I´´m sorry i know i will get a lot of flak here on FR
because of this question. No problem! I can take it ;-)
But to be seroius i´m really just interessted
(from a european point of view) why are “americans” so opposed against any form of so called socialized health care?
I mean really why is this? I really don´t get it.
So please explain me why. Again i´m really just interessted.
So no offence.
Greetings
I can think of several answers off the top of my head:
The Constitution of the United States established a national government of limited and enumerated powers. National healthcare is not one of those powers.
Putting the national government in charge of healthcare will create massive bureaucracies, requiring enormous tax burdens.
Government bureaucracies are less efficient at delivering goods and services than private enterprises. Consequently, a government health care system will end up costing more while delivery poorer service.
Nationalized healthcare will remove incentives for innovation in medicine.
A government health care system will provide statists endless excuses for meddling in the lifestyle choices of citizens.
In general, socialism is inefficient because it distorts the market, substituting political calculation for economic ones. It is also incompatible with personal freedom.
I don’t know that it’s correct to say that all Americans are opposed to any form of “socialized” health care. We already have Medicare, which is health care for our elderly. We already have Medicaid, which is health care for the poor. We also have charities.
Many of us here on FR believe that under the U.S. Constitution, the federal government has certain responsibilities and state governments have certain responsibilities. Our federal government is supposed to have very limited responsibilities, primarily focused on international relations, the army/navy/air force/marines, etc.
States are supposed to have more general powers and are also supposed to be “sovereign” states, not simply subsidiaries of the federal government. Traditionally, state governments have been responsible for health (hospitals, licensing of medical professionals) & safety (police, fire departments). State governments and individual citizens are the ones who should be making the decisions about health insurance under the 9th and 10th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution - it’s not supposed to be a federal government responsibility.
Our state governments are supposed to be “laboratories of democracy”, meaning that states are supposed to be left free to experiment with solutions to problems for their individual states. What’s good for Maryland might not be good for Iowa. What’s good for Florida might not be good for Alaska. State governments are generally more “nimble” and it is (generally) easier to undo policies if they turn out to be a bad idea.
The ObamaCare legislation was based primarily on legislation from Massachusetts (also known as RomneyCare/MassCare). However, residents of Massachusetts have the highest health insurance premiums in the country and they also have longer waits in emergency rooms than before RomneyCare was implemented. Doctors are fleeing the state, because the legislation does nothing to address the underlying high costs of health care there. Doctors fleeing the state are causing doctor shortages, which leads to higher prices and longer waits for care.
So, there are Constitutional reasons why we oppose ObamaCare (not just its individual mandate). ObamaCare infringes upon state sovereignty. Before ObamaCare, if you didn’t like a particular state’s health insurance laws, you could always “vote with your feet” and move to a different state. Now we can’t do that.
The other reason is that we simply cannot afford it. Our national debt is rapidly approaching our GDP.
There are much cheaper ways of dealing with the problem of providing health care to those who need it but cannot afford it than ObamaCare.