Why is providing a taxpayer funded health system to your own citizens such a big deal in the USA?

I can't get my head around it, 

I'm not trying to start a argument,

just would like a rational explanation on why a country that is so religious seems to be totally against looking after your own people when they get sick? 

I don't mind paying into a fund that helps the less well off.....im happy to do so......

I mean why would you be against it......

Seems selfish.......

Anything that snacks of "socialism" is anathema and extremely suspect in the US, as if it might interfere with individual freedoms.  Whereas other countries view it as everyone's responsibility to look out for everyone else, and a healthier populace is more productive, so many people here look at it as, "why should I have to pay because you smoke, or overeat/under-exercise, or have bad genes?".  Instead of looking at it as, regardless of how healthy my habits are, if I can't afford health care and you can, eventually my health is going to suffer, compared to yours.  Some Americans' attitude tends to be, "That's your problem.". Or, "Well, if you want better health care, get a better job.". Of course, Covid and associated job losses has spotlighted just how tenuous is a system where having health care is tied to a person's job.

Also it seems to me some folks here think of the cost of healthcare, and do not consider how much of the cost is administrative because of the nature of a private system.  And they do not consider the human and economic toll of an insurance industry which is basically more invested in denial of care.  It is interesting to note that when LBJ conceived the Medicare system, his intent was that the qualifying age would be reduced gradually, so that the insurance system would be phased out, and Medicare would eventually cover all Americans cradle to grave.

Sometimes I wish "The Nordic View Of Everyrhing" was required reading.  It differentiates between the American perspective on freedom, as opposed to that of most of the rest of first-world countries, and makes a good case for a different take on the subject for those who still don't get it, or want to get it.  It's a lengthy read, but an eye-opener, and as one who has kind of put aside her life to take care of a mother who became disabled young (age 55), it offers another choice, that if we took it, some of us who are currently sacrificing could get our lives back.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B018QLGBF2/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr= - https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B018QLGBF2/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=

As far as the religious aspect, in some folks who do profess a religious affinity, you will find, if you look and ask questions, a lack of concern for other people, especially those who are the "wrong" co!or, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc., that contradicts the spirit of true religion.

😊

Thank you ViQueen24.....

The trouble with a health system based on "buying insurance" is when for one reason or another you can't afford the premiums means you are not covered.......

Then you end up in the governments health care.....

So why not support a good all round system....

Because one day for some unforeseen circumstance you can't pay your premiums.....

AKA Covid19......

At this point.....

That's my thinking....and I've seen it many times, when people pay all their lives into a health plan, get cancer after a time the insurance company says "sorry" you not covered....bye bye....

Yes, in that scenario, you can still opt for something you can afford, which may not cover as much as you may need.

There are many scenarios for abuse in the American system, such as extraneous orders for tests, which drives up costs to the consumer, i.e., the patient.  Also, frequently when a patient is in the hospital, they are charged for the services of any doctor who came anywhere near the patient's chart, for "consultation".  This can drive up costs exponentially.   And, of course, legitimate charges are sky-high expensive.

As far as I know, there is not much to be done by the patient in this scenario (the insurance companies have all the power), and it leads to another dilemma in the American system, and that is that a significant health event leads to costs that a patient and his family can't bear, cannot find money for.  This frequently leads in the US to bankruptcy and home foreclosures.  I have heard most bankruptcies and loss of homes in the US are due to medical costs.  My mother just filed bankruptcy two years ago due to medical bills from a lengthy hospital stay.  And since my mother became disabled 26 years ago, we have been almost foreclosed upon 4 times.  At one time, I literally worked 4 jobs to keep this from happening.  It should not be this way if we are truly the greatest country in the world, as some refer to us as, and to me, this is not what freedom looks like.

I can see the "Communist = bad" viewpoint and appreciate the desire for freedom.  Go too far left in your politics and the only way to make the economy work is to remove personal freedoms.  But that is a matter of distance left.  It does not happen if your politics are a little left of centre.

I worry that the USA can't see the "facist = bad" viewpoint or appreciate the value of basic needs.  Go too far right in your politics and the populace lose their freedoms - as they can't afford them*.  But that is a matter of distance right.  It does not happen if your politics are a little right of centre.

In theory, Socialism was supposed to be a middle way.  Sometimes it is, like in New Zealand.  Sometimes it can just be a cover for Communism, as it was recently in our Labour party here in the UK.  

Only an electorate with basic education/understanding of politics, can juggle things safely.  The system has to be built up from the bottom.  The current "Facist in Chief" has the great propaganda talents to dupe the ill educated, so they vote with the greatly-moneyed who benefit from the far right.  He has the funds too.  Only a campaign-fund-cap could remove some of that electoral bias.  (Communist Labour never returned to power over here.  With a new leader they could, but only if the current Prime Minister messes up really badly, as they are still uncomfortably left of centre.  Over in New Zealand it would take an act of God to remove Ardern.)

*Freedom to travel - takes money, freedom to choose where to live - takes money.  You can't even own a gun, if you can't afford it.  Most apposite of all: freedom from avoidable disease takes money.

I want to address one aspect of US health care that the US seems to have got right, and that is Hospice care for end of life situations.  I am a member of a health forum (for my wife's condition) and nearly every US member how has had a loved one face the end of life situation has praise for Hospice.   OK, this is mostly limited to not-for-profit hospice services, as the for profit ones seem to have the same problems as most of the health care.

The provision of medication, loan of equipment, is great, Also there seems to be a lot of very caring individuals in the Hospice service.

I too, from the forum have been horrified by the number of tests in the US that are required even by insurance companies.  Our local neurologist stated that neuro-physiological tests (which can take up to 8 hours for the whole battery) should be at least one year or preferably 18 months or more apart, because patients can remember the test from the previous time and that alters the result.  It is not unusual to hear that in the States the doctors want them performed every 6 months.  Also here in Finland the neurologist selected the tests most appropriate to what her problems might be, and it took my wife three hours, but in the States it seems that often they go for the whole eight hours of tests regardless of what the main issue is.  ---- The system does seem to be desiged to fleece the patients.