I think you're view of the American public is a bit narrow and short sighted, which isn't necessarily you're fault. If you live outside of the US then there are likely several things you haven't considered.
First, healthcare is provided for low income families by the states (in most states). Shifting this to a national healthcare program runs legal complications as (at least previously) this has been a matter controlled by the state, and states rarely like to shift power to the federal government. With the United States being classified as a federal republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_republic), this can be a real challenge.
Second, we Americans generally pride ourselves on the many choices we have. We often see choice and freedom as the same thing. Free markets give us choice in the products and services we receive and who receive them from. Shifting to a pure federally run healthcare program would reduce choice in who provides our service, and for many Americans this is a deal breaker. There would also be no option to opt-out, further reducing choice. While it is generally agreed that opting out of health insurance is a poor choice, it is a risk-reward system that I believe should be decided upon by the individual, especially in the case of younger adults without a family.
Third, there are financial complications. Currently the total cost of health care is ultimately decided by negotiations between hospitals, physicians, and insurance companies. Larger insurance companies have more pull because of a larger subscriber base and help to keep health care costs lower, however this comes at the cost to the providers and therefore the staff. In the case of a single federally run program the government holds all of the leverage as if the hospital does not agree to the governments approved rate structure its only option is to move to cash payments only. Ultimately this will serve to reduce payments to doctors and nurses and the fear is that over time this will result in fewer skilled employees. Currently many hospitals and physicians will not accept the state provided insurance, and the patient is required to pay the difference or find a "welfare doctor" which has become synonymous with a lower standard of care.
Finally you have the issue of how to pay for the healthcare. Most likely it would come as an increase in income tax. This would mean that an individual that has worked hard through school or apprenticeship and receives a job making $100,000 per year would pay more for health insurance than a family of 5 making $50,000 annually. Individuals that have no interest in working and live off of the public welfare system would pay nothing and receive the same care.
Your statement, "Americans don't like to pay for a service that is given to anyone but themselves," is partially true. Subsidized programs are fine when run properly. Public works programs that put people to work, road and infrastructure, education, aid provided for healthcare facilities, assisted living centers for citizens, public safety, unemployment insurance, and hundreds of other programs are happily paid for even by people who have never been able to utilize them. However when money is taken from hard working honest citizens and in turn given to dishonest citizens that do not wish to work, avoid paying taxes, or take advantage of programs they should be excluded from is where many Americans draw the line. If the failed or broken systems were fixed then there would be additional money availble to fund (an) optional federal or state run program(s) to supplement the current system.
reply
share
Bourne30
13 years ago
Doctors are not supposed to compete. There should be no competition when it comes to HEALTHCARE. Doctors job's are to help not compete first and help second.
reply
share