What are the arguments against creating free tax-funded health care for all?

bored - no they can't deny you care, but they can file thousands of dollars of charges on your credit report if you don't pay within 3 months - do you know what a trip to the hospital costs??





Doctors in regular offices CAN and DO deny services if you don't have the cash to pay or insurance.





You need to watch the movie Sicko. I would gladly pay more taxes for nationwide healthcare coverage. Do you know how many people die every year because of this????????


do some research before you open your mouthWhat are the arguments against creating free tax-funded health care for all?
Please don't take this as being confrontational. But I have to protest that you question is contradictory. A program that is tax-funded is not free. It is however often paid for by people other than those who receive the benefits.





A major consequence when you can get someone else to pay for you is that your incentive to control costs is severely reduced. This is not however simply your gain and someone else's loss. (Returning to the question of health care) The doctors serving you could have been employed in some other way. They could have been producing products or services that you don't miss now because they never existed. Both you and the tax payer are poorer on net.





To be more philosophical, the major problem with proposals such as national health care is that there are infinite ways to provide even the most simple services. (And health care is NOT simple.) If there were only one way to accomplish a service and no question to how much of it we need, then all we would have to do is throw money at it.





Because there are alternative ways to manage our health care, decisions must be made about how to go about it. By making the service tax funded, bureaucrats must arbitrarily (even if well-intentioned) allocate resources. They will inevitably throw money only at existing service to the detriment of new and revolutionary ones.





The fact is that bureaucrats (both in government and in the insurance industry) do already determine what care is given. The system is indeed broken. But a tax-funded plan would be more poison rather than a cure.





Profits actually serve a purpose. The people who provide the best service at the lowest cost will be rewarded with profits. Those who are ineffective go out of business. In this way, resources are naturally directed toward their best use. Putting an industry under any level of government control (no matter how it is justified) destroys the profit system. This is how health care has already gotten more expensive and (to many) lower quality.





I could elaborate more, but I'm afraid that my answer has already been too lengthy to keep the attention of some people. I just hope that I've put some ideas in your mind. Your intention (assuming that you do support national health care) is good. But I hope that you'll seriously question whether you proposal will yield the results that you hope.





Thanks for the question.What are the arguments against creating free tax-funded health care for all?
I would love to comment on this.But where I live I am between poor and poorer.I make 8.00 an hour.That makes me on the cut off for free at clinics.But I do qualify for 1/2 price.So a free clinic costs me 45 for visit,80 x-ray,50 blood,and meds full price.Where Walmarts are cheaper.So say 200 for a cold.I make 245 a week,get it....
The taxes will have to go up in the middle calss contrary to what the dems say. Why should I or anyone else pay for your healthcare? I do agree that the gov should help the poor to get sometype of healthcare coverage at their expense. The argument people are denied healthcare because of lack of ins. is false. no hospital can deny treatment on ability to pay.