United States should switch to a Universal Healthcare System

I do agree that your proposed improvements have some merit, but I believe that your views on a government system are a little too cynical. You claim that a government system is worse than a monopoly, but this is not really the case. I mean, sure, it could happen, but the chances are virtually astronomical. Social healthcare is run on legislation, legislation is made by ELECTED officials, and elected officials have to keep voters happy. Insurance companies, HMO's, and medical boards have no such responsibility, since the only way to healthcare is through them, and they can't be replaced by another elected official like politicians can. So essentially, a government system HAS to maintain low prices and efficient service, or those in charge can be voted out of office. You also said the cost of medications would go up, but that's not true either. In Great Britain, another socialized health system, all prescriptions, no matter the kind or amount, are approximately $10. I currently use a medication for my sleep apnea that costs $60 for a 30-day supply. Not to mention last year, there was a movement to try and access CHEAPER, but just as effective Canadian medications. The same principle as before applies. Politicians have to keep prices low, or risk being voted out of office. Quite plainly, it's obvious to those who have studied the subject that a universal healthcare system is a vast improvement. Many people have claimed that a government system discourages technological improvements and innovations, but studies prove otherwise. France, the current leader in the world for healthcare, is a government-run system. Not to mention, the government already sponsors innovation in areas like military technology, social engineering, and even medicine. So why do you say that switching to a Universal system would suddenly make the government less willing to give grants for medical technology research? Another common argument is that switching to a government system would make taxes go through the roof! This argument is based on the idea that tax structure would remain the same as it is today. The problem lies in the fact that the current tax structure was designed by either a retard, or a rich person, or possibly both (George W. Bush anyone?). Taxes, in their current structure would be devastated by a universal healthcare system, but that can easily be fixed. A simple adjustment, as well as better spending controls would give almost everybody in the country a tax break, only raising taxes for the richest 6% of the country. Finally, I have to bring up the greatest issue of universal healthcare: the health benefits of the general public. Many people love to say things like "Oh, universal healthcare has failed in other countries." In reality, it is quite the opposite. As the United States has remained one of the few industrial nations without a social healthcare system, we have slowly but surely dropped to 37th in the world for healthcare, according to the U.N. Even a study by Harvard University has found that "U.S. citizens are less healthy and less able to access healthcare than Canadians." This health decrease has also led the U.S. to drop to 38th in the world for life expectancies, ranking behind even Cuba, according to the United Nations. Above us you can find France, Britain, and Canada, all of which are Universal healthcare systems. Thanks to our fellow industrialized nations, Universal healthcare has become a time-tested reality, found to have more pros than cons. I respect your ideas that a social system may not have your best interests at heart, but I believe otherwise. I am looking for a system that can provide high-qaulity healthcare for EVERYONE for pennies a day. I believe that a government-run universal system can accomplish all this.