The problem with our current system in the US is that everyone should have access to healthcare and not everyone does. The rich have healthcare and access to any and every doctor whereas the poor don't have access to even a proper doctor so there is a socioeconomic issue. As a society and ethically, we should want everyone to have healthcare. If I feel that I need healthcare, shouldn't I feel the same about my neighbor and there children.
Arguments against Universal Healthcare include the possibility of US citizens having to pay higher taxes or pay taxes to cover the other person. That other person who doesn't work whom some consider "lazy." We should all be responsible for ourselves and the government should not be responsible for everyone's healthcare. My argument against is going to be ethically based as whom we are we to decide who is lazy and who is not lazy and if we are already paying taxes and insurance premiums then it shouldn't be a problem to cover everyone for those one or two lazy people.
Stock stakeholders who have invested into Bluecross or other medical insurance companies have a lot to loose if we revert to a brand new system. I am hoping that I can argue that what is more important money or the wellbeing of our children.
If you use Canada as an example for universal healthcare, sometimes those patients who have non-urgent medical issues are put on the backburner when it comes to receiving medical care. My argument against that is that in the US those who can't afford health insurance are are skimping on care all together.
Perhaps our medical care will dwindle, but then again those countries who have Universal Healthcare still provide good care. My husband is from Canada and his doctor is his best friend.
What do you think? Looking forward to hearing your answers.