The US can't "just" do anything because the political system is completely deadlocked. It's not really like well-functioning democracies where a coalition can win an election with a particular set of proposals for reform and then get those implemented.
Not disagreeing. Actually, the Republican party these days is capable of gridlocking itself. I've never seen such a high level of dysfunction -- enough so that I suspect we are living in some transition period, although what we are transitioning to I am uncertain. I don't think the current Republican party is stable.
sure, it can crumble economically etc but that's a lot slower process and gives plenty of time to materialize the spin.
We don't trust the government to manage it appropriately and will instead use that money for vanity projects or to line the pockets of whoever is running that program.
Then for the people, we consider "failures" such as debt, homelessness, etc as moral failures, rather than failures of the system. The leading thought is "Why are MY tax dollars paying for someone else's knee surgery? They should have planned properly!"
Any change to this system will require a societal shift within America which isn't going to be happening anytime soon, if ever.
This is a very bad faith take on what groups opposed are saying and I don't even agree with them. You don't need to do this to effectively argue against this stance.
[0]https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/jonathan-m-metzl-dying...
Tying into personal experience. When I paid for my mom's knee surgery which left her wheelchair-bound for 2 months afterward, I had many proudly conservative family members ask me why I would do that. The knee surgery was to help with damage done from obesity (which she had beat before the surgery and is now at a healthy weight). I was told that I was rewarding her "bad" behavior. That she needed to suffer the consequences of her actions. That her health is not my responsibility.
All of those statements reflect my earlier statement of American individualism and our belief that these issues are moral failings, rather than societal failings. This individualism runs so deep in our society that a son is chastised for helping his mother.
I think the rest of your point, about Americans in general not trusting the government to do things efficiently or competently, is true though.
This one kills me. This is almost literally the definition of insurance.
Because a job "with benefits" is a badge of honor. Because the "gubment" is wasteful. Because people believe people will scam any system like that (although most people who think this assume it's "certain" people who do the scamming and can't be bothered to realize it's people like Rick Scott who do the scamming.).
The non-reportability is a recent change. Also, if the provider sues, whether it’s on your credit report is irrelevant.
Strongly disagree. Being able to take your time to pay a debt when in a cash crunch without worrying about the long-term impacts on your credit is material.
Secondly, it's still a legal debt. That means the billing department will employ escalating collection tactics for large debts where they believe the debtor has sufficient assets.
There is a chance of follow up, and some healthcare providers do. You can be taken to court and forced to pay or declare bankruptcy if you can't.
While the US does legally require some medical care regardless of ability to pay, that's mostly for life sustaining care; healthcare providers to which you owe a large debt may decline to provide healthcare when not legally obligated. That can be a big deal or not depending on your available providers and their policies.
Did the rule change that it can no longer show up regardless of timeframe on a credit score? I believe in the US it used to be 1 year after being overdue.
Anyhow, given that it now no longer shows up, what's the point of paying it?