Why are Americans against universal healthcare?

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAT_BuJAI70

Your choice wasn't "Obama or Romney", it was "Obama or Romney or Stein or Johnson or Anderson or Goode or..."

If the American people wanted Obama without the ACA, then someone should have stood on that platform and gathered votes to beat Obama.

Japan is a unitary state in which the central government is supreme, while America is a federal state in which power is shared. Also, research Japan’s “Metabo Law” which allows the central government to fine businesses and local governments for exceeding target percentages of obese people. If implemented in America that could be a huge source of income for Washington DC.

It’s should also come as no surprise that the largest concentration of obese Japanese is on Okinawa, where American influence is at its greatest.

The point is moving there (and recieving universal healthcare) would be MY decision.
Having someone force it upon me is just as bad as being against it completely for me.
I don't want it to be out of my hands, I want to say, it was MY choice.

Hmm, moving to Japan is a goal of mine, not an obsession. If I went there and acted like a fool, I'd want to be taught how to act. Get hated for the first half-year? Fine by me. At least I would know how to act appropriately.

IIRC, many tried. The RNC gladly lead a hatchet job on anyone who had a chance of doing that.

3rd parties pretty much don't have a chance with how our elections operate...unless they are independently wealthy candidates.

Grass roots might work on local and even state levels, but they don't fare that well on a national level.

The RNC was too busy catering to the wrong factions to gain support to beat Obama. There was no unifying message.

In American politics, hardly any political group represents what the "people" want. Someone else is picking who will be on the ticket, and their party (and the complicit media) spin, spin, spin to convince the populace that these options are our best choices.

Bush vs. Kerry was a particularly telling election. I saw otherwise intelligent people turn into blithering idiots to justify voting for Kerry. Every word they uttered to justify him as the better choice were parroted from what the campaigns were saying...not their own reasons. A political analyst would say if you want to correct a government going too far to one side, you move to the center. Kerry was to the opposite extreme, and supporters were saying, "We need someone so radically to the left to compensate for being too far to the right." That was Kerry's angle because he wasn't going to be a political centrist.

Most Americans would be in the center, but that's not what the candidates tend to be, and anyone spouting common sense tends to get a proper beat down if they try to be heard.

Here's a thought for opponent's of Obamacare to consider:

That genie is never going back in the bottle. The ACA wasn't simply about broader access to health care coverage, it was also about universality in other ways such as removing coverage bans for pre-existing conditions and ending caps on lifetime coverage. The American electorate will not tolerate going back on these.

So there are precisely two choices: make Obamacare work; or move to a new system that will deliver these benefits more effectively. So if you torpedo Obamacare, there is only one option left: single payer medical services.

To those who say this is not a proper role for government, I say this is utter nonsense. Government is responsible for providing public goods--the things that benefit us all, but that it is no one's direct commercial interest to provide. Roads, public safety, universal access to education free at the point of delivery, and universal access to medically necessary care are all aspects of this obligation to provide public goods.

Now that doesn't mean that government has to directly provide these goods. Vouchers are just as good as public schools in providing education. But government must ensure that there is access for all.

So if you screw up Obabmacare, you know that you will have only yourselves to blame when it gets replaced.

It's because we see other forms of universal health care and how they aren't working.

We see stories about year+ waits to see doctors (some here have posted about that). Stories about how people struggle to get a 2nd opinion. Stuff like that.

Gee, I wonder where the stories you saw came from.

So you're not opposed to Universal Healthcare, just that you wouldn't have the luxury of having lived somewhere else and moving here to make it your choice. I guess the U.S had better wait till you move to Japan or whatever to implement Universal healthcare here...

Because over here in the U.S there are never long waits for proper treatment for severe conditions....and no one struggles to get second opinions and certianly no one is ever denied treatment if they cant afford it...not in the good ole U.S.A

And there are examples contrary to your claim in this very thread...

Even if that were true, you'd still have the option of going private if you wanted to...

One of the main reasons why NHS patients face excruciating waits is because resources and doctors are being syphoned off to the private sector.

The NHS has deteriorated ever since Tony Blairs accursed brainchild, PPP, which has created a two tier service.