Why are some Americans opposing a change in the healthcare system?

[mountain_tiger]

Link to original post: [drupal=2473]Why are some Americans opposing a change in the healthcare system?[/drupal]



So there’s this big debate regarding whether or not the USA should implement a healthcare system similar to the NHS, or whether to stick with its current system. The question is why are there even people against it?

I’ve yet to see a single valid reason against it. IMO, the NHS is one of the most effective healthcare systems in the world. Granted, it has its problems, but it seems much better than the current system in the USA, which essentially ****s over the poor people who can’t afford it?

If I recall correctly, the USA is one of the most religious developed countries in the world. Now, isn’t one of the key teachings of religion to help those in need? Having a NHS-style system would be much more beneficial to people who would otherwise be unable to afford it, and it would probably save many more lives, and isn’t that why we have healthcare in the first place?

The only reason I’ve seen people promote is that they’re afraid that it will lead to fully fledged communism, which is idiotic at best. Being too far right is just as bad as being too far left. Other than that, the only other reason I can think of is that rich people don’t want their taxes increased. Put simply, why is there opposition to this idea at all?

 

[illinialex24]

People with guns are insane. Old people are irrational. Think about it.

 

[CRASHiC]

It took us 30 YEARS to get Medicare for seniors.
MEDICARE of all things. Republicans were opposed to that.
Do you honestly think that they have your best interest at heart when they block medicare for 30 years?

 

[Scott!]

1. Because there are a lot of uneducated people in the US who put their trust in certain public figures who do not have the best interests of their fans at heart. These people use their public positions to advance their right-wing, corporate-sponsored beliefs and ideas.

2. Because America places a strong value on individualism. The American Dream is that there is opportunity waiting for everyone who's willing to work for it. There are a lot of people out there who don't believe in hand-outs or welfare because they think everyone should earn their own way. They don't believe that it's the government's job to take care of everyone on such a level. A fair amount of these people have not done so well, and are bearing the brunt of this economic recession. They've worked hard all of their lives, only to lose a lot and not be rewarded. The idea of people getting for free what they couldn't even get with good, old-fashioned hard work probably seems deeply unfair to them.

3. Back to the individualism thing, America is a bit like a hipster, in a backwards kind of way. The Us doesn't like to do something that the world wants it to do, or that the world does well. We're the US, the greatest country on Earth! Therefore, everything we do must, by definition, be better than other ways. If Canada has universal healthcare, then universal healthcare must be worse, because it's not what the US has. There's a strange disdain for all things European as well. Europe has many countries with solid healthcare systems that are working well for them. By most accounts, they are successful. But to say a proposed system is "like what they have in Europe" would only make less people like it, because we're not Europe. We're America.

4. There are people out there in the US with decent healthcare. Under a new system, it is possible that things would change, and things might not be as good for them. Therefore, a change is not in their best interests even though it would benefit the nation greatly.

There are more reasons, but these are the ones that came to mind.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I don't oppose changes to health care, and I think that if it happens, it should be all or nothing: single-payer or GTFO.

That said, I do have insurance through the government due to the fact that I'm poor. And hell yeah it helps to have coverage for things that I can't afford, but there are some significant trade-offs in care that I don't think people are aware of, simply because they've never had to search for services that accept the absurdly low reimbursements for medical professionals that state care offers.

It may seem hypocritical to say it, but it boils down to this: I'm poor, so I'm glad I have state care. But if I could afford something else, I sure as hell wouldn't choose state care. What miffs be about this debate is not the people who legitimately can't afford the care they need. It's the people (usually rich people) who are trying to convince us that state care is the best solution. It's not: the best solution would be for everyone to be able to afford whatever health coverage they want.

It angers me that poverty seems to be lost in this debate. If people weren't poor, this debate wouldn't exist. Instead, there will still be poor people regardless of whether or not we get single-payer or nothing at all or something in the middle. This debate does nothing to eliminate poverty, it just makes poverty "easier". I'm not sure that's such a worthy goal.

 

[GreenKirby]

SOCIALISM!
NAZISM!
FASCISM!
MARXISM!
Glenn Beck says the U.S. has the best healthcare in the world! So it must be true!
Obama's a Muslim. He was born in Kenya.

2. Because America places a strong value on individualism. The American Dream is that there is opportunity waiting for everyone who's willing to work for it. There are a lot of people out there who don't believe in hand-outs or welfare because they think everyone should earn their own way. They don't believe that it's the government's job to take care of everyone on such a level. A fair amount of these people have not done so well, and are bearing the brunt of this economic recession. They've worked hard all of their lives, only to lose a lot and not be rewarded. The idea of people getting for free what they couldn't even get with good, old-fashioned hard work probably seems deeply unfair to them.

Which doesn't make sense considering most of the protesters are older people who are on Medicare and Social Security. The irony is that they want government out of Medicare despite it being a government program. And it's these same old farts that are sucking up Social Security and our generation will get ****ed over because of it.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Which doesn't make sense considering most of the protesters are older people who are on Medicare and Social Security. The irony is that they want government out of Medicare despite it being a government program. And it's these same old farts that are sucking up Social Security and our generation will get ****ed over because of it.

It's not ironic at all. Many politicians have openly stated that they hope to pay for any health care program by saving money through Medicare. Many seniors hear that as meaning their benefits are going to be cut. Whether it's true or not I don't know, but I can totally understand why that line of reasoning would make seniors opposed to this.

 

[RyuReiatsu]

Actually, I've read in the newspaper that most people were in favor of it until they've heard that a big percentage (I don't remember how much) of them were black people.

The moment they've heard that, uh...for instance... 40% of the people who'd benefit from it were black people, they immediately went against it.

*sigh* Open-minded...

 

[REL38]

Religion has nothing to do with it.

The new healthcare system, and most any other important proposal, relies on the higher ups when it comes to the final say. They just need to keep most of the people happy while making their decision. There's always that denomination of people that'll be against anything new.

tbh I've heard tidbits from both sides concerning this subject and I still haven't a clue what it's gonna do :/

 

[Pakman]

From my understanding the issue with the health care reform is Capitalism.

From what I understand, Obama wants to implement a public government run Health Care. And the opposition are against it because it would be unfair for the government to use its resources to compete in the health care market.

I don't think the current plan is the best possible option, but Obama has said he is very open to suggestions. Basically, Obama sees this issue as extremely urgent and the time it has been taking for legislators to debate what the right answer is has not been reasonable considering there is no solution. So he put together a plan with his advisers and said, if you can't do any better then this, it is what we are doing.

I can't say the plan is perfect because it isn't, but reform is needed and it is needed as soon as possible. Obama gets that and I imagine he released his plan not hoping everyone accepts it, but hoping it spurs a discussion that gets actual results in a timely fashion.

 

[Skadorski]

Because we have the best healthcare in the world.
Why should we CHANGE SOMETHING THAT IS CLEARLY WORKING?!
Don't 85% of Americans have health care?
Why should we hurt the people that are either
A. Lucky
or mostly
B. WORKING
To help 15 more % of people?
Either:
85% people have good health care or
100% of people have health care but it's not that good and the people that had the originals hurt?

 

[CRASHiC]

Because we have the best healthcare in the world.
Why should we CHANGE SOMETHING THAT IS CLEARLY WORKING?!

lol, no we don't, not by far, France does. Who in the world told you we had the best? Ours is horrible, in many, many ways.

For instance, a doctor from the UK was visiting, got food positioning, had to stay 1 night in a hospital. He got the bill later, and claimed that the price was horribly inflated, and shouldn't be any where near the number he received.

 

[Insetick]

Doctors and pharmaceutical companies would be severely hurt by a NHS.

 

[LoganW]

lol, no we don't, not by far, France does. Who in the world told you we had the best? Ours is horrible, in many, many ways.

For instance, a doctor from the UK was visiting, got food positioning, had to stay 1 night in a hospital. He got the bill later, and claimed that the price was horribly inflated, and shouldn't be any where near the number he received.

although that story is questionable I agree that our healthcare definitely needs to change

 

[CRASHiC]

Doctors and pharmaceutical companies would be severely hurt by a NHS.

Not true.
According to a survey by a medical magazine
80% of doctors are for health care reform
60% support a public option

According to Business Magazine poll of executive
55% of companies support a public option

Why? It would drive down their own cost.

although that story is questionable I agree that our healthcare definitely needs to change

It was on a PBS special about health care in the US that aired 2 years ago.

 

[Firus]

Someone I know went to Italy, first going to Africa briefly. Shortly after she got to Italy, she felt sick, had a fever, and the fever wasn't going away even when she tried taking care of herself.

She went to the hospital because it wasn't going away. If it weren't for the fact that she had just gotten back from Africa and possibly contracted a disease there, she would've had to wait to find out that her appendix had burst.

Feel free to disregard that, as I know some of you will, I'm not going to delve any further into this debate since it's pretty much impossible to get anywhere with it. Everyone supporting it basically says the American health care system is medieval and crappy and ought to be up to par with the rest of the world and seems to think, for whatever reason, that there are NO downsides to a universal health care system.

Then there's always the plus of the typical "Rich people are greedy" accusation.

 

[GreenKirby]

Because we have the best healthcare in the world.
Why should we CHANGE SOMETHING THAT IS CLEARLY WORKING?!
Don't 85% of Americans have health care?
Why should we hurt the people that are either
A. Lucky
or mostly
B. WORKING
To help 15 more % of people?
Either:
85% people have good health care or
100% of people have health care but it's not that good and the people that had the originals hurt?

America is ranked 37th as far as healthcare go. And considering there's only like 33 developed nations, that's not good.

And no, the current healthcare is not good considering they could drop you in a drop of a hat.

 

[Scott!]

@Firus: I don't think anyone who knows what they're talking about thinks that other countries have it perfect. But they have it better. So things can take time over there. That happens here too. Plus, we've got people who profit from withholding treatment deciding who gets treatment. I for one would rather have coverage that might result in me having to wait a bit longer for non-critical treatment than have coverage that could be dropped at any time or rejected based on conditions I didn't know about before signing up.

Speaking more generally, I don't really like the anecdotal evidence for either side in this debate. No matter the system, there will always be good and bad experiences under both systems. Firus has his friend who went to Italy, Crashic has the doctor from the UK in the US, but one story does very little to show the real problems with the system at large. Do we know that Firus's friend would have gotten more comprehensive treatment regardless of prior circumstances in the US? DO we know if the doctor Crashic mentioned would have had a better experience on the UK? No. We can guess, and have a good idea, but we can't be sure. I've heard so many "I have a friend in Canada who says..." stories in this debate for both sides that they don't mean anything to me either way anymore.

 

[Beam Sword of Death]

I oppose this type of health care reform. Not to say that we shouldn't do some fixing to the current system, but if we have universal health care(say something similar to Canada)
the government has full control of our health care
if the gov has full control of our health
they have full control over what we eat, what we buy, the activities we choose to partake in. Essentially I am saying that Obama is trying to turn the US into a socialist nation. Which is simply my opinion. Bash me as much as you want, but I just call it like I see it.
Peace.

 

[CRASHiC]

I oppose this type of health care reform. Not to say that we shouldn't do some fixing to the current system, but if we have universal health care(say something similar to Canada)
the government has full control of our health care
if the gov has full control of our health
they have full control over what we eat, what we buy, the activities we choose to partake in. Essentially I am saying that Obama is trying to turn the US into a socialist nation. Which is simply my opinion. Bash me as much as you want, but I just call it like I see it.
Peace.

First off, that is NOT what Obama plans AT ALL.
Secondly, let's see how Health Care acts in the free market environment.


http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/inelastic.asp

What Does Inelastic Mean?
An economic term used to describe the situation in which the supply and demand for a good are unaffected when the price of that good or service changes.
Investopedia Says
Investopedia explains Inelastic
When a price change has no effect on the supply and demand of a good or service, it is considered perfectly inelastic. An example of perfectly inelastic demand would be a life saving drug that people will pay any price to obtain. Even if the price of the drug were to increase dramatically, the quantity demanded would remain the same.

So, as we see here, Health Care does not act under free market principles, so having medical care under the system is inefficient.

Feel free to disregard that, as I know some of you will, I'm not going to delve any further into this debate since it's pretty much impossible to get anywhere with it. Everyone supporting it basically says the American health care system is medieval and crappy and ought to be up to par with the rest of the world and seems to think, for whatever reason, that there are NO downsides to a universal health care system.

So it can't be that should we have to wait for other reasons outside of universal health care? In the last Health Care debate, Gold Shadow made the good point of showing that in Canada, the hospitals are lacking equipment. If our hospitals were to keep the same amount of equipment they have now, and we had a universal heatlh care program, would there be longer waits? Yes, because more people would be apt to go to the hospital. So, the question is, why do some people view this as negative? Shouldn't treating the most people as effectively as possible? My view on this is that those who view this as a bad thing is that those who can afford to buy health care should get it. I don't understand that logic at all, since rich people are no more valuable than any member of my struggling middle class family.

 

[L__]

This is like economics class all over again

IMO

health care here isn't that great

 

[Beam Sword of Death]

First off, that is NOT what Obama plans AT ALL.
Secondly, let's see how Health Care acts in the free market environment.

you know what Obama is thinking? WOW you must be psychic!
read my post. I said MY OPINION. I never said it was fact.
I'm sure this health care plan will fail because so far Obama has pretty much epically failed in his first 8/9? months in office.

 

[CRASHiC]

you know what Obama is thinking? WOW you must be psychic!
read my post. I said MY OPINION. I never said it was fact.
I'm sure this health care plan will fail because so far Obama has pretty much epically failed in his first 8/9? months in office.

How has he failed? I'm sorry, but you really don't know what you are talking about.

Obama has already made his agenda for Health Care clear

1. He would prefer a public OPTION, not a takeover
2. Private doctors, insurance companies would still exist.

How would that be socialized health care at all? It is nothing like Canada's system.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

you know what Obama is thinking? WOW you must be psychic!
read my post. I said MY OPINION. I never said it was fact.
I'm sure this health care plan will fail because so far Obama has pretty much epically failed in his first 8/9? months in office.

I would recommend you keep your opinions to yourself, as sometimes expressing an opinion can sometimes get a good thread closed (like this one).

 

[REL38]

@Beam

Fail = totally screwed over

*looks outside, turns on news, same ol' thing*

Yeeeah
Everything's pretty much the same so thusly stable.

Stable =/= fail

 

[Scott!]

I oppose this type of health care reform. Not to say that we shouldn't do some fixing to the current system, but if we have universal health care(say something similar to Canada)
the government has full control of our health care
if the gov has full control of our health
they have full control over what we eat, what we buy, the activities we choose to partake in. Essentially I am saying that Obama is trying to turn the US into a socialist nation. Which is simply my opinion. Bash me as much as you want, but I just call it like I see it.
Peace.

you know what Obama is thinking? WOW you must be psychic!
read my post. I said MY OPINION. I never said it was fact.
I'm sure this health care plan will fail because so far Obama has pretty much epically failed in his first 8/9? months in office.

There's just so much wrong here. First off, you don't even seem to understand socialism. Things may have changed since my last trip there, but I don't remember Canadians being told what to eat, what to buy, or what to do by the government. Socialism is absolutely not about telling citizens how to live. It's an economic model based on the idea of public control of resources and their allocation in an egalitarian fashion. Essentially, a socialist government controls resources and gives them out to the citizens as needed with no regard to the economic class of the recipients. Socialism is not inherently evil, nor does it advocate the domination of the people. It just outlines a social contract between the people and government in which the people give the government the power to allocate resources with the understanding that they will be doled out by need, not political influence or power.

Second, Obama has never done anything to indicate that he want to turn the US into a socialist nation. The concept of a public option may be inspired by socialism, but it is a very capitalistic idea. It would be created to increase competition and keep prices low. Competition is a purely capitalistic phenomenon.

Third, you can't just throw out provably false statements willy-nilly and, when someone calls you out, back-pedal and say that they're your opinions. That's pretty much the lowest form of debating, and no one will take you seriously, even if you have a valid point. I'm not attacking you, just trying to promote a higher standard of academic discourse.

(PS: if anything I said makes no sense, just remember. I'm in the EST time zone. Now, look at my post time. Yeah, I'm up late. Be kind.)

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

I don't think people realize why our system is so expensive is the main thing. Here are the major problems with our healthcare system cost-wise as I see them.

-Doctors get paid based on treatments performed, not results delivered. They profit from useless treatments basically, and even on effective treatments it's in their interest to carry out many superfluous tests, select more expensive treatments when deciding between multiple effective options, and extend treatment as long as possible. A fix to this issue is very difficult and non-obvious.

-Insurance companies get discounts on all medical services. If you pay the doctor or hospital out of pocket, you pay way more than the insurance companies do. This provides a strong anti-incentive to pay for medical services yourself, inflicts great suffering on those who simply can't afford insurance, and makes the cost of everything look really high. This should just be illegal.

-Prescription drugs cost way more here than they do in other countries. We just need to deregulate prescription drugs a lot. A wider range of drugs should be over the counter, and you should be allowed to buy prescription drugs from other countries. It would really hurt the drug companies, but I don't care and neither should you. The current system is us subsidizing drugs for the rest of the world.

-Malpractice is still too risky. If your treatment kills a patient, you're highly likely to get sued. Doctors really do have to worry not only about the best interest of a patient but also the legal implication of decisions (which is likely to be more expensive). This is very, very far from a solution to the whole problem, but it is something Republicans like to talk about and is something worth addressing.

-When setting the price of major surgeries and whatnot, there's no incentive to make it cheaper. Really, what does it matter how much you charge for that heart surgery? The patient will die without it so he'll pay what it takes. It being too much to pay for yourself probably helps insurance companies more than paying a lot for it hurts them so they don't have incentive to fight for lower prices either.

That's just the cost control side, and I think if people made an issue of those things, it would be pretty easy to get stuff done on that front (a big issue is that people are scared of the kind of cost control that means less care). Of course, it does nothing to help the uninsured which is a separate (and important) issue. That roots back to the whole "insurance" model having the fundamental flaw that it is in the interest of the company to pay out as little money as possible... which basically means just screwing patients over as often as possible is the best way to make money.

 

[gm jack]

Pretty much right.

As said, why should anyone lose out because they are poor? For the people that can afford the treatment, US service is pretty good. However, it leaves out people. The insurance companies are out to make money. They have no reason to pay up unless they have to.

Another example. Chuck Schuldiner was the guitarist/vocalist for a band called Death. They were one of the pioneers of the death metal genre. In 1999, he got cancer. To cover the costs of his operation, it took a lots of contributions from fans etc. He recovered. He then got insurance. 2 years later, he developed another tumour, and the insurance company refused to pay up as the condition had existed before he got insurance. Doctors refused to work without the money, despite the fact he needed the surgery ASAP . A lot of big name bands (Red Hot Chili Peppers, Korn and Kid Rock I think) auctioned personal items to try and help pay his operation costs. In the end, he couldn't get the money and died in late 2001.

Until the US has a system where nobody is left out through lack of money, I hardly think it can call itself superior in any way.

 

[Deleted member]

The main reasons I don't support this are

-Taxes get raised on me
-I need to provide healthcare for my employees
-Illegal Immigrants can get healthcare?!

 

[Maniclysane]

The main reasons I don't support this are

-Taxes get raised on me
-I need to provide healthcare for my employees

I'd rather see tax dollars go to helping people with health care, than wasting our resources in Iraq.

I'm not implying you believe in the war though, I'm just using that as an example. Our government wastes resources on pointless things, compared to health care.

EDIT: ...Why shouldn't illegal immigrants get health care? This baffles me that in this day and age, people think they deserve something just because they were born here.

 

[Jam Stunna]

This baffles me that in this day and age, people think they deserve something just because they were born here.

I'm pretty sure that's what citizenship means.

 

[Deleted member]

Maybe due to the whole illegal part? I just don't think people that commit crimes should be involved.

 

[Maniclysane]

I'm pretty sure that's what citizenship means.

I fail to see how anyone could be undeserving of healthcare, because they're not a citizen.

Maybe due to the whole illegal part? I just don't think people that commit crimes should be involved.

Crimes? That's pretty vague. I guess speeding is a crime. Should I be denied healthcare because I speed? Or litter?

 

[Deleted member]

Illegal Immigrants aren't citizens. It's like saying that a random guy in Uzbekistan deserves healthcare.

 

[Maniclysane]

Illegal Immigrants aren't citizens. It's like saying that a random guy in Uzbekistan deserves healthcare.

Nobody ever said this system was exclusive to citizens. If it would be exclusive to citizens, then people that have been here for over 30 years on a green card, wouldn't be allowed to benefit from health care.

One of the requirements to becoming a citizen is to know English. That would mean anyone not born in the united states, would have to learn a full second language, just to get healthcare. It's needless hoops people would have to jump through just to be able to keep their families healthy. Illegal immigrants would probably benefit the most from socialized health care.

 

[Deleted member]

I still don't get it. Why should my taxes go to people that shouldn't be here in the first place?

 

[Maniclysane]

I still don't get it. Why should my taxes go to people that shouldn't be here in the first place?

Why should our taxes go to a war that shouldn't have been started in the first place?

There's a key difference between these two.

One goes to keeping people alive. The other goes to wasteful bloodshed.

 

[Deleted member]

That has nothing to do with healthcare. We aren't arguing about the war.

EDIT: I can't say that one of my top priorities is saving illegal immigrants lives.

 

[CRASHiC]

If you do not included Illegal immigrants (though you won't because of how bad it sounds) you rise the cost for everyone, and we all must pay for their sicknesses as they are rushed to the ER room.

So, you have your choice
They pay for their own illness
we pay for theirs and they don't get health care

which one?

The main reasons I don't support this are

-Taxes get raised on me
-I need to provide healthcare for my employees
-Illegal Immigrants can get healthcare?!

1. Taxes will be raised anyway, because the cost of health care without reform is going to go double in the next 8 years.
2. The bill allows you to still pick your health care insurance provider, or you can use to government system and recieve tax cuts to your company, helping you meet their health care needs and provide more care to more employees.
3. They don't. The bill not only stops them from getting government health care, it stops them from getting ALL health care, which is just stupid.

 

[Maniclysane]

That has nothing to do with healthcare. We aren't arguing about the war.

EDIT: I can't say that one of my top priorities is saving illegal immigrants lives.

You're worried about how your taxes are being spent, and the war is part of them. Your taxes could be going to health care, which would be saving more lives than the war. You're right though, we're not talking about the war. Although, our citizens are the ones dying in the war.

I don't see why people should be denied simple health care because of how they made it to America.