Why is there no free medical care in the United States?

Chinese people don’t know what universal medical insurance is. They think that the purpose of universal medical insurance is to provide medical protection for “all people”. Today I want to tell you that the first step to universal health insurance is not "universal" health care, but "poor" health care coverage. The purpose of universal health insurance is for the state to provide medical insurance to the "poor". The rich are doing well, you don't care what they do. So to see whether a country has medical security, we first need to see whether the poor have medical security. India achieved universal health insurance in 1947, and the state shouldered the medical burden of the poor (Annex 1). \r\n\r\nIt will take about 60-70 years for China to shoulder the medical burden of 700-900 million farmers and urban poor. (Not only is it an issue of money, the training of Chinese doctors is also a big issue.) The Chinese asked me, why do 15% of people in the United States have no medical insurance? First of all, I want to tell you that these 15% are not poor. For the Chinese, this is a very important fact that cannot be mistaken. I repeat: 100 percent of the poor are provided with free health insurance by the U.S. government. How much income is considered poor? New York State's (poor) low-income regulations are citizens and green card holders whose annual income does not exceed US$7,000 and whose bank balance does not exceed US$2,000. In the United States, for children from poor American families under the age of 18, regardless of whether they are citizens or illegal immigrants, all medical and educational expenses are paid by the state, and the family does not pay a penny. The state provides free medical care to people over 18 years old and with low income. Those with high incomes buy medical insurance from their employers or themselves. Being disabled has nothing to do with income. The US state manages the medical expenses and living expenses of disabled people until the person dies. (So ??poor people all over the world want to be poor in the United States.)\r\n\r\nThe difference between the United States and Europe is at the legal level. The United States does not require employers to buy medical insurance for their employees. (The reason will be explained later. Speaking, see English Appendix 2), while European countries require employers to buy medical insurance for their employees. If an American employer does not buy medical insurance for its employees, then the employees will have two choices: buy it for themselves or not buy it. This is the 15% question we are going to discuss today. In the United States, there are two types of people without medical insurance. One is illegal immigrants, who are not Americans (our discussion does not involve this issue); the other is those who believe that their chances of getting sick are very low, and it is not cost-effective to buy medical insurance. For example, I know several young people in their twenties and thirties. They have good jobs with annual salaries of $40,000 to $60,000. They only get a cold once every year or two. Going to the doctor with cash only costs $50 to $100 (in New York City), and the doctor may also give him some free medicine. Money on medicines is also saved. \r\n\r\nBuying medical insurance for a single person in New York costs about $380 a month. The reason why these young people dare to take the risk of not buying medical insurance is because they also enjoy other legal health insurance in the United States: car accident insurance for medical treatment for injuries in car accidents, work-related injury insurance for injuries at work, and insurance for long-term illness (referring to more than 3-5 years of illness). Health insurance for those who are unable to work for days), health insurance for those who are unable to work due to childbirth, etc. In addition, there is disability insurance of your choice, etc. Finally, for these 15% and others, the United States has a "free" emergency room visit guarantee. This is the last line of defense. In the United States, anyone who visits an emergency room does not have to pay up front. See a doctor, be hospitalized, and have surgery as you wish. Afterwards, the hospital would ask the patient for money. If the patient had no money, it would be credited to the state's account. Doctors and nurses also sometimes know that the patient is "poor". But no one has ever influenced a patient's treatment decision based on his or her financial background. \r\n\r\nIt is very natural in the United States for doctors and nurses to treat all patients equally, without any artificiality. But for Chinese readers, I would also like to say why: In Western democracies, humanity and equality are the people’s minimum requirements for medical care, and Americans have understood this since childhood. Besides, for people who don’t have money, the state pays for emergency treatment, not my doctors and nurses. I only worry about curing the patient's disease. The current social problem in the United States is that emergency rooms are losing money too much. There is a position in American hospitals called social workers. They run around every day. One of their duties is who to ask for money from. Those with medical insurance ask for money from medical insurance, rich patients pay for it themselves, and patients without money, of course, ask for money from the state. Ten years ago, I met a Chinese mother in New York who was studying with her daughter. She has no identity. \r\n\r\nShe got acute appendicitis in the United States. The hospital surgery cost thirteen thousand dollars. Because she had no money, the state paid. The key question to be discussed today is why the United States does not require employers to buy medical insurance for their employees. If, like Europe, the United States also legally requires all employers to buy medical insurance for their employees, wouldn’t the United States have no “dead end” of medical insurance? American politicians and American young people criticize American medical insurance for not being able to cover 100% of Americans like Europe. This is just talk. \r\n\r\nBecause when they criticized, they only mentioned the issue on the national side and did not touch on the other side of the same issue at the national level - the burden on employers. When talking about the burden on employers, we must first talk about the 4-6% unemployment rate in the United States. American economists represented by Greenspan's ideas have long fine-tuned the U.S. unemployment rate at 4-6%. (In line with the national conditions of the United States.) They believe that if the unemployment rate is higher than 6%, it will bring excessive burdens and social instability to employed people. If it's below 4%, employers will have difficulty firing them.

\r\n\r\nThe employer cannot fire employees he does not like because there are not enough unemployed people in the market as backup. Employees will also blackmail their employers to increase their wages. From the perspective of the national interests of the United States, anyone’s interests can be harmed, except the interests of employers. Employers are capitalists, large and small. (When I open a clinic in the United States, I need to hire people, so I can be considered a small employer.) Because the people of the United States are not supported by the state. It is employers, large and small, who provide jobs for Americans and support them. Any policy that hurts employers hurts the U.S. economy. If you don't let me make money, I will stop working, and the country will have a large number of unemployed people. \r\n\r\nSo after President Bush took office, he implemented the policy of tax cuts for the rich. Expect the rich to make money to expand reproduction and hire more people. Therefore, requiring employers to buy medical insurance for their employees is something that harms the employer. My son went to a liberal arts college in the United States, Vassar College in New York State. In college he read Marx's theory. When I discussed President Bush's tax cuts for the rich, he said, "Marx studied the fact that capitalists exploit workers to obtain the highest profits, and Marx believed that this was wrong.\r\n\r\nAnd American capitalism believes that it is right for capitalists to exploit workers to obtain the highest profits. “The driving force for national development is capital, and the driving force for capital development is profit. Why would a capitalist open a factory without profits? How can we expand reproduction without profit? I think Marx must have taken the "Compound Aloe Vera Capsules" imported from China when he wrote his research conclusions. Profit is equal to the product's sales minus production costs. In order to obtain high profits, capitalists must keep the part of workers' wages in production costs to a minimum, so low that no one will do it if it is any lower. \r\n\r\nThis is the evil "exploitation" I heard about when I was a child. This view is completely contrary to the facts of human development history. Workers have never supported capitalists, but capitalists have supported workers. For example, a capitalist opened a television production factory. Give workers the opportunity to work. Workers exerted their working abilities in this working position and produced qualified TVs. The workers received wages to support their families. Society has television. Obviously, workers need to have food to eat and society needs television. The starting switch of the whole incident lies in the hands of the capitalists. \r\n\r\nPeople living in New York must read the New York Times carefully every December. The city government will report to the city the total amount of investment by capitalists from all over the world in New York City in the next year. When they saw that the total amount had increased compared with this year, everyone breathed a sigh of relief and secretly rejoiced that they would have work to do and money to earn next year. If you stay in the United States for 10-20 years like me, you will have an overall impression: the United States creates an environment for you and allows employers to make your own way. We will never give you 100% insurance at any time, but always give you 15% room for risk (15% is what I say randomly, not a statistic). \r\n\r\nThe English name is takerisk. On the other hand, the rich countries in Europe provide exorbitant benefits to all people, including 100% universal health insurance. The burden on the country is too heavy. Because all expenses are taxes paid by the employer. Europe has lowered the income of employers and reduced their ability to expand reproduction. Employers will do less work and hire fewer people. The number of unemployed people in society has increased by more than ten percent. In recent years, due to misunderstandings about anti-terrorism, it has been difficult for children from Muslim families in Europe to find jobs after graduating from college. \r\n\r\n(Now in the United States and Europe, when you give birth to a child, you must not name your child "Muhamud.") You see, French youths always make trouble. High unemployment is a basic reason. My German friend came to the United States for a visit. She told me that the first reason why European youths envy the United States is that there are jobs in the United States.