1. Does Obama plan to implement a national system like our Medicare and would it be suplemented by private insurance similar to Australia.

No, he wanted a single payer like Medicare originally but gave up on it when it became apparent that it wouldn't get up politically. It now mainly focusses on making private health insurance more affordable and on preventing people being left uninsured if they are sick and have to change jobs. In the US most private health insurance (other than US Medicare and Medicaid, government run systems for old and poor people respectively) is purchased by employers due to a tax subsidy so previously if a person got sick and had to leave work, they had to leave their current health insurer, no other insurer would take them on and they were left in the lurch for their ongoing medical expenses.

2. The USA has state of the art medical facilities, why not let all of its citizens use it.

Because being made to spend money on other people when they need help is "socialism".

3. Is the main opposition to this plan based on the USA philosophy of "rugged individualism"

1. See above.

2. Many of the 83% of Americans who have very good health care are worried about the Government screwing it up for the other 17%.

4. Does the US right wing still have a view of total non government interference in the economy, despite various government intervention since FDR presidentcy.

Some right wingers profess this view though in practice there is a lot of intervention in the healthcare sector and in the broader economy. It seems more a matter of whom the intervention is on behalf of where the parties differ.

5. Would the main problem be to implemention not be the financial consideration but a more idealogical to the average US politician.

I don't know an average US politician but if they actually bothered to look at how much their system costs for the lousy public health outcomes that they get compared to other countries and still opposed change, then it has to be ideological because nobody would objectively choose such a system. That is unless they are being funded by health industry lobbyists benefitting from the current mess of course.  

About >90% of voters have some sort of health insurance. Keep in mind that turnout is 60% with heavily gerrymandered seats; so the political system is geared towards doing nothing.

 

The economic problem is that the majority of Americans get health insurance through their employers. If employers are contiually getting slugged with health premiums (they're growing faster than wages and fuel), soon enough they can't afford it. Employers would be reluctant to hire and keep staff. Health costs is why GM went down the toilet.

 

The model elsewhere is that governemnt will provide utilities such as education and health. Business is left to concentrate on making money.

Miliatry and senoir citizens recieve something like 'Australian medicare'. It would've been easier to expand it to everyone but they tried to preserve most of the current system.

 

 

I recommend:

 

- Radio program

 w w w.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/392/Someone-Elses-Money

 

-  Ongoing commentary

w w w.slate.com/?id=3944&qp=52423

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So let me get this right ...

 

 

1. Around 83% of people have decent health care ... I understand figures can be doctored ... so the majority do not need it.

 

2. All of those are voters, who except for extreme broad minded liberals could not really give a rat's for the poor 17%, so there is no real votes for the idea.

 

3. Giving health care to those who really need it ... whilst those who are employed pay is a form of Communism/ Socialism/ Marxism/ Bolshikism. C/S/M/B still = evil.

 

4. Obama, regardless of race/colour/creed by wanting to do this is a one of the above.

 

 

1. They have the one of the highest standards of medicine in world.

 

2. They could afford it, regardless by introducing this it would create jobs.

 

3. The strong should protect the weak.

 

4. It is a Christian/Jewish/Islamic tradition to do the above.

 

Hmmmm ... tough choice

 

 

I have been reading the US page in regards to the infamous Obamacare. As you imagine that argument has become quite rabid and to be honest once it goes that way I get bored easily and turn off.

A very understandable reaction, particularly for any non-American since there's typically no particular reason beyond curiousity for you to wade through all that sound and fury to try to find the pithy nuggets that may or may not be present.  However, as you acknowledged, you will not be able to present to students the arguments against increased federal government involvement in health care regulation without understanding those arguments.  I suggest that if you really do want to learn the "whys" against, you really do need to pay close attention to everything Buzzard and Hugo say, as I find they are routinely right on target.  You might benefit somewhat by not tuning out Reefdiver, EvilFishy, and myself, among others, as well.

 

And the history of US political corruption warns is that once a political party gets hold of a social welfare program, they use it to buy votes. Also the US political class is in fact as corrupt and incompetent as legislators of any social program as any socialist state you care to name.  

 

The reason our social security system and health care system is as inefficient as it is and structured as wrong as it is, is that pair of factors above.  

 

The fact is that we linked both systems into a young pay for old through employer subsidy/taxation system. That has backfired as we eliminated market force incentives, run into the aging and surviving retiree population, and contracting worker to retiree ratio.

 

If we had any brains at all, we would either support INDIVIDUAL health insurance savings accounts similar to retirement insurance accounts or go to an individual  pay as you need services insurance system.

 

Either way would be fairer and more efficient than what we have now and would keep the social programs out of politicians hands. Especially with the democrats, once they get hold of a program that can create a slave voter they will maximize its political benefits for the political class and hang the actual service. Market forces are apolitical.

 

H.