Should America Have Nationalized Health?

1. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.
2. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.
3. In an effort to cut costs, price & salary controls on drugs, medical equipment, and medical services are likely to be put in place, meaning there is less incentive to pursue medical-related research, development, and investment, nor pursue medical careers in general.
4. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.
5. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.

1. Patients may be subjected to extremely long waits for treatment.
2. Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.

Those are the "no's." I think the last two are indeed likely to happen if Canada and Britain are any indication. In fact, I'd argue the five previous too have taken place.

The "Yes" side here.

1. We can eliminate wasteful inefficiencies such as duplicate paper work, claim approval, insurance submission, etc.
2. We can develop a centralized national database which makes diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors.
3. Medical professionals can concentrate on healing the patient rather than on insurance procedures, malpractice liability, etc.
4. Free medical services would encourage patients to practice preventive medicine and inquire about problems early when treatment will be light; currently, patients often avoid physicals and other preventive measures because of the costs.
5. People will have an easier time starting their own business or working part-time if health insurance is covered.

More details at BalancedPolitics.org.