why universal healthcare is not a good idea, for dummies- a general overview

the concept of universal healthcare is great. here's a quote: "John Edwards has a bold plan to transform America's health care system and provide universal health care for every man, woman and child in America." here's another from Obama's site: "Making sure every American has access to high quality health care is one of the most important challenges of our time."

but universal, government run healthcare is not going to bring "high quality" health care. sure, the 40 million uninsured americans will have access to in/out patient healthcare, and not just the emergency room. but this large influx of "consumers," per se, will put a heavy strain on the medical workforce, resulting in longer waiting times and shorter doctor/patient interaction. and of course, by longer waiting times, i am not only referring to minutes and hours spent in the lobby waiting for your name to be called, but i'm also referring to the months and years one will have to wait for a surgical procedure or whatnot. in canada, with it's universal healthcare system already in place, it can take over 6 months for women to get a pap smear, which is frankly ridiculous.

while out-of-pocket expenses may go down, UHS will need heavy funding, which will come out of our taxes, aka taxpayer dollars. if it doesn't mean an increase in taxes, it will mean cutting government programs and funding for research or anything else the government will deem "more expendable."

those w/o medical insurance now are probably not too happy w/ the current system. however, here it becomes a moral issue: should those that can't afford medical care be allowed to piggyback off taxpayer's dollars? nevertheless, medical care can always be found: emergency rooms must treat patients regardless of insurance status, and there are plenty of privately and publicly owned clinics and hospitals that will do the same. one might argue that the quality of medical care from those clinics/hospitals will be worse than one attended by someone w/ medical insurance which brings up the moral dilemma, should those with money have better care than someone without? to this i answer, no, but it will inevitably happen in capitalism, returning back to the system we have now.

finally, let me re-mention that this will be run by a branch or agency of government. do we really want the government putting their hands though our medical records? do we really want the government controlling what they could make into a "privilege?" do we really want the government to instate its consistent motifs of inefficiency and red tape? fine, you can argue since everything is done by one organization, the process becomes simplified...streamlined, you might say. well, when was the last time you walked into the dmv? you could say i'm generalizing, but i find it hard to think up of better efficiency in the governmental sector, rather than private.

this whole thing just seems like another step towards big brother.

p.s. also, this whole thing about change is complete bs. ever since obama started chanting mantras such as "we are change" and "change we can believe in," "change" has been spreading like wildfire. it's used in fruity, superficial sayings such as "be the change." i admire and commend those who want to make a difference for the better. however, changing the current healthcare plan for the sake of "we are change" and "be the change" is ridiculous. instead of fanboying change, let's make sure we see what we are changing to.