Why Americans Oppose Government Run Healthcare

February 2, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (26)

By Bonnie Erbe, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

The British Broadcasting Corp. has an interesting take on U.S. voter opposition to healthcare reform. In an online article headlined “Why do people often vote against their own interests?” the news service tries to explain white middle- and lower-class opposition to healthcare reform. The article describes last year’s series of angry outbursts at town hall meetings across the country in which mainly white Americans protested President Obama’s and Congress’s version of healthcare reform. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare reform--the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state--are often the ones it seems designed to help.

In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87 percent.

The writer then goes on to describe, among other things, Americans’ independent thinking and intense dislike of Washington politicians “who think they know best.” Voters resent having others dictating solutions to problems when the voters do not agree those solutions are in the voters’ best interests. I agree that’s part of the problem, but I believe there’s a lot more. First, polls last summer showed that some 80 percent of Americans were happy with their healthcare insurance. So I kept asking myself why politicians were imposing massive, costly reform on the whole nation when only 40 million out of 310 million are uninsured?

Second, Americans are not stupid. They see the failings of single-payer and government-run systems in other countries. They see that middle-income people get worse care, on average, in state-run systems, than they do through private insurance. They see that state-run systems offer some care to low-income persons. But they offer lousy, spotty, rationed care to the middle class. And only the very wealthy have enough money to buy their way into the best, private care. Why would middle-income Americans want to sacrifice their access to the best care through the coverage they have now?

To me, it’s interesting that British writers would question why many middle-class Americans reject universal care. When their own universal healthcare system is so widely known for providing distinctly lesser care to middle-income Brits, why should they even question why Americans would reject such a system?

Check out our  editorial cartoons on healthcare.

Check out this month’s best political cartoons.

Become a political insider: Subscribe to
U.S. News Weekly, our digital magazine.

Tags:
healthcare,
healthcare reform

Reader Comments Read all comments (26)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Joe's comments are very insightful. We don't have health care in this country. It is disease care. Taking care of oneself by taking responsibility for good dietary habits, and choosing to use professions like naturopathy, chiropractic, acupuncture, and other vitalistic based systems goes a long way towards preventing illness in the first place. Selecting highly processed "food", devoid of nutrients, leads to poorly functioning cells, which in turn lead to organ malfunction and disease.

Dr. Karl R.O.S. Johnson, DC of MI 12:24AM April 23, 2012

In response to your question "why should they even question why Americans would reject such a system?" I would encourage you to watch your own company (PBS)'s work Frontline: Sick Around the World which reviews how universal systems have functioned in free market economies such as Great Britain, Japan, Germany, Taiwan, and Switzerland which boast longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality rates, insurance for all and substantially lower costs than the United States. While no system is perfect, more care for more people at a lower cost doesn't sound too bad to me as a middle-income American with a conscience.

Please provide evidence to support of your comments: "They see that middle-income people get worse care, on average, in state-run systems, than they do through private insurance. They see that state-run systems offer some care to low-income persons. But they offer lousy, spotty, rationed care to the middle class." Please give some statistical backing to your insulting claims to systems that have improved the health of thousands. I would hope that there is still an expectation in journalism where you need to cite lofty claims as the ones in your post.

Mel of NJ 4:21PM January 21, 2012

o widely known for providing distinctly lesser care to middle-income Brits, why should they even question why Americans would reject such a system?

Where do you get your facts from? I'm middle-income brit and I get the same care as the rich man down the street, or the poor man with no job living on the street. The problem with the American health care system is it's based on how much money you have and what type of gold insurance policy you carry. At least the British get care unlike our American counter part!

It's reporters like yourself that are scaring the hell out of the Americans!!

Goddess 7:45AM March 27, 2010

Bonnie Erbe

Bonnie Erbe

Bonnie Erbe is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report and hosts PBS's weekly news analysis program, To the Contrary with Bonnie Erbe. She also writes a weekly syndicated newspaper column for Scripps Howard News Service.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

advertisement