First and foremost, government control of anything is viewed with extreme suspicion in the United States. Government control can (and, in the United States, usually does) lead to attempts by the government to regulate peoples' lives.

As a result, if we were to have government involved in health care, it would likely lead to yet more penalties for people who smoke, drink, or (based on recent attempts at legislation) drink soft drinks. I personally don't want the government telling me what I can do in the privacy of my own home. America was founded on the concept of "that government is best which governs least".

Furthermore, as Legolas said, Europeans seem to think ObamaCare is an attempt to implement government-run socialised medicine in the United States. It is not. Traditionally, one can have two systems for health care:

1. A free market system where doctors, hospitals, insurance companies and the insured all seek maximum benefit at minimum cost

OR

2. A government-run system where all costs are handled through taxation and government fiat.

The United States evolved along the free market path. Theoretically, if we did truly have a "free market" system it would work. Insurance companies would compete with one another to provide better benefits at better rates, hospitals would compete and doctors would compete.

Unfortunately, runaway malpractice litigation makes doctors have to pay too much in malpractice insurance and legal judgments, and as a result they get squeezed by insurance companies and hospitals. Hospitals are groaning under the rampant use of emergency rooms by illegal immigrants (as emergency rooms cannot refuse anyone who walks in) who then leave and never pay (usually because they can't even be found) and as a result they increase costs for everyone else. Insurance companies refuse coverage to people who will be considered risks to avoid getting squeezed like everyone else.

So...enter ObamaCare. ObamaCare (depending on whether you're looking at the House or Senate versions of the bill) is now saying that people will have to get insurance and may have to pay a fine if they don't have insurance. Does this solve any of the above problems? No. In fact, it makes it likely that insurance will be slightly more expensive because insurers will know people can't just say "no" and walk away. It does (in the House bill only) force insurers to take people even if they have pre-existing conditions (which, as we know, can range from being pregnant to having advanced lung cancer or full-blown AIDS). Is that going to make insurance less expensive? I'll let you decide since the answer's pretty obvious. Both bills try to use the flawed model of Medicare as a basis for future regulation, at a time when Medicare fraud is costing the government billions of dollars. Neither bill addresses the issue of illegals or the skyrocketing cost of medical malpractice. The bill with the "public option" (i.e., government-provided insurance) is actually even worse in many ways because it hurts the insurance companies' ability to negotiate against hospitals for lower costs.

At a time when the United States is facing massive unemployment, lingering economic problems and a burgeoning deficit, a bill that forces employers and individuals to pay even more money as the result of a new government program is the sort of thing that would hurt our economy even further.