Why do so many Americans object to universal health care yet complain about insurance premiums? Its something I've never understood as an outside observer.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/26/uk-public-ar...
> Department of Health (DH) figures show that the amount of its funding that has gone to “independent sector providers” more than doubled from £4.1bn in 2009-10, Labour’s last year in power, to £8.7bn in 2015-16.
> Slow-release privatisation has also seen the percentage of the DH budget finding its way into private hands rising from 4% in 2009-10 to 8% in the last financial year.
That "wrong direction" poll may well reflect concern over the slow privatization of the NHS described here.
Often Canadian health care is cited in America as an example of a crappy system because some Canadians will travel to the US for surgeries.
Most of it is unfounded, takes anecdotes, and paints broad strokes. As opposed to looking at it as a whole, and doesn't consider the underlying costs. It would be nice if we could have a pragmatic conversation about it.
The GDP portion that the US spends on public health care (Medicaid, medicare) is already comparable to the total portion other nations spend on universal healthcare. So insurance is just systemic robbery, its private yet mandatory spending. Costs are high as a result of paying for useless insurance infrastructure.
Finally Americans are vey independent, as in I'll make my own keep and provide for my family, I don't want to rely on the state.
The real question is: why don't Americans understand how much they are already paying for other people's healthcare? If you get treatment at a provider that receives DSP reimbursements, you are not only paying for medicare but paying again out of pocket to subsidize that hospital for providing financially unsustainable medicare treatments.
We're all waiting for California to prove that Universal Healthcare is possible at scale in the US. Smart money isn't holding their breath though- lawmakers know it would be career suicide to give them what they wish for.
1) The historical answer until Obama's administration:
They hear that it is called Socialized Healthcare. Socialized is a derivative of "Socialism". Not taking into account the myths about American Exceptionalism mentioned in the article (which are very valid), for many, many Americans Socialism = Stalinism.
Then they turn on the TV, and see health industry funded politicians selectively pointing out the worst aspects of socialized healthcare, and the best parts of the capitalist model (and if you can afford access, the American model has some great aspects). That's usually enough for most people to think that ultimately socialized healthcare doesn't actually work, even if it wasn't associated with a tyrant who's successors threatened most of the living population with nuclear annihilation.
So, given the proposition of a "non-working" healthcare system that is associated with mass murder, Americans see no other choice than in the healthcare system that they have. Whereupon they take a strong pride in the fact that they were able to achieve their own level of care. An: I worked hard to get my healthcare, it is part of my status, and now you want to devalue what I had to work for by giving it to everybody for free?, mentality takes hold.
And if all of that doesn't work to block the idea, the health insurance lobby simply ensures that media and politicans talk as IF the above was all true. Because the second half of this question is that since Obama's administration, 60% of Americans DO believe it is the responsibility of the federal government to provide healthcare to Americans. But if you watch Republican aligned media, they will simply act as if the majority of the populace is still opposed to healthcare because of the old story above. The vast majority of Americans don't have access to polling data, and naively and incorrectly assume that the average of their friends and media sources is representative of the viewpoints of the rest of the country.
I don't think something can be universally loved. There are many stories of long waiting times and people going overseas for private healthcare.
People like private healthcare because it aligns with America's love of freedom - which includes the freedom to fail.
Maybe a little strong on my part.
Asked "would you scrap the NHS?" to randoms on the street i bet you would get a very strong no vote.
I think it is more sustainable than other systems, especially the one practiced in the US.
Also, please note than in the US, public spending on health is already huge, and there’s a huge private spending as well - iirc about 20% of us GDP is spent on healthcare, which is double any other western country, and with worse results to boot. It is already unsustainable.
The UK has a lower debt-to-GDP ratio than the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_de...
Their debt ratio is predicted to slightly lower by 2022, while ours is expected to continue to increase.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_future_gr...
American's have a very perverse idea of what 'freedom' is.
I’ve heard Canadians complain about the lack of private options awhile back, but I think even that is solved now.
And even we could reduce it by half, the only politically viable method of funding is a highly progressive tax.
People on hacker news would likely pay 20k a year and the average person would pay 2,500 or less.
It was just an example, but it's pretty clear that costs would be cut.
>We’d have to ration care and implement price controls. Who knows if that is even politically viable.
We already ration care, we just do it by how much money you have. Price controls? Pretty politically viable, just march some affected people up on stage. Hell you don't even need price controls, just make overseas drug importing legal. Right now we're a totally captive market, that's why they charge so much.
>And even we could reduce it by half, the only politically viable method of funding is a highly progressive tax.
Okay? Sounds fine to me.
>People on hacker news would likely pay 20k a year and the average person would pay 2,500 or less.
I mean that's how progressive taxes work and I don't have a problem with it, although your numbers are obviously pulled straight from your ass.
Can we not apply the same thinking here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OECD_health_expenditure_p...
We spend about the same as other OECD countries in public healthcare funding, plus we spend a bunch more privately, for an overall healthcare spend that's the highest per-capita in the world, and outcomes that aren't as good.
Individual rights are what makes the West successful compared to the rest of the world.
We're talking about Western-style democratic socialism, as found in Sweden, Norway, Germany, England, etc. here. Terrifying totalitarian hellholes they're not.
I wonder if this is not an oxymoron. In my view, democracy means (a lot of) politics, while communism means no or very little politics (in a true sense of the word).
But when you discover that a system has way better objective outcomes, e.g. in the case of drug policy or healthcare policy, it’s a shame not to upgrade to a similar system.
Really, the US has a lot of good systems, but healthcare isn’t one of them.
Just scroll down.
The US has one of the highest debt-to-GDP ratios of the OECD. All of the countries I mentioned have lower debt than we do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_de...