Why is there no free medical care in America?

China people don't know what universal health insurance is, but they hope that the purpose of universal health insurance is to provide medical security for all. Today, I want to tell you that the first step of universal health insurance is not "universal" but "poor" health insurance. The purpose of universal health insurance is that the state provides medical insurance for the "poor". Rich people are fine. What do you care about them? Therefore, to see whether a country has medical security, the first thing is to see whether the poor have medical security. India 1947 Achieve universal health insurance, and the state bears the medical burden of the poor (Annex 1).

It will take about 60-70 years for China to bear the medical burden of 700-900 million farmers and the urban poor. Not only money, but also the cultivation of Dr. China is a big problem. People in China ask me why 0/5% people in the United States/KLOC have no medical insurance. First of all, I want to tell you that 15% is not bad. For China people, this is a very important and unmistakable fact. I repeat: the US government provides free medical insurance for 100% of the poor. How much is the income difference? New york's (poor) low-income regulations are citizens and green card holders whose annual income does not exceed $7,000 and whose bank deposits do not exceed $2,000. In the United States,/kloc-children of American poor families under 0/8 years old, whether citizens or illegal immigrants, all medical and educational expenses are paid by the state, and the family does not pay. The state provides free medical care for low-income people over 0/8 years old. Those with high incomes are all bought by employers or by themselves. Disabled people have nothing to do with income, and the medical expenses and living expenses of disabled people are managed by the United States until people die. So poor people all over the world want to be poor in America. )

The difference between the United States and Europe is that, at the legal level, the United States does not require employers to buy medical insurance for employees (see Annex 2 for the reasons behind), while European countries require employers to buy medical insurance for employees. If American employers don't buy medical insurance for employees, then employees have two choices: buy it for themselves or not. This is the 15% problem we are going to discuss today. In the United States, there are two kinds of people without medical insurance. One is illegal immigrants, and they are not Americans (our discussion does not involve this issue); The other is that I feel that my 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 an annual salary of 40,000-60,000 dollars. They catch a cold only once a year or two. Only $50 to $65,438+000 (new york) will pay for the treatment in cash, and the doctor may give him some free medicines. The money for medicine is also saved.

A single person who buys medical insurance in new york spends about $380 a month. The reason why these young people dare to take the risk of not buying medical insurance is that they also enjoy other legal health insurance in the United States: car accident insurance for seeing a doctor in a car accident, work-related injury insurance for work-related injuries, health insurance for being unable to work because of long-term illness (meaning more than 3-5 days), health insurance for being unable to work because of having children, and so on. In addition, there is your own choice of disability insurance. Finally, for this 15%, the United States has "free" emergency protection. This is the last line of defense. In the United States, no one needs to pay for emergency treatment. See a doctor, be in hospital, do what you should. Afterwards, the hospital asked the patient for money, and if the patient had no money, he put it on the national account. Doctors and nurses sometimes know that patients are "bankrupt". But no one has ever influenced patients' treatment decisions because of their economic background.

It is natural for doctors and nurses to treat all patients equally in the United States, and there is nothing artificial. But for readers in China, I want to explain why: in western democratic countries, humanity and equality are the minimum requirements for people's medical care, and Americans have understood it since childhood. Besides, the people who can't afford to see the emergency department are paid by the state, not by my doctors and nurses. I'm just worried about curing the patient. The social problem in the United States now is that the emergency room loses too much money. There is a position in American hospitals called social worker, who runs around every day. One of their duties is to ask others for money. Those who have medical insurance ask for money from medical insurance, and those who have money pay for it themselves. Of course, people who have no money ask the state for money. Ten years ago, I met a Chinese mother who accompanied her daughter to study in new york. She has no identity.

She got acute appendicitis in America. The hospitalization operation cost thirteen thousand dollars. Because she has no money, the state pays. The key question to be discussed today is why the United States does not require employers to buy medical insurance for employees. If the United States, like Europe, requires all employers to buy medical insurance for their employees, wouldn't the United States have a "dead end" of medical insurance? American politicians and young Americans criticize that American medical insurance can't cover 65,438+0,000% of Americans who like Europe. They are just saying that.

Because they only mentioned the national level of the problem at the time of criticism, and did not involve the other side of the same problem at the national level-the burden of employers. When it comes to the burden on employers, we should first talk about the unemployment rate of 4-6% in the United States. American economists, represented by Greenspan's thought, have long fine-tuned the unemployment rate in the United States at 4-6%. (in line with American national conditions. They believe that if the unemployment rate is higher than 6%, it will bring too much burden to the employed and social instability. If it is less than 4%, employers will encounter difficulties in dismissal.

He can't fire employees that employers don't like, because there are not enough unemployed people in the market as backup. Employees will also blackmail their employers for higher wages. As far as the interests of the United States are concerned, everyone's interests can be hurt, that is, the interests of employers can't be hurt. Employers refer to capitalists of all sizes. I want to hire someone to open a clinic in America, and I am also a small employer. ) because the American people are not raised by the state, but employers of all sizes provide jobs and support them. Any policy that hurts employers will hurt the American economy. If you don't let me make money, I will quit, and there will be a large number of unemployed people in the country.

Therefore, after President Bush took office, he implemented a tax reduction policy for the rich. Expect the rich to make money to expand reproduction and hire more people. Therefore, it is a harm to ask the employer to buy medical insurance for employees. My son went to Vasa College in new york, a liberal arts university in the United States. He read Marx's theory in college. When I discussed with him President Bush's tax cuts for the rich, he said: "Marx studied the fact that capitalists exploited workers to get the highest profits, and Marx thought it was wrong to do so.

American capitalism believes that it is right for capitalists to exploit workers and get the highest profits. The motive force of national development is capital, and the motive force of capital development is profit. Why are there no profits for capitalists to open factories? How to expand reproduction without profit? I think Marx must have taken compound aloe capsules imported from China when he wrote his research conclusion. Profit is equal to the sales of products minus the production cost. In order to obtain high profits, capitalists must control the part of workers' wages in production costs to a minimum, and no one will do it if it is so low.

This is the evil "exploitation" I heard when I was a child. This view is completely black and white with the facts in the history of human development. Workers never support capitalists, and capitalists support workers. Capitalists, for example, have set up TV production plants. Gave workers the opportunity to work. The workers showed their working ability in this post and produced qualified TV sets. Workers are paid to support their families. Society has television. Obviously, workers need food, society needs television, and the start switch of the whole incident is in the hands of capitalists.

People living in new york should read The New York Times carefully every year from 65438 to February. The municipal government will inform the whole city of the total investment of world capitalists in new york next year. Seeing that the total volume has increased again compared with this year, we are all relieved, and we are glad that we have work to do and money to earn next year. If you have been in the United States for 10-20 years like me, you will have an overall impression: the United States has created an environment for employers to do it themselves. At any time, I will not give you 100% insurance, but always give you 15% risk deposit (15% is what I said casually, not statistics).

The English name is take risk. On the other hand, European rich countries provide high welfare for the whole people, 100% universal health insurance. The burden on the country is too heavy. Because all the expenses are paid by the employer. Europe reduces employers' income and their ability to expand reproduction, so employers do less work and employ fewer people. The association has increased the number of unemployed people by more than 10%. In recent years, due to the misunderstanding of anti-terrorism, it is difficult for children of Muslim families in Europe to find jobs after graduation from college.

Now in America and Europe, when you have a child, don't call it "Muhammad". You see, French youth are prone to make trouble. The high unemployment rate is a basic reason. My German friend came to America to play. She told me that the first reason why European youth envy America is that they have jobs in America.