Why are some American's against Nationalized Health Insurance?

The US already has Nationalized Health Insurance it's called medicare and medicaid.

As for Universal Health Care it is often merely the coverage that is mandatory, the hospitals are still private, indeed countries such as France have universal health care but the hospitals in France are private.

There are also international centres of excellence within many National Health Systems such as th Royal Marsden Cancer Hospital in London. The Royal Marsden and its academic partner, The Institute of Cancer Research in London has discovered or developed more new anti-cancer drugs than the National Cancer Institute in the USA.

http://www.royalmarsden.nhs.uk/RMH/priva...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/716832...

http://www.icr.ac.uk/index.shtml

It was the Royal Marsden who first discovered the carcinogenic chemicals in tobacco smoke in the 1920s, the first chemotherapy drugs in the 1950s, and new combinations in the 1980s and 1990s, including drugs giving a 96% cure rate for testicular cancer, whilst more recently the Royal Marsden has carried out ground-breaking research in relation to drugs such as Herceptin and Tamoxifen, as well as helping to develop new techniques in relation to stem cell transplant treatments.

The Royal Marsden is the oldest cancer (oncology) hospital in the world and the largest comprehensive cancer centre in Europe.

It is also not just cancer -

London's Great Ormond Street is one of the worlds top childrens hospitals with an international reputation.

Moorfield Hospital is one of the most famous and highly respected eye hospitals.

Kings College Hospital London has the largest specialist liver unit in the world.

Stoke Mandeville has the largest spinal unit in the world and was responsible for starting the current paralympic games.

The Royal Brompton & Harefield is a world renowned centre for Heart and Lung surgery.

The Royal Maudsley and Bethlem (Bedlam) is one of the oldest (over 750 years old) and most highly respected psychiatric hospitals in the world, and home to the Institute of Psychiatry.

The Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital (Bones and Joints) is an international cente of excellence.

The Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital is Europe's leading centre for audiological research, with an international reputation for its expertise and range of specialties, all on one site on London's Gray's Inn Road.

National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery which along with the nearby Institute of Neurology, is a major international centre for treatment, research and training.

St Marks Hospital, Harrow is a leading national and international referral centre for diseases of the bowel and one of only 14 worldwide to be recognised as a centre of excellence by the World Organisation of Digestive Endoscopy.

The Eastman Dental Institute at University College London is the largest postgraduate dental academic centre in Europe, whilst the new NHS University Hospital Birmingham will have the largest Emergency and Trauma (ER) unit in Europe.

Other internationally renowned NHS specialised units include the Christie Cancer Hospital in Manchester, Walton Neurology Unit in Liverpool, The London Hospital for Tropical Diseases, The St. Andrews Unit in Broomfield, Chelmsford which has the largest burns unit in Europe and the The Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases NHS Foundation Trust a Specialist Hospital in the centre of Bath with an international reputation for research, expertise in complex rehabilitation and rheumatology.

http://www.nsd.scot.nhs.uk/services/specialised/index.html

Whilst no system is perfect, I would certainly not paint as bad a picture of national or universal health care as some Americans do.

The vast majority of first world nations have universal health care, it is mainly the US and the 3rd World who don't have universal health care.

Map showing countries with Universal Health care -

http://x37.xanga.com/e37c663101434176598347/z134557084.png

Some points:

1. I have yet to ever hear someone who supports national health care, actually say how much such a system would cost.

Or exactly how it would be funded.
Who would control it
Who would decide whats covered
Who would decide what doctors and hospitals are paid

You cannot really have a debate about an issue, until the facts are out there for you to debate.

Plus , there are alot of things that can be done, to make the current system work better, that have not been done.

1. Make insurance companies cover pre existing conditions
2. Make insurance companies charge everyone the same, for the same policies.
3. Make hospitals and doctors charge everyone the same, for the same services.
4. Allow individuals to form health co-ops to purchase insurance at discounted rates
5. Allow small business to go in together to purchase health insurance at discounted rates.
6, allow the chronically insurable, to enroll in medicaid or medicare.

Historical note:

National health care bills have been before Congress 5 times since WW ll,

When truman, Johnson, Nixon, Carter and Clinton were president.

In each case, the US had a Democratic majority Congress.

In each case, the Bill were tabled in Committee and NOT allowed to be voted on, in either Committee or by the Congress.

For much the same reason that you wouldn't want a single health care provider organization. A single insurance plan would have a great deal of influence over what care is provided to patients in the country by indicating what services would be covered through their policies. It is completely conceivable for a national health insurance plan to say that it will no longer cover pulmonary services for smokers, for example.

In addition, if the insurance is national it is likely that there will be political implications to its coverage decisions so I would expect an inability to understand the coverage and dramatically different coverage from one jurisdiction to another.

There is no fear about access. Those who have investigated single payer systems (Canada, Britain, the Netherlands, etc.) have pointed out that paradoxically those systems tend to cost more and provide less care in the technologically and care intensive areas of service. Everyone can see the doctor when they have a sniffle but if you need open heart surgery your wait will be 6-8 months. Hope you can live that long without it.

We already have three government-sponsored health care plans: Medicare, Medicaid and VA health care. Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupting us.

Our government is woefully inefficient in almost everything it does. When a program is not working as planned, our government’s solution is to throw money at it. Obama has talked about his health care plan in broad but not specific terms. He won’t share any details with us. It seems like he wants to impose his plan on us whether we like it or not.

Obama has said that all Americans should have access to “affordable, quality health care.” That’d fine. But the 48 million uninsured, who need help the most, include up to 20 million illegal aliens.

I don’t understand how people can so strongly support or oppose Obama’s plan when we have been given NO information about how the plan will work. He has said his plan will cover everything, including previously existing conditions. Then he said every American should have access to “basic” health care.

I don’t know what he is talking about. Frankly, I don’t think he does either.

We have two separate issues...health CARE, and health INSURANCE. With a national health INSURANCE plan the health CARE industry will remain EXACTLY the way it is now...no better and no worse. The exception will be that doctors and hospitals will be paid on time and in full for service and EVERYONE will have INSURANCE. A UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE venue will be no different than any other insurance company except that there will be no cherry picking...EVERYONE will be included. EVERYONE will pay in something. Basically all of us who have insurance pay for ALL medical care given one way or another...bills are padded to help pay for those not insured and who do not pay cash upfront. You can make all kinds of arguments against national health CARE, but you can't make any arguments against Universal health INSURANCE. Universal health INSURANCE is NO different from any other insurance company except that it will cost less, be far more responsive, far more regulated and far less open to fraud than the current system. As more and more Americans lose their health INSURANCE they also lose their access to health CARE. Doctors and hospitals lose income and some hospital go out of business leaving entire communities stranded with NO health CARE whatever. Don't listen to these right wingers, bro...they consistently argue against health CARE which isn't the question...the question is INSURANCE. Keep that in mind. No kiddin'!

Because I have lived on TriCare (It is a new and "improved" version of Champus... or lovingly called Hillary's healthcare plan)... and my mother is still on TriCare... that's why... You having been a soldier must know what it is like to have the government take care of you.... The government cannot take care of those already ON Government Health Insurance plans.... I have been to doctors in the last year that REFUSE to accept TriCare, Medicaid and Medicare.... and why? My mother and I both got skin tests for our allergies she is on TriCare (and this was at a time when TriCare STILL paid for that, they no longer do) and I am on a private insurance... TriCare was charged $2000 for the test my insurance was charged $500... you do the math...

When the government starts in on Nationalized Health Care and we ALL have to be on it... the costs of health care will go up significantly (as exampled by the scratch test for allergies) to the point that the Government will have to RATION healthcare.... And I am sorry but care for my health and possibly my life is something that I am not willing to be rationed...

Because they do not know the facts. Just bear in mind though, Obama has not said he is going to bring in universal healthcare.

FACT - the USA spends more on healthcare PER PERSON than any other nation on the planet.

FACT - the US has higher death rates for kids aged under five than western European countries with universal health coverage.

That means that a dead American four year old would have had a better chance of life if they were born in Canada, France, Cuba, Germany, Japan etc, all of which have universal health coverage.

Most are afraid that it's an example of big government sticking its nose in where it ought not belong. The general problem seems to be something of a misunderstanding. It's thought, that with a nationalized health care or insurance program, that the government would have ready access to your personal health or doctors records, and thus be able to dictate to you what treatment you get, when, and where.

I agree with much of the sentiment already expressed. I would add that, as a former soldier, you would know that America is great because we are free to make our own decisions and mistakes.

It's not the intent of the Constitution that we be beholden to the government for health care, food, clothing, shelter, etc.

It's less quality and LONGER waiting for everything. People in countries with this are dying waiting for operations that could save them. I live in Michigan and I see numerous people from Canada over here and even for employment in our health care system.

You ask "What's the fear/problem with all Americans having access to quality health care?"
I'll tell you every single American has access to quality health care.