Why are Americans against universal healthcare?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm a proud American and I don't have a solid understanding of healthcare issues, I'm asking what the very main reason for opposing the Obamacare law or UHC is.

I'm not, but some liberals tell me we can't do it becuase republicans are being too mean, and so "poor" <insert democrat politician> just couldn't do it. I don't belive in that nonsense. You passed obamacare, which every republicain supposedly tried to block. Why can't you give us a NHC system? Obamacare isn't a bargin. It's a corporate subsidy, that's making the private healthcare system a even bigger burden on the economy. Politicians won't give us anything we want unless we go out in the streets and scare the crap out of them, or if some other businesses (also effected by the highway robbery) offers them more money than the healthcare cartel.

I've just been doing a little bit of research on this matter. I've never looked into it before, but from what I understand it's because some Americans believe that with UHC they will get a second rate health care system.

That is only from one source I read.

There are many other reasons but I'm in a rush, I'm going out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism

The idea that anything originating from outside the US could be superior to anything within the US is difficult to imagine for some people.

I am not against universal healthcare, but the ACA is not healthcare, it is insurance. It is the federal government mandating that all citizens buy insurance from a private insurer. And if the federal government can force citizens to do that, it usurps the power of the states and opens the gate for the federal government to force us to do anything they want.

Secondly, it was so hastily written and launched that it does nothing to address the issues that drive up costs.

THIS.

I'm getting sick of explaining this reality to so many people.

The ACA was never about universal health care. It was about expanding government power for the interest of a few parties.

More so, government has proven itself utterly incompetent when it comes to providing a comparable service at a competitive price. Government is always lower quality and/or higher cost...frequently both. Most other countries with a workable "universal health care" system DO NOT let the politics run the system. Bureaucrats can be good or bad...depending on how the political system works.

A good comparison is bankruptcy. In the USA, corporate bankruptcies are handed over to lawyers. In other nations, an accountant is appointed to manage the bankruptcy. The lawyer gets a percentage of everything sold off. The accountant is paid a set fee no matter what happens. Generally, the nations that use an accountant do more to ensure the maximum number creditor's interests are protected as compared to the ones that use a lawyer who is rewarded for selling off parts of the company because he/she gets a nice commission for the sale before any creditor sees a dime. Many salvageable companies died quickly in bankruptcy because every profitable element of the company was quickly sold off leaving an unworkable shell that imploded quickly afterward.

Why does the USA do it this way? It's because the influence of political groups (like the ABA) ensure this is how it works. The law isn't designed to look out for the "victims," it is designed to look out for special interests.

Sadly, it's how it works 99% of the time here in the USA, and it's why any sane person should have no confidence in any government "solution" to a problem.

The U.S. Government is run by Cronies and Incompetent Jackasses, and is corrupt to the center.

ruveyn

Because Fox News said so.

Those three excerpts above pretty much defines my stance which is that the ACA was never about "insuring the uninsured", but to cowtow to the healthcare industry to ensure they had enough people to pay into a "health insurance plan". The ACA did nothing to address the skyrocketing costs of hospital bills, prescriptions drugs, etc., which is the reason why people generally need "insurance" in the first place so they can have the cost of their medical bill subsidized.

And honestly, "insurance" really isn't the proper word here because when you look at the true meaning of insurance, it's monies paid in the even of a catastrophe. Think about it - health care is the only industry where "insurance" is used to subsidize routine/preventative care like doctor's visits, medication, etc. You don't use car insurance to subsidize the cost of tires, oil change, etc., nor do you use homeowner's insurance to subsidize the cost of painting a room, remodeling your house, etc. People don't think twice about paying out of pocket for an oil change, tires, gas, paint, wood, etc., but when it comes to a $100 doctor's visit or a $100 prescription, then they feel the need to have the insurance company pay for a percentage of that visit.

As Shrapnel mentioned, the bell has been wrung for the government to compel you to purchase other things now because you are forced to purchase health insurance. You should not be forced to purchase health insurance. That should be a choice. And before anyone replies and says, "well if you drive a car or own a house you have to have insurance", which you are correct, you must understand that with both a car and a house, ownership is not a RIGHT, it's a PRIVILEGE and CHOICE. Nobody says you must own a car or a house, and if you don't own a car or a house, you're not expected to carry car or homeowner's insurance. However, technically, life is not a choice (if you want to slide on that slippery slope, you can choose not to live - such a morbid thought), therefore forcing someone to have insurance because they simply are alive is against the basic tenet of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". By forcing someone to purchase insurance infringes on a person's liberty...because they cannot choose - they must have it. Again, the choice of driving a car or owning a home requires you to be insured. You don't have the choice to live without insurance anymore, and that's where I take exception.

Capitalism. Universal healthcare gives everyone the same access, however this doesn't mean everyone has the best access. Right now, if you have good insurance or make a lot of money you can get fast-tracked and get a higher quality of service. If you have no money you will be turned away and most people fall in the middle between the two extremes. The capitalist system allows for higher quality of service by blocking out servicees and raising prices to keep demand low. The socialist system overburdens it's medical system by trying to service the whole range of demand, but being limited by finite resources.

My grandpa, for example is concerned about this. In America because he is wealthy if he needs an organ transplant he can jump to the front of the waiting list by paying a premium, but in England he would be unlikely to receive one at all since the system favors younger, healthier recipients. Because he is a cancer survivor and has had a heart attack and is almost 80 he would be basically disqualified because the limited resources are distributed based on potential benefit in terms of years of life extended, as opposed to ability to provide monetary compensation and as he argued the "productivity" of the years of life extended. His concern is that his remaining years of life are valued less than those of someone else.

Conversely I had the fun experience of watching a man suffocate just outside of the emergency room doors at Lutheran general hospital while I was there for a sprain because he didn't have insurance and they refused to see him even though he was clearly having difficulty breathing. They actually removed him from the waiting room and 2 orderlies dragged him outside where he died and was left to sit for around 45 minutes before someone called the police.

Conservatives reject anecdotes like this as systematic because it conflicts with their worldview, but also because its not concerning to them. If the man was worth saving he would have had the financial resources to acquire care. Modern Conservativism is derived from Calvinism. The primary belief of Calvinism is that those who are meant to arrive in heaven will be successful in life, and conversely those who are predestined for hell will be unsuccessful in life. Thus being denied treatment, or being fast tracked, is just a reflection of God's plan and represents the ultimate social justice. It isn't the place of humans to interfere with the works of god, so they reject the idea of sacrificing some of their own wealth or wellbeing to serve their countrymen. If they were to contribute to others, this would require sacrifice i.e. decreasing their wealth and other indicators of success thus making it less likely that they will be chosen to go to heaven. The aspect of heaven has somewhat demured but has been replaced with the vaulted ideal of achieving social status and the indicators thereof in life and for their children.

Liberals believe that our nations relative wealth should be reflected in the results for average citizens, i.e. if we have a GDPPC 50 times that of Uganda, we should have child mortality/ standard of living/ relative life expectancy rates in proportion with that relative wealth. Instead the results for the average population are roughly on par or only slightly better than people in low-income countrys. Liberals feel that that lack of results represents a solvable structural failing, rather than a massive collection of unrelated yet eerily similar non-success stories. However, that is an expensive proposition.

Whereas conservatives believe in the best results for those with the best means and worst results for those with the least (remembering that either result is a function of their true worth and effort... but also predetermined by god), Liberals believe that the average result is what matters and believe in moderating both extremes to bring them in line and minimize the standard deviation of quality of life. That is another big difference is that liberals consider all actions to represent collective society, and conservatives believe that society is the result of the interactions and choices of individuals. So when a liberal sees a drug addict, they see someone who was pressed into that decision by their life circumstances that were out of their control, and conservatives see someone who chose, independently, that lifestyle with full knowledge and control. Because Liberals beleive that we are not fully in control of our outcomes it is then morally imperative to change the system to reflect that. Because Conservatives believe that we do control our individual outcomes and they are a result of our individual inherent worth, the system should favor those who are most worthy.

Last edited by buffinator on 23 Feb 2014, 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

All of the paranoia pretty much ignores that many politicians did want single payer, then a public option, and eventually the Democrats were very happy to get a Medicaid expansion which is an entirely separate issue from buying health insurance and really does help the poor. But any party with a big tent has to deal with purple state members and so the sausage gets made.

Who killed a public option that would directly compete with the prices offered by insurance companies? Democrats like Joe Lieberman. Possibly out of spite. That's the world.

...because health insurance companies are the paragon of competence and dedication to patients interests over profit?

Of course.

And those same companies are in the pockets of the politicians, which is why we are where we're at now. There is a direct correlation between the two.

The difference is that under UHC, life saving decisions regarding who recieves treatment and who doesn't is made by doctors and is made according to the interests of the patient.

Under the American style system where the patients first point of contact is the insurance companies, the same decisions are made by the companies and these are profit driven rather than necessarilly according to the patients best interests.

It was allowed to pass BECAUSE it was a corporate subsidy. Remember that individual mandate that all the Republicans were crying about? The Heritage Foundation wrote and inserted that bit as part of a "compromise" with the Democratic Party.

Obamacare isn't universal health care, that is why I have an issue with it.

They did expand medicaid which is essentially health insurance provided by the state, potentially the only good thing that came out of this.