Why is America seemingly so opposed to a Universal Health Service?

[sonorakitch]

I have recently been offered a job in the U.S. They offered me $200,000 dollars a year which is significantly more than I get at the moment. But I'm worried about the cost of health insurance this is because I've had cancer - the cost might be astronomical and the company doesn't offer free medical insurance. A friend of mine who also just recently recovered from cancer went on holiday to the U.S. and was charged $2800 dollars insurance for just two weeks.

I don't particularly want to leave the safety net of the NHS as it might end up costing me more money to live in the U.S even if I'm getting paid more.
So I phoned up the company and explained why I wasn't comfortable moving and that I wanted $300,000 a year. I've since heard from a friend who works for them that they think I'm a "greedy limey arsehole who thinks he's a f...ing star but is actually a f...ing idiot". But I'm telling you something I'm not moving until they pay 300k or the U.S gets itself an NHS.

The NHS is a great system, when I was ill I got $80,000 worth of cancer treatment and I didn't have to pay a penny. It's absolutely brilliant. America should do it.

Or maybe you did!

~Chris

 

[Rocko_el_loco]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but i'm not a fan of universal health care mainly because it could lead to the limitation of freedom. The way I see it, people could start saying: "If I have to pay for that guy's surgery after he gets in an accident and he wasn't wearing his seat belt, then maybe seat belt use should be mandatory."And after that they could start saying that I shouldn't skateboard because it's not safe, or that i should lose some weight because it's not healthy. I know that in countries that have universal health care this doesn't happen, but I don't wanna take that risk. I'm all for the government giving health care for people who can't afford it, but i'd rather live my own life and pay for it's consequences.

 

[Cutlass]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but i'm not a fan of universal health care mainly because it could lead to the limitation of freedom. The way I see it, people could start saying: "If I have to pay for that guy's surgery after he gets in an accident and he wasn't wearing his seat belt, then maybe seat belt use should be mandatory."And after that they could start saying that I shouldn't skateboard because it's not safe, or that i should lose some weight because it's not healthy. I know that in countries that have universal health care this doesn't happen, but I don't wanna take that risk. I'm all for the government giving health care for people who can't afford it, but i'd rather live my own life and pay for it's consequences.

The private sector is already doing that.

 

[Rocko_el_loco]

The private sector is already doing that.

Well if they wanna make someone pay more because of their dangerous activities, then i'm all for it. I just don't want the government making certain activities illegal because then they'd have to pay more for my health.

 

[Cutlass]

Well if they wanna make someone pay more because of their dangerous activities, then i'm all for it. I just don't want the government making certain activities illegal because then they'd have to pay more for my health.

But companies will not be allowed to employ or offer insurance to certain people. Right now it's mainly targeted at smokers and the overweight. But it's also people with pre-existing conditions.

Unless there are laws against it passed, it will continue get more and more oppressive.

The bottom line being, rationing of health care is already happening. So do you want that rationing in the hands of people who's only motivation is profit, or do you want it in the hands of people you at least have the option to vote out of office?

 

[Rocko_el_loco]

But companies will not be allowed to employ or offer insurance to certain people. Right now it's mainly targeted at smokers and the overweight. But it's also people with pre-existing conditions.

Unless there are laws against it passed, it will continue get more and more oppressive.

The bottom line being, rationing of health care is already happening. So do you want that rationing in the hands of people who's only motivation is profit, or do you want it in the hands of people you at least have the option to vote out of office?

But you can still smoke, and be overweight. And what i'm afraid of isn't the elected officials wanting to spend less on smokers and overweight people, but the actual people wanting the government to spend less money on those people and demanding that the government pass legislation banning smoking and being overweight. And if a company doesn't want to insure you, then you just look for another insurance company.

 

[Cutlass]

Too many people simply cannot afford a health plan that their employer does not subsidize. And that limits their employment options. Recently here a state sponsored program announced rates as high as $625/month. That's $7500 per year per person. What does a middle income family of 4 do with that?

So today your employer tells you you can't be fat or smoke. Tomorrow your spouse can't. Then your kids can't be fat. Then you can't do anything dangerous. There's no end to it.

The private sector has no advantage over even the worst case scenario of a public system as far as that issue is concerned.

 

[Rocko_el_loco]

Too many people simply cannot afford a health plan that their employer does not subsidize. And that limits their employment options. Recently here a state sponsored program announced rates as high as $625/month. That's $7500 per year per person. What does a middle income family of 4 do with that?

So today your employer tells you you can't be fat or smoke. Tomorrow your spouse can't. Then your kids can't be fat. Then you can't do anything dangerous. There's no end to it.

The private sector has no advantage over even the worst case scenario of a public system as far as that issue is concerned.

Well yeah, in that case public health care would be necessary, I still think that the worst case scenario of a public system would be the government controlling what you can and can't do, but since people can't really afford health care, then i guess that public health care is necessary, although the entire concept of public health care still has me worried.

 

[Cutlass]

That's why we have a democracy. Ultimately the government can do what we let it do. If it goes too far, we throw out the bums that voted for that and elect bums who promise to change it. What comes out of that in the end is some unhappy medium that most people can live with.

 

[GinandTonic]

Well yeah, in that case public health care would be necessary

Then you are arguing that the profitable insurance cases should be taken by the private sector and the loss making cases should be taken by the state. So private profits and the tax payer pickes up the losses? That's not the free market.

Thats the worst of both worlds.

 

[Rocko_el_loco]

Then you are arguing that the profitable insurance cases should be taken by the private sector and the loss making cases should be taken by the state. So private profits and the tax payer pickes up the losses? That's not the free market.

Thats the worst of both worlds.

Preferably, I'd like to have everything be free market, but if the government doesn't take the non-profitable cases, then who will? Hopefully another private company, but for now that doesn't seem likely.

 

[Gainy III]

America is founded upon emigration and consequently immigration - the individual and not a national health service/society

 

[GinandTonic]

Preferably, I'd like to have everything be free market, but if the government doesn't take the non-profitable cases, then who will? Hopefully another private company, but for now that doesn't seem likely.

But if the state pays all the losses and the corps pick up the profits the whole system is wacked. Completely ineficient with no incentive to improve.

At a guess this is why the US system costs twice as much as most comparable nations and has the 37th best outcome. In short it's a bollox way of doing biz.

 

[Rocko_el_loco]

But if the state pays all the losses and the corps pick up the profits the whole system is wacked. Completely ineficient with no incentive to improve.

At a guess this is why the US system costs twice as much as most comparable nations and has the 37th best outcome. In short it's a bollox way of doing biz.

I completely agree with what you're saying.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Why does America not want a "national health service" system, is it the costs and the taxes people think will get expontially higher? Or is it the belief you shouldn't have to pay for someone elses health treatment?

I have never understood why America, a rich country, wouldn't take it up. I can understand third world countries given the cost of medicines and treatments these days, but i see no real reason why this isn't the case in America, a health system would cut a lot of the stress out of getting ill. Here in Britain you just ring up your GP, see him/her, alright you have to pay for prescriptions (except in Wales and possibly Scotland) but at a discount price and all drugs are the same price under prescription, and not have to worry about health insurance and whether the diease you have will be actually treated, it does sound like a really unfair system because it's not really fair to make someone pay though the nose because they manged to get a diease or condition that requires expensive treatment.

It's because there's too much vested interest in the status quo by health insurance companies and some greedy doctors, who have convinced the public that public health care is a bad idea, through PR. They have also formed lobbies that bribe elected officials into voting against it. By keeping both the government and the public in their pockets, the lobbies can maintain the status quo indefinitely.