There is no good argument AGAINST universal health care.

Argument 1: Who is going to pay for that?

Answer: All of us. If you think that you are only paying for yourself now, you are in the dark. We are already paying for health care of others now. Everyone who pays federal income tax is already paying for health insurance for all federal employees, the poor people, all military personnel. If you have private or employer sponsored medical insurance then you pay for yourself, your family, and millions of employees of insurance companies. The problem is that when you get sick, you are still presented with a bill. Sometimes smaller, sometimes larger. Pre-existing conditions and many other situations are not covered. The fact that you have private insurance in the current system still leaves you with many things to worry about. So how does it work in the universal healthcare systems? Everyone pays a percentage of their earned income. That means that these illegal emigrants pay too. Working poor pay, too. Company executives pay, too. Usually around 8 percent. That covers everything. There are no pre-existing conditions, no deductibles, no co-pays, no limits. If you get sick, you get a treatment, not a bill.

This question always provokes me to ask, how much is human life worth? Is the U.S. such a poor country? I don't think so. No other country would decide to spend $600,000,000,000.00 to get rid of one pitiful dictator.

Argument 2: Universal healthcare means more bureaucracy.

Answer: This is not true. If you have lived in the U.S. your whole life, it is probably difficult to imagine for you, but if you ask someone who had lived in ANY other developed country, they will tell you that there is much more bureaucracy in the U.S. healthcare. Tens of insurance companies, hundreds of insurance plans, hundreds of thousands of people filling and processing claims. The U.S. system is much more complicated and therefore requires much more administrative personnel.

Argument 3: I do not want to pay for you.

Answer: In argument 1, I have already showed that there is a good chance, that you are already paying for me through your federal income taxes, but let's say we both have private insurance - hey, you are paying for me again - that's how insurance works it mitigates risk. Let's say that you have insurance and I don't. Again, you are paying for me, because when I go to the emergency room uninsured, and my life is threatend they have to treat me. And who is paying for that? You are. The hospital will bump their prices. They are no charity. For the sake of argument, let's say there are no insurance companies, and no federal taxes. You pay only for yourself. Fine.

How about the police? Or schools? Or the fire brigade? Or the military? You do not want to pay for me there, either? Do you really want to leave in a society where you need a gun to protect yourself, because there is no police, you have to teach your children yourself, because there are no public schools, and you cannot afford a private school? Do you want to defend your country only with your gun?

Do you really believe that when someone gets cancer or has a heart attack it is all their fault? Or that people enjoy sitting in a waiting room or being in a hospital?

Argument 4: Universal healthcare stiffles innovation, because the government does not allow pharmaceutical companies to make profit.

Answer: Pharmaceutical companies would not be selling their wares in other countries if they were not making profit. Less profit, but still profit. Any buyer should be allowed to negotiate the price. Forbidding the US government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies is the same as stealing money from all taxpayers and giving it to a few corporations. Pharmaceutical companies are not the only innovators. I suspect that most breakthrough innovations come from the universities.

Argument 5: Universal health care means nationalization of health care. More government is bad.

Answer: No. It means universal access to health care. There are many universal health care systems. In many private hospitals co-exist with state owned. And another No to the statement that more government is bad. Government is elected by the people - by all of us. Governament answers to us. In most political systems, but not in the U.S., the government can be replaced very quickly if needed. It is in government's interest to keep us happy.

What about corporations? Their only interest is profit. They answer only to their shareholders. CEOs are not elected by us, and we have no control over them.

Do you really prefer to give power to the corporations?

Closing thoughts. Talk to someone who lives in the US, but used to live in any other developed country. Watch "Sicko" by Michael Moore, or if you are allergic to Mike and you insurance does not cover that, watch on-line the PBS Frontline "Sick Around the World".