Why do many Americans oppose a government run health care service?

As a British citizen I'm perplexed to the US's opposition to socialised health care, particularly since:

1) The US has the lowest life expectancy of any G7 country, including the UK. Its life expectancy is lower than that of Cuba.

2) An American spends on average almost two and a half times more for health care than a British citizen ($7290 a year per capita compared to $2992 in the UK). It has the highest expenditure on health care as a percentage of its GDP (16%) in the world.

3) Health care was ranked the lowest in industrial countries by a study conducted by the Commonwealth Fund. According to the WHO, Isa's health care comes 37th out of 191 countries. The UK comes 18th.

4) 62% of all personal bankruptcies are believed to result from medical debt.

5) 15.3% of the population is completely uninsured, with 35% of the population being underinsured. The Institute of Medicine believe that 18,000 people die unnecessarily every year because they are uninsured or underinsured. Harvard put the figure at 44,800 excessive deaths a year due to a lack of insurance and another study put the figure at 100,000.

So, despite the high expenditure associated with privately provided health care, the actual service provided is poorer than in all other developped countries, who all have socialised health care. If the US had socialised health care, the costs per person would drop, the quality of treatment would increase, the amount of people accessing health care would also increase and the life expectancy would probably increase.

Therefore, why are many US citizens opposed to socialised health care?


@ Shmuck: Maybe you don't trust the government, but I'd rather trust an elected body of politicians than an unelected insurance company only interested in making money.

@JW: my last paragraph highlights the fact that in all countries in the western world with socialised healthcare, individuals pay less than in the US and receive better health care. If the American health care system became socialised, the profit-making arm of it would be eliminated, and therefore it would not be included in the cost.

14 Answers

  • 9 years ago
    Best Answer

    people with lots of money have awesome health care already. the past 30 years has saturated our country with greed-based principles and the Me-society. Somehow fact and reason, which is what you base your question on, is constantly doubted and debated thanks to both sides tapping into their own "factual" realities. People can't even come to the conclusion of whether or not the planet is 6 thousand years old or 5 billion years old, how the hell are we gonna decide on which health care is better.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    I'm opposed to government mandated or subsidized programs of any type, period. Look at the mess made of social security, medicare/medicaid, government run schools, and on and on and on.

    Show me in the Constitution where it says that the FEDERAL government has any business in the health care industry.

    And, unlike many people who are afraid to say it, I don't want to pay higher premiums for one-size fits all, government controlled health care so that I can subsidize some welfare queen's premiums and let her lay around in the hood all day waiting to spit the next baby out so she can get an increase in her welfare benefits.

    Have you actually considered your comments in the paragraph below statistic 5 above? The amount of people accessing health care would increase and life expectancy would increase (they would spend more time accessing health care), but yet the costs would drop. How are you going to accomplish that? Are you gonna cut payments to doctors? There will be less doctors then so there goes the quality of treatment. You gonna limit who gets treatment? I'll bet those patients not deemed worthy wont think the quality increased.

    Do some research and give some more thought to what you are saying.

  • As an American, I can assure you that most of them are crazy.

    The right wing media feeds them a steady stream of propaganda fed to them by "for profit" insurance companies.

    They have convinced many of them that the health care systems in England, Canada, Germany or France is terrible.

    So much money is being made off the American people that this is hard to stop.

  • 9 years ago

    This kind of sums it up:

    "The reasons for the public revolt are easy to see. The Democrats want to spend $1.5 trillion over a decade, impose an $800 billion tax increase in the midst of the worst recession in a generation, increase federal borrowing by $239 billion (on top of the $11 trillion the Obama budget already requires us to borrow through 2019), impose costly mandates on employers that will discourage hiring as unemployment nears 10 percent, force individuals to buy one-size-fits-all government defined insurance, and insert the government in countless new ways between doctors and patients. All of that would occur whether or not the plan includes a "public option," which at this point it does include and which will exacerbate all of these problems."

    You also have the problem that the health care system will be run by the IRS, an organization that many Americans consider Unconstitutional, tyrannical, corrupt, and almost completely incompetent.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 3 years ago

    by using fact lots people do no longer comprehend their **** from their elbow. We had a shot at a public determination which will have extra a similar variety of healthcare to all people at fairly low-fee costs. yet no. Republicans could have none of that. It needs to be "unfastened industry" pushed. they're better in touch approximately the nicely-being insurance company and their features that finally emerge as of their very own campaign coffers. Deep down in that so-commonplace as pledge of theirs is language approximately privatizing the VA administration inclusive of Social protection and Medicare. do no longer forget that for the time of November!

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Obviously reality is not your strongest trait.

    Look, the government can't run anything and health care is certainly no exception. You're surrendering your freedom to a bunch of politicians who really couldn't care less if you lived or died. I'll go a bit further and claim those same politicians WANT you to die so they wouldn't have to pay for anything.

    Do you really want your health determined by a bunch of dirty no-goods sitting in some government office pushing numbers around? I don't.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Because they can't stand the idea of even one cent of their money going toward poor people.

    America has the best healthcare on earth if you're rich enough to afford it...

    @ Phrim: so you oppose the federal military paid for by your taxes too?

    @ Talos: that hardly invalidates govt healthcare programs.

    Norway, Sweden, France, Australia, Germany all have tax paid healthcare which constantly ranks highly

    @ Moondog: yea rather than the money being pumped into private insurance only to give people incomplete or no coverage when they need it.

    Yea that's the kind of healthcare system we need..

  • 9 years ago

    My niece spent 4 years in London going to college. She is a very liberal person politically and socially. Her explanation of the British health care system was that it should be scrapped. That come from a very liberal American that had much experiance with both systems.

  • Ignorance of the facts, stupidity, fear and greed. That should cover just about everyone.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    I oppose anything the government does. it is wrong to force people to do things against their will and that is exactly what government does.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.