[Serious] Why is the U.S. the only 1st world country without universal healthcare?

[Serious] Why is the U.S. the only 1st world country without universal healthcare?

What do you think?

12 Points
Upvote Downvote

23 Comments

Leave a Reply
  1. On one message board I frequented, there was a guy in the medical profession who made really great posts, the kind you always respected. A couple years ago he wrote: “When Obamacare first started, I thought it would take about 20 years to get to universal healthcare and now 8 years later, I think we’re still on track.”

  2. Because in AMerica, healthcare is a business first. There is a huge number of people getting very rich off of sick people, and they lobby the congress to keep the current system in place. In America, when in doubt, follow the money.

  3. Because they have been conditioned/brainwashed into thinking Universal Healthcare doesn’t work, that their tax people pay to have it is astronomical…..oh and its borderline communism

  4. We might have had it by now if Nixon’s presidency didn’t implode.From The Commonwealth Fund-
    “ Starting from the time of President Harry Truman in 1945, policymakers from both parties have introduced dozens of plans to protect all or most Americans against the high costs of getting sick. Truman wanted to create a national health insurance fund run by the federal government (a pre-Medicare single-payer system). Over decades, Senator Edward Kennedy proposed multiple plans with varying designs. President Bill Clinton in 1993 advocated for government-regulated managed competition as a means to cover all Americans. But in 1974, President Richard Nixon advanced one of the most interesting proposals —introducing a number of novel ideas that have since been incorporated into many reform efforts.
    Perhaps because of a childhood plagued by health problems (two of Nixon’s brothers died of tuberculosis, and he likely had a mild case himself), Nixon was deeply sympathetic to the health challenges facing Americans, and he came to believe in the necessity to cover everyone. As a Republican and advocate of limited government, however, Nixon sought narrow, targeted solutions to improve access to health care, relying as much as possible on private markets. The two main pillars of Nixon’s plan were an employer mandate and expanded coverage for the poor to “assure every American financial access to high quality health care.”
    Nixon proposed that all employers be required to offer insurance to full-time employees. Employers and employees would share the premium “on a basis which would prevent excessive burdens on either,” a novel idea that would have extended coverage to a large proportion of working Americans. There would be a limit on total medical expenses per covered family, and the federal government would provide temporary subsidies to small and low-wage employers to offer employees affordable insurance.
    For low-income people, the unemployed, the disabled, and other vulnerable groups, Nixon proposed a federal program with uniform benefits that would replace Medicaid. He wanted to peg premiums and out-of-pocket expenses to the income of the individual or family, so that a working family earning up to $5,000 (around $26,000 today) would pay no premiums at all. People with higher incomes could buy into this plan if they could not otherwise get coverage. In effect, Nixon proposed a buy-in to a federal, Medicaid-like program, rather than to Medicare, as Hillary Clinton proposed during her 2016 presidential campaign.
    Nixon understood that to make insurance affordable, controlling the costs of care was essential. So he included unprecedented delivery system reforms that anticipated later approaches. He promoted Health Maintenance Organizations, which offered comprehensive care for a fixed price, foreshadowing current interest in capitated and global payment approaches. He also wanted to reduce unnecessary procedures and hospitalizations while ensuring high-quality care. For this, he supported the creation of Professional Standards Review Organizations, which were supposed to set standards for the appropriateness of clinical services. He proposed to control excess supply of hospitals by encouraging state review of hospital construction.
    Nixon’s proposal eventually failed, in large part because Watergate destroyed his presidency. But elements of the plan’s innovative design have continued to emerge in many subsequent proposals by both Democrats and Republicans, including in the ACA. While the specifics have evolved over time, the concepts of relying on competing private insurance companies, employer mandates, and opportunities to buy into federal programs remain relevant to the current debate. Perhaps modern-day reformers could find other useful historical chestnuts inscribed on the yellowing pages of old health reform proposals.”

  5. If you are old, or disabled you get medicare
    if you are poor you get medicaid
    If you are a low earner but not quite poor you get a subsidy
    if you make decent money you are expected to pay for private insurance….

    thats as universal as switzerland or the netherlands…..

    My friend just got an appointment to see her GP
    Its in late October
    My friend is on medicaid

    My daughter went to see her GP last week
    Her appointment was 3 days after she called in
    She has private insurance

    If we get universal healthcare in the US….
    My family will probably pay for private insurance anyway, So we can be serviced before someones dying.

    So answer me this….
    [if universal healthcare is so awesome, why do many wealthy people in countries that have it still pay for private insurance/medical groups? ](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2019/universal-health-coverage-eight-countries)

  6. Well… It took European countries ages to realise the benefits of this type of equality. The USA as we know it has a very brief and different history as a country when compared to European countries. I think that might have something to do with it.

  7. They have great health care if you can pay for it. You can basically just waltz in and ask something, if you enough money, you get the healthcare you want. Places with universal healthcare, the healthcare isn’t bad and the costs are reasonable, but the waiting periods are way longer and there are way too many stories about people seen as hypochondriacs, so signs that would have been investigated in US, because it’s more money to the hospital, are seen as irrelevant.
    Stuff like, people complaining having these dizzy moments all the time, and doctor is just says it’s stress related “here take some pain medicine and sleeping pills”, upsidaisies it was an aneurysm.

  8. Not only healthcare, but also all the other elements of a social security system are very poorly developed there. It is because of a long history with an extreme right wing party and the other an extreme right wing party.

  9. Insurance companies demand huge discounts from hospitals, so the hospitals inflate their prices to still make a killing while technically giving large “discounts”. Anyone that can’t afford insurance just gets fucked over, and many people who DO have insurance still get fucked over.

    With no national healthcare there’s no reason to be competitive and the people in charge are making more money than we can even comprehend. There’s simply no incentive for the people that can change things to actually change things.

    There’s also a vast army of middlemen that are desperate to take an ever increasing cut from the turnover.

    It costs around $5 to produce a vial of insulin. There is literally no reason for bankrupting diabetics other than cruel greed.

Leave a Reply