View Full Version : why don't americans care about universal healthcare?
it seems like a lot of us (meaning americans, not BBMB posters) view it as some kind of hippy socialist communist bullshit (or at least enough of us think of it like that so that our representatives won't push for it), but i don't understand that. health insurance is expensive. americans HATE expensive things. shouldn't that be the end of it? why are we more pissed off about gas prices and taxes than we are about our shameful health care system?
universal health care is more the norm in the industrialized world than the exception (according to wikipedia, we're the only ones that DON'T have it), i don't understand why the people in this country won't get behind it. it's so fucking low on the agenda of things people care about, even liberals, but it's embarassing that we don't have it.
i realize universal healthcare would be expensive as balls for a country as big as ours, but i think we're wealthy enough to afford it. even if we didn't cut spending elsewhere (say....one or two fewer cruise missiles, which do nothing against the enemies we have), suppose we just hiked up taxes to cover the cost; would the increased taxes even cost as much as health insurance does? i'm actually asking, btw, i have no idea whether it would or not, but i'm curious as hell.
i really don't understand why mainstream america is so against it. mainstream america is suffering from the fact that we don't have it, but it's against it, and would sooner vote for candidates that are in the pockets of the people that will make it more expensive (but taxes will be lower, thank god). it's puzzling. are we actually as dumb as people say we are, or is something else going on here?
i realize i should have used capital letters in this post, because it's long, but i just finished typing the whole thing, i don't wanna go back and change it. sorry about that.
King PSYZ
06-04-2008, 08:11 PM
I'll tell you why Bob, greed. Let me quote a pal of mine from AintItCoolNews:
You know, I got roughly $2800 back this year for my tax refund, not counting the stimulus package. If $500 of that didn't make its way back to me and went into a fund for healthcare, I'd be seriously okay with that.
Because in the end, it's about someone's life. You can talk yourself into thinking anything you like about universal healthcare, but it really boils down to one thing... "I don't want to give my money to help out someone I don't know." It's selfishness, pure and simple. I'd respect people more if they just quit the fucking doublespeak and admit it.
And before you spout "Well, why don't you give it to charity, or something?" I do. More than you realize. It's not as much as I'd like.
This country has a way of life based on the amassment of wealth, so "socialist" agenda shit that benifits everyone at any kind of cost is seen as a bad thing. Even if by the ecnomics of scale it ended up being less expensive for some, they're still against their contribution working for someone else.
I'll be honest, that's what I hated about Clinton's proposal. That we all keep doing the same thing but for those that either can't or choose not to my check would be garnished to help cover the cost for others.
I have no problem with my contribution via taxes helping myself, my family and the US as a whole but don't double dip on me asking to pay for out of pocket care while subsidising others.
I'll tell you why Bob, greed. Let me quote a pal of mine from AintItCoolNews:
This country has a way of life based on the amassment of wealth, so "socialist" agenda shit that benifits everyone at any kind of cost is seen as a bad thing. Even if by the ecnomics of scale it ended up being less expensive for some, they're still against their contribution working for someone else.
I'll be honest, that's what I hated about Clinton's proposal. That we all keep doing the same thing but for those that either can't or choose not to my check would be garnished to help cover the cost for others.
I have no problem with my contribution via taxes helping myself, my family and the US as a whole but don't double dip on me asking to pay for out of pocket care while subsidising others.
i get that we don't like paying for something that other people get to use, but i still don't understand why that matters. isn't health insurance basically just a healthcare tax that just isn't collected by the government? more people get sick, start making claims? your premium goes up; you're paying more money for other peoples' healthcare. it just isn't called a "tax" so you don't realize it.
in massachusetts healthcare is mandatory. there's a law that says you have to have health insurance. so because of the government, you have to pay money for yours and others' healthcare, it just isn't called a tax, so people are basically fine with it (well, we hate it actually, but not enough to demand universal healthcare, we're more worried about the gas prices)
what's even funnier is that in boston specifically, we have approximately 8 million hospitals per square foot, and they're all exempt from property tax (as well as many other "charitable" institutions). but the way property tax works is, the city figures out how much money it needs from property tax, divides that amongst the taxpayers, and that's how much you're paying in property tax that year. so in a way you're paying out the ass in property tax to support the hospitals as well (and if you don't own property your landlord is hiking up the rent to cover his property tax). although i suppose that problem wouldn't go away even if we had universal healthcare, it's still troubling.
alien autopsy
06-04-2008, 08:44 PM
because we are made to feel patriotic and think that we are the best at everything we do.
King PSYZ
06-04-2008, 08:47 PM
It doesn't matter, and I really hope we start seeing some forward progress on UHC in the near future.
We also need to catch up with pregnancy leave requirements like the rest of the industrialised world has.
Burnout18
06-04-2008, 08:58 PM
because most ppl think thier taxes will go up, just to help the poor.
i have to disagree with you guys, and even suggest that you might be under the impression of what the mainstream corporate cable news networks want you to believe, regarding americans and universal healthcare:
Poll Shows Majority Back Health Care for All
By ROBIN TONER and JANET ELDER
Published: March 1, 2007
A majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.
Americans showed a striking willingness in the poll to make tradeoffs for a better health care system, including paying as much as $500 more in taxes a year and forgoing future tax cuts. But the same divisions that doomed the last attempt at creating universal health insurance, under the Clinton administration, are still apparent. Americans remain divided, largely along party lines, over whether the government should require everyone to participate in a national health care plan, and over whether the government would do a better job than the private insurance industry in providing coverage.
One question offered a choice between the current system and a national health insurance program covering everyone, administered by the government and financed by taxpayers. Thirty-eight percent said they preferred the current system, while 47 percent preferred a government-run approach.
link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01cnd-poll.html?ex=1330405200&en=45c0a4cf48ed21a1&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)
Health Care Pains
Growing Health Care Concerns Fuel Cautious Support for Change
Analysis
By Gary Langer
Americans express broad, and in some cases growing, discontent with the U.S. health care system, based on its costs, structure and direction alike — fueling cautious support for a government-run, taxpayer-funded universal health system modeled on Medicare.
In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system.
link (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html)
well that's encouraging. i guess my next question then is why is there no push for this in congress? it ought to be a huge issue, and apparently a great many of us are all for it, but it isn't on the table. you don't see candidates running on the universal healthcare platform. you see healthcare reform, which is a start, but...i don't know, maybe it's propaganda still, but it still seems like this issue should be a bigger blip on the radar, but it's overshadowed by stuff like iraq, gay marriage, gun control, gas prices, abortion, stem cells, etc. universal healthcare would be so visible and wonderful, i'd think more representatives would be talking about it.
Documad
06-04-2008, 11:32 PM
1. Americans believe that the government doesn't do things as well as competitive private companies. Unless we're talking about the post office.
2. Americans like the idea of freedom more than actual freedom.
3. Young, healthy males do not like the idea of paying for healthcare for old and sick people. Young healthy males will be forced to pay more for healthcare.
4. People like the idea of having a family doctor and they are afraid of being stuck with a sub par doctor in their network. Of course, that's already happening to me with my HMO.
5. Stories about how people with hernias in the UK have to wait 5 years for an operation.
6. Everyone agrees things are fucked up now but no one has a model for how we could improve the system. Instead we get promises of change from people like Obama but when you look at their proposals the numbers never add up.
Honestly, I support a joint healthcare program between business and government. The problem is that because of just a few people with expensive chronic sickness, the money for catastrophic loss that health insurance is supposed to protect against gets dried up by just a handful of people. I believe the government should offer healthcare benefits for certain chronic conditions that would make overall healthcare provided by businesses for their employees more affordable.
well that's encouraging. i guess my next question then is why is there no push for this in congress? it ought to be a huge issue, and apparently a great many of us are all for it, but it isn't on the table. you don't see candidates running on the universal healthcare platform. you see healthcare reform, which is a start, but...i don't know, maybe it's propaganda still, but it still seems like this issue should be a bigger blip on the radar, but it's overshadowed by stuff like iraq, gay marriage, gun control, gas prices, abortion, stem cells, etc. universal healthcare would be so visible and wonderful, i'd think more representatives would be talking about it.
it's because many democrats are pussies with no balls, and also because many of them are now on the payroll, or beholden to lobbyists of private health insurance firms or hmo's. you can only really trust progressive democrats who want a single-payer system and are supporting john conyers'
hr (http://www.healthcare-now.org/resources/hr676.htm) 676 (http://www.healthcare-now.org/hr676.html).
QueenAdrock
06-05-2008, 12:09 PM
Documad hit the nail on the head. Especially with the news reports. My next door neighbors in NC are convinced that "America has the best health care system in the world!" and that I just like Canada's health care because I'm "young and healthy." If I was older, and actually have to USE the system, they told me I'd have to wait for everything. However, I have used the system at my age. I've been to the emergency room twice and was seen within 45 mins both times (less than my wait time in the States). I got an appointment with a dermatologist within 4 days to get my body checked out for any kind of signs of skin cancer. I go to doctors without appointments and am seen within the hour to get treated, prescriptions, and released - no cost. If there is a waiting system for certain doctors/specialists, I should be VERY low on the list given my health. To see that I'm not waiting at all when I go to the emergency room or doctor gives me the idea that those "waiting 5 years for surgery" stories aren't as rampant as the media would like you to think. Granted, I haven't had to wait for surgery yet, but even then I've heard many times people getting the care they need, when they need it (which overwhelm the amount of "they had to wait forever" stories).
With that being said, it's not a perfect system. I have heard of waiting times for care. I live in Edmonton, in a region that is overflowing with health care systems, and people in other regions have a harder time getting as great care as I do. But the point is, they try their very best to keep you alive here, and won't let you die on their watch - the sickest are cared to first. If it's not life-threatening or urgent care, you're seen after those who direly need it. You still have the option that if you absolutely want the health care NOW, you can pay for it out of pocket and be seen right away (and surgeries out of pocket are still cheaper than in the US). But in the long run, waiting for sicker people to get treated before you is better than seeing sick people die on the streets because they can't afford the $500 a month private health care. Having to wait and knowing you'll get it eventually is better than quietly dying and knowing that no one is willing to save you, and you don't have the money to save yourself.
actually i'm thinking about it, and shouldn't corporations be pushing for universal healthcare, too? employers are (supposed to be) the ones who shoulder most of the burden of health insurance for their employees, isn't that bleeding them dry? wouldn't they benefit from UHC too? it seems like the only industry that would actually stand to lose anything from UHC would be the healthcare industry. are they really that powerful, that they can overrule everyone else in the country?
yeahwho
06-05-2008, 02:15 PM
actually i'm thinking about it, and shouldn't corporations be pushing for universal healthcare, too? employers are (supposed to be) the ones who shoulder most of the burden of health insurance for their employees, isn't that bleeding them dry? wouldn't they benefit from UHC too? it seems like the only industry that would actually stand to lose anything from UHC would be the healthcare industry. are they really that powerful, that they can overrule everyone else in the country?
I think the profits and portfolios of many private and personal fortunes are wrapped up in medical stocks such as pharmaceuticals and technology delivered by corporate giants like Siemens et;al. That isn't even the beginning of the problem, theres the whole health insurance industry portfolios/stocks/profits. It's going to be tougher to do this in 2009 than it was in 1993 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan#Background), mainly because our way of healthcare is even more embedded into the national psyche 16 years after the first try.
Dorothy Wood
06-05-2008, 02:49 PM
yeah, I agree with yeahwho. I would say that if anything, it's the corporations and lobbyist manipulation of the media, government and public that is driving/prolonging the seemingly anti-universal healthcare sentiment amongst americans.
insurance and drug companies make a lot of money for a lot of people and those people really like money more than they like people.
:(
King PSYZ
06-05-2008, 04:11 PM
the other thing is once America goes UHC, the whole system of cure for a cost goes out the window.
the pharms especially can't afford to let that happen lest they stop making record profits.
Schmeltz
06-06-2008, 05:28 AM
Lots of good points in this thread, especially Documad's. To me this issue has always seemed to boil down to a divide between the urban populace of America, who would naturally be the first to benefit from such a service, and rural Americans who besides being generally mistrustful of federal oversight might have to wait many years before any tangible benefits accrued to the payments they might have to make. I might be backwards on this but I've always thought that the relationship of American states to the American federal government is somewhat tense and definitely unique in the Western world, and that this context mitigates against the implementation of the type of health care you see in Europe and in Canada. Organizing a federally implemented program across fifty states as diverse as Rhode Island and Alaska is a difficult concept, especially when some states are historically very jealous of their rights to their own governance over just this sort of thing, and especially in a country with a massively influential private pharmaceutical industry of a type that doesn't really exist elsewhere.
And speaking of which: QueenAdrock, be careful with your praise for Canadian healthcare! Five years ago I had my left shoulder orthoscopically reconstructed for free, and I'm eternally grateful to have had a very sophisticated procedure performed at no cost, while in the States it would have totally ruined me financially - and I definitely fall into the "healthy young white male" category mentioned above. But I had to dislocate my shoulder three times over five years before I was moved to the top of a very lengthy waitlist, and I've heard many stories of people enduring much worse circumstances, waiting years for MRIs or CAT scans, and sometimes dying before they were provided with the kind of care required for their condition. We do not have a perfect system here; it is plagued with top-heavy bureaucratic incompetence, poorly managed funding, and an historic "brain drain" that draws our doctors southwards while we consign our medically educated immigrants to taxi-driving and cash-register jobs. Universal health care is a wonderful idea and, again, I am grateful for having personally benefited from it, but successfully implementing it is something else again, even in a country like Canada. In your country it faces almost insurmountable obstacles. It might be better to lobby individual states piecemeal for the kind of guaranteed healthcare that the USA is perfectly capable of providing to its citizens.
HAL 9000
06-06-2008, 02:58 PM
A quick point to make here - in countries where you have UHC, you do not have to use it, you can still have private healthcare if you want better or faster treatment. I think the system works best when a free market allows people to purchase the level of healthcare they want on the understanding that you get a basic default level of healthcare if you do not wish to purchase any additional healthcare at all.
In the UK, you find that the cost of medical insurance is kept down by the existence of the free alternative. Private organisations have to compete with the NHS so they know that although they can provide a better service than the NHS – they have to control cost too. Also people need less health cover because for minor issues where you don’t mind waiting a bit – you can go to the free version.
I lived in the US for a couple of years when I was younger and remember a man in a car crash outside my house who refused my Dads offer to take him to hospital because of the cost he would incur if he went to the emergency room – that situation should never arise in a wealthy democratic country.
i vehemently disagree with the asserted assumption that private delivery of healthcare is somehow superior than public healthcare. france's healthcare system is the best in the world and is far superior than america's private system, even canada's public system, or england's nhs. private systems are b.s. exclusive systems, because not everybody can afford the purchase of private delivery.
i vehemently disagree with the asserted assumption that private delivery of healthcare is somehow superior than public healthcare. france's healthcare system is the best in the world and is far superior than america's private system, even canada's public system, or england's nhs. private systems are b.s. exclusive systems, because not everybody can afford the purchase of private delivery.
i think he was referring more to a situation where there's free public healthcare for everyone, but if you have the money and you don't want to wait, you can pay for private healthcare, too. i would almost think that in that situation private healthcare would need to be better than the free public alternative because if it wasn't, why would anyone pay for it when they could just see a doctor for free?
HAL 9000
06-06-2008, 05:41 PM
Bob has clarified my point perfectly – I am talking about a scenario where a public and private healthcare system coexist. The private side can deliver additional benefits such as reduced waiting times or access to more expensive treatments that are just not viable under a public system.
Often in the UK, private healthcare insurance will purchase you the same doctor to perform the same operation n the same hospital – the only difference is you get a shorter waiting list. So in that sense you can purchase superior healthcare if you wish.
The idea I was trying to combat is the perception that the two alternatives are 100% private or 100% public, which is of course not the case. I also wanted to suggest that there is a beneficial effect for society caused by the fact that the private healthcare providers have to compete with the public provider for business – this (I suspect) strongly weights the competitive market forces in the consumer’s direction
i think he was referring more to a situation where there's free public healthcare for everyone, but if you have the money and you don't want to wait, you can pay for private healthcare, too. i would almost think that in that situation private healthcare would need to be better than the free public alternative because if it wasn't, why would anyone pay for it when they could just see a doctor for free?
yeah i know exactly what he meant, however i can't stand that scenario because working-class and poor people can't afford to skip out on waiting, while people who can afford it can.
HAL 9000
06-06-2008, 06:17 PM
yeah i know exactly what he meant, however i can't stand that scenario because working-class and poor people can't afford to skip out on waiting, while people who can afford it can.
Ok but thats not what you wrote in your earlier post?
Personally I do not have an ethical problem with people who choose to spend more on healthcare if they want to or are able to do. I do think that everyone should be entitled to an adequate level of healthcare, regardless of spending power.
yeah i know exactly what he meant, however i can't stand that scenario because working-class and poor people can't afford to skip out on waiting, while people who can afford it can.
it's better than what we have now, though. and in america, i think you'd pretty much have to have a system where the rich can buy better healthcare if they want to, at least at first, because there's just no way that those with money are going to allow themselves to wait in line for treatment with those that don't. the working class still wouldn't have it as well as wealthier people, but they'd still have it a hell of a lot better than they have it now, wouldn't they?
yeah you're right bob, but like hal alluded to, i have a serious ethical problem with it.
Echewta
06-09-2008, 11:06 PM
They took all the trees
Put em in a tree museum
And they charged the people
A dollar and a half just to see em
NoFenders
06-10-2008, 01:32 PM
"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free."
P.J. O'Rourke
:cool:
universal healthcare hasn't cost me a dime.
yeahwho
06-10-2008, 03:04 PM
also, P.J. O'Rourke hasn't been funny, clever or witty for two decades.
NoFenders
06-10-2008, 03:27 PM
Says you. :cool:
universal healthcare hasn't cost me a dime.
yeah but TAXES don't you care about TAXES
edit: TAXES!
NoFenders
06-10-2008, 05:35 PM
I think the major deal with healthcare is the people providing it. When I quoted P.J. it was to remind people that you get what you pay for.
:cool:
I think the major deal with healthcare is the people providing it. When I quoted P.J. it was to remind people that you get what you pay for.
:cool:
a lifetime of crippling medical debt gets you what exactly
i guess i'm just wondering what you're basing that opinion on. we've had people in the thread who actually live in countries with universal healthcare who've said that apart from some long waits, the quality is high. sazi posted that thing that said that the healthcare in france, which is free, is actually better than the healthcare in america, which is expensive (i know, it's annoying to think that maybe the french are better than us at something but if you can refute it go ahead)
maybe to some extent you do "get what you pay for" (i'm not agreeing with that, for the record) but if you can't afford to pay for it, you don't get anything at all, and that's fucked up.
so yeah, what are you basing your opinion on besides a quip?
vBulletin® v3.6.7, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.