Well I hate to disappoint, but it's not really possible. We already pay the most per capita of any nation on Earth (by a wide margin at that):

<link>

And while generally you get what you pay for, our incredibly expensive for-profit system delivers the worst care in the industrialized world:

<link>

Now, faced with those obvious and undeniable facts, you'd think rational people would support copying the universal healthcare models of nations that pay less for better care. And you'd be right, rational people do. But unfortunately there's still a significant minority of people in our once-great country who are proud of their irrationality, and they're called conservatives.

First they like to point out how rich foreigners come to America for medical care, as though the fact that tons of money can buy things is somehow relevant. Those of us who are not wealthy, which is the vast majority of America, don't have access to the healthcare these rich foreigners (or rich Americans) buy.

Next they'll bring up "choice," which is also a steaming pile of bullshit. Only a very few Americans have any choice in their health insurance. They can choose to take what their employer (if they're lucky enough to work for someone that still offers healthcare) offers or have no coverage. And most plans are extremely restrictive when it comes to choosing doctors. In reality, few Americans have any choice in their healthcare.

A favorite one is the idea that if healthcare was "free" (a point I'll address shortly), people would go to the doctor more! Of course that's proven to be a good thing, as preventative medicine is very cheap compared to emergency medicine. So they invented the concept that people would get more procedures done, which requires a person to think that invasive surgery is somehow...fun? Last I checked, nobody enjoys going to the doctor so much that they'll do it whether they need to or not.

Then they return to the "who pays for it?" argument, because now that they know their party is being relegated to the political wilderness they suddenly care about government spending again. But of course (wait for it...) this argument is also (take a guess!) complete and utter bullshit. The people that pay for it are going to be the same ones paying for the current for-profit system.

Only they'll be paying less, for better care.

So cons, please feel free to enlighten me if you've got any bullshit arguments I've forgotten to debunk, but please don't pretend that I'm telling you anything you didn't already know.

anecdotal evidence replies. You will hear how some people in some countries have to wait for surgery. You won't hear how many people in this country simply don't get the surgery/treatment. Or how our current health insurance laws in most states say that insurance companies can raise your rates without notice, or cancel you if you get sick.

A) It's the most expensive because we subsidize almost 100% of medical research. When we go "nationalized" who's going to foot the bill for that?

B) It ranks low on outcomes because we put enormous efforts into saving the poorest, oldest and sickest people. Most foreign nations ration care so their "success" rate looks better than ours. The same effect causes our teaching hospitals (which have incredibly good care givers) to have worse "outcomes" than the typical community hospital.

Why don't you just defer to my better knowledge on this...

warden:

anecdotal evidence replies. You will hear how some people in some countries have to wait for surgery. You won't hear how many people in this country simply don't get the surgery/treatment. Or how our current health insurance laws in most states say that insurance companies can raise your rates without notice, or cancel you if you get sick.

I blew his argument away without resorting to any of that...

The cons were spreading some story awhile back about how a woman requested medication to fight her breast cancer in the UK, and their healthcare system refused to provide it. However, a simple check of the facts revealed that she'd requested an incredibly expensive drug that was used to treat prostate cancer, not breast cancer. In fact the drug she wanted had proven ineffective at treating anything but prostate cancer.

No private insurer would prescribe an expensive and ineffective treatment either, but by omitting key details they made it look like an indictment of universal healthcare.

having universal healthcare would more readily go hand in hand with our funding research

And statistics showing healthcare for the population in general are better for countries with universal care. Infant mortality rate is lower (better prenatal care) life expectancies are longer and "healthy years" are longer.

We wait until people need emergency care which is the most expensive way of dealing with problems.

You blew nothing away at all.

It's the most expensive because we waste over half a trillion on profit, not because of research.

And do you have any evidence of "rationing?" Are you claiming that in the UK and Canada, sick people are barred access to medical care in order to inflate statistics?

I'll defer to your better knowledge when you start displaying some.

It was a metastatic colon cancer drug that was proven to not extend the life expectancy of breast cancer patients:

<link>

I remembered the name finally.

"having universal healthcare would more readily go hand in hand with our funding research"

Actually no, you are wrong here. There is no data that would back up such a specious assertion!

"Infant mortality rate is lower (better prenatal care) life expectancies are longer and "healthy years" are longer."

Actually you sort of have a point here. We could do a better job of preventative care. But quite frankly, the better infant mortality and life expectancy statistics are a function of the relative rates of destitute minority folks. For instance, all of the difference in our "life expectancy" rates are the many many deaths of teenagers due to gun violence and auto accidents...

that you were wrong about how other countries calculate healthcare. You have shown nothing to support our point. Not I expected you too because, well, you are wrong.

Why would money going to private companies help government-subsidized research, but money going to a government agency or other single-payor entity not?

And many countries have poor minorities, remember the riots in France? Our gun violence is unprecedented in a nation not in a state of civil war, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

I'd love to stick around and school you more on this but I gotta go. I'm taking my son and his buddy to Projekt Revolution. We'll revisit this issue again I'm sure...

Noted.

Smiley1979:

Noted.

Yeah I just don't have time to gather the research. Trust me, universal care only works if someone else is paying for your medical research and you are willing to ration care. We may well have to ration care (and I'm all for that). And we could certainly streamline the reimbursement process. But comparing these statistics (especially life expectancy) are like comparing apples and oranges...