A: We're still stuck in the dark ages while the rest of the world has moved on to better, cheaper, ways of doing things. Extended Answer:
Moving to state run health care similar to the UKs NHS or even to a well run regulated private system like that of the Netherlands will make us better off and save tax dollars. Like metrication, once we move to the better system, people will look back and say "why did we ever used to do that insane thing?". There's bickering now, but 5 years after the reform is completed most people will be up in arms at the suggestion of going back. This "debate" has gone down hill while people who haven't experienced multiple systems throw slurs and serious falsehoods around, millions of people across the nation are suffering because we don't have decent health care. Sometimes it's because they can't afford it, other times it's because they contracted a serious disease and became uninsurable. Meanwhile, we continue to spend twice the amount per resident in federal tax dollars as the United Kingdom and they have cradle to grave health care for 100% of their residents (and anyone else who happens to walk through the door, yes it's free or close to it if you're visiting) while our system only covers a tiny percentage of the population (most people are covered by their employer). Even worse, about half of the bankruptcy filings each year are because of illness (and most of them were covered to some extent to start with). Instead of arguing about all the things that can go wrong, we should be looking at the best way forward. We might not get it right the first time, but iterative improvement is better than sitting around whining and dying with our current mess. Let's start thinking progressively rather than in terms of hysterical fatalism. So, let's summarize: Pros:
- It's cheaper (well, unless some half-assed solution gets put in place).
- No one can become "uninsurable".
- Everyone is covered.
- We stop sending money overseas as those who can afford it take medical vacations (and those who can't die or go bankrupt).
- We reduce the number of our citizens who we're bankrupting (and all the add on benefits that brings)
- Businesses can concentrate on doing their core business rather than working through the morass of health care (and possibly not being able to hire people because they can't afford the insurance premium associated with that person).
- Businesses don't have to divert significant amounts of their revenue to health care instead of to growing.
- Employees don't get stuck at a job because they can't afford to change for medical reasons.
- The private insurance systems will have to clean up their act. It shouldn't take 12 months to work out the bills for minor surgery, nor should it cost more for the uninsured than for an insurance agency (oh wait, there won't be any uninsured any more).
- We can take the opportunity to make other much needed changes like moving our health care system to use exclusively metric measures as it's safer for patients (yes that means safer for you!).
Bureaucracy. No, our current "system" has far worse bureaucracy.- Businesses can't attract people by having better health care options.
- It involves change.
Various interest groups are going to have to actually think about how to earn money rather than hiding in the inefficiencies of the system.Oh wait, that's a pro not a con.- The initial costs will be high, although we'll save money in the long run (just like metrication).
