of the medical care. So if the religious right is to be consistent they would have to admit that their own bible is just a bunch of commie propaganda.

This is not true and just gossip.

Doctors can charge any way they want, including a "monthly fee", which is called concierge medicine. And its not for "the people", its for middle to upper class people who can afford a consistent monthly fee. This would be guaranteed income for the doctors and would increase the doctors income. And guess what: If you need a CT or MRI and he doesn't own these devices: you will be paying with insurance and copays. Same as if he admitted you to a hospital, as the hospital decides the fees and not the dr.

Furthermore, there are restrictions in canada, the "bean counters" that you don't see. To order a CT you need to fullfill certain criteria, and if you don't.. You don't get one.

Same idea but even worse with MRIs. Did you know NY state has more MRI machines than all of canada? Whereas the time between you getting an MRI in the US is different depending on your insurance, in canada it is constant. Set rules that must be fullfilled before MRI can be ordered.