Why do Americans tend to be resistant to the idea of universal healthcare coverage?

Question

I believe that in Canada as well as the UK (both mentioned as examples) people do have the option of using pay-for-service private practitioners. It seems like many people think that with nationally subsidized insurance there are no other options, but there are other options for people who can *afford* it.

Answer 1

I just scrolled through the current list of answers you have received so far and now I truly know the meaning of the phrase "you get what you pay for". These were free answers.

Paul B. ,for example, tells you to look for facts, not utopian dreams then provides you with an assortment of opinions disguised I suppose as facts. Since WWII no significant medical or pharmaceutical innovation has come from countries that have universal health care, he says. Yet today in my practice of neonatology I am using a Swedish infant ventilation technique and ventilator. A pharmaceutical developed by a Japanese researcher working for a time in Belgium has revolutionized the treatment of respiratory diseases in premature infants. But those countries have government sponsored universal care and couldn't possibly be innovative.
By the way the neonatal mortality rate in both Sweden and Japan is significantly lower than the US. (WHO-2006).

The newest antifungal drug that has allowed me to successfully treat a premature infant with devastating Candida albicans sepsis resistant to the standard treatments was developed in......... oh, could that be Denmark? And oops..... they have government sponsored single payer universal health care.

Norway, according to an article in The Lancet, has the best outcomes in 15 diseases; Norway is ranked 1st overall in health outcomes by the WHO (2005 data). The US? We are not 1st in outcomes of ANY disease. Our WHO-rank is 35. Norway's health expenditures yearly per capita: $893. The US: $1703. Those are some facts.

Helper says that many Canadians come to America for treatments. The AMA estimates that 85% of these procedures are elective and as many as 50% are cosmetic.

davidg32 says that everyone in a government sponsored universal care system has to wait exceedingly long for care.
Now the following example is a single episode and as such qualifies as anecdotal evidence but I believe it has some utility here.

My son was an exchange teacher in Germany (another one of those pesky universal health care countries). During Spring break he went skiing and injured his leg. The ski patrol brought him down the mountain and he found himself in the Emergency Department of a German Hospital... On a Friday evening! Two and a half hours later he had a diagnosis of a class-2 high ankle sprain, his x-rays done, seen by an orthopedic surgeon (who arrived in his BMW SUV), his left lower leg in a soft cast , and his wallet 70-Euros poorer. You do the math.

Now for my opinion.

In the US the system of health delivery has been dominated by the private sector for the better part of 80-years. How's it working out? What are we getting for our money?

In my NICU now are three infants whose families have incomes too high to qualify for government assistance. They all three have no insurance. All three families have at least one full-time employed parent and two have both parents fully employed All three have no health insurance through their employer. The bills for all three babies will exceed $100K. How can these families possibly pay that amount?

In the state of California Blue Cross spent $30 million last year on TV and Radio ADVERTISING! Not one penny of that helped a single patient. The CEO of Blue Cross of CA received $156 Million in a compensation package. 88% of my practice is made up of babies born to families who qualify for MediCal (MediCade in CA).

It is impossible to make a profit by taking care of sick people. That's why health insurance companies do everything they can to avoid it. Insurance is all about risk-pools. If your risk pool is particularly low risk then you make money. Hence get rid of the sick people and advertise for more healthy ones. Another way to make money is to have a large enough pool so more people pay into it.

A universal health system would include the entire US population. Imagine a risk pool consisting of 300-million people.

Answer 2

Because we are sick of splurging on those determined by government bureaucrats to be "more deserving" of government or government subsidized "benefits" than are others, those others being those who have gumption enough to work and earn a living!
Unfortunately, the world has ditched the sensible, good ol' attitude of "you get sick, you go see and pay a doctor"---or, "do the right things, make the right choices to stay in good health, in the first place." The last people I want to see are doctors. So many times visiting them, I realize I know more about particular health issues and causes of conditions than they do. For example, see my three articles on insomnia in my 360 blog. I saw doctors over many years who could not figure out insomnia. All they wanted to do was write prescriptions or deny prescriptions, implying that I, being otherwise in perfect health, must be seeking drugs. Heck, I was just sensitive to toxic food additives like MSG! See my three lengthy blog articles on avoidance of certain food additives.

Answer 3

Because of the countless failures of all countries that have tried it so far. It is incredibly inefficient as tons of money is used to support the bureaucracy rather than provide health care, and the government cannot possibly raise enough taxes to make the system as quick and efficient as the private system is. Think about it, people have to wait months or even years in socialized healthcare countries for procedures that take weeks in the U.S., which is why people from Europe and Canada come HERE to get procedures done if they have the money.

Answer 4

They're not actually that resistant. It's the big insurance companies and other corporate entities that are and they have convinced many people that it's better to have more than 40 million people without any insurance at all and to have the insured pay for the uninsured's medical care through higher premiums. We have the best healthcare system for those who can afford to pay for it but for everybody else, they pretty much are at the mercy of insurance companies if they can get insurance and the rest are pretty much out of luck.

Answer 5

Private health insurance is bad for people who can not afford health insurance coverage. Universal health-care is bad for everyone because no one can afford it. When its free too many people use too much of it. We need to find a way to allocate coverage to everyone without bankrupting it.

The English and Canadians will suffer most since they will not be able to come here for health care and our prescription subsidy that the US pays now will end(everyone can buy US drugs cheaper the Americans can buy US drugs)

Answer 6

You must remember that in America there are 'forces' at work behind Federal politics that are running the private health care system. They don't want a public health system run by the Government because they have a vested interest in the present system. A lot of lobbying goes on up on Capitol Hill, and money does change hands it is alleged. get a DVD out called 'Sicko' It shows a lot of whats going on in the hospital system in the U.S.

Answer 7

Several factors figure into it:
1. We're taxed enough as it is.
2. Most people have insurance during their working years...then are eligible for Medicare.
3. Every universal healthcare system in the world has extremely long waits. (There's currently a story in the news about Canadian women slipping into the U.S. to have their babies)

The bottom line is that...in the U.S....if you have insurance through your job (or if you're extremely wealthy), you're much better off than having universal health care.
If you don't, then you're better off WITH universal health care.

Answer 8

because to alot of people, it has connotations with socialism and communism. america was founded on individualism and is one of the ideals that we hold dear as americans. the idea of "the most good for the most people" is foreign to alot of us...as americans, we are notorious for our dislike of any hike in taxes, especially when the money is used to subsidize everyone else.
also, we are capitalists and worship the almighty dollar. there is plenty of money to be made in privatized health care. just the pharmaceutical industry alone is a cash cow.

Answer 9

Because it doesn't work, just look at any country that has it and none of them work. Free enterprise is always better than Government plans. The Government programs force everyone to pay for them, and the services delivered is not good, think Communism that's a good example of why it doesn't work. :)

Answer 10

Well if people in USA would do their homework, they would find it is not in our best interest. I contacted friends of mine from Canada. They told me there are waiting lists to see the doctor, there are also waiting lists for surgeries etc. Many Canadians come to the USA and pay out of pocket for their surgery so they don't die on the waiting list. There is no such thing as free, it will be added to our taxes, gas etc. Still interested in it?