The supporters of this programs argues that that the cost as portrayed by the opposes citing the fact that approximately 40% more funds are spent on current health care system in USA than any other industrialized nation with universal free health. Any additional costs should come from the tobacco and the liquor levies since tobacco and liquor impacts negatively on the health costs. Furthermore an additional argument is that since it is the firms that reap hugely as a result of healthier worker force, they are thus obliged to invest for the same.
The opposers of the program argue that the American citizens are already overtaxed and so cannot afford an increase in tax. With the cost of living going up it will be almost impossible to sustain such a program so they argue. It will be fundamentally unfair to some people. For instance the non smokers will have to bear the burden of the smokers. Costs will be spread regardless of individual’s health standard. People will be imposed other’s burdens and this is unacceptable. Consumption of the health services for free will skyrocket the demand for the free government service.
Since the service is free the private medical practitioners will have to close down affecting the insurance industry and also the medicine manufacturers. As a result doctors will ventures into other areas as they become overworked, leaving the field with a shortages of doctors and nurses. The opposers provides a solution in that it is the responsibility of the citizen to cater for his/her health care and this can be easily done by reducing health care costs like insurance premium and the costs for medicine to make them affordable to every citizen, as the case has been done with computers, foods and mobile phones.
Businesses’ footing the health care bills alone is another bone of contention in the debate. To avoid the burden to individuals the business or employers should be the one footing the bill for the employees. Since majority of the people are employed there will be efficiency in this method of financing the health plan unlike the case of individual taxpayers. The opposers says that charging the businesses for its employees health upkeep will affect it negatively the employment industries as the potential employers try to cut on their number of employees. The unemployment rate will thus rise.
On the other hand businesses may tend to cut the salaries of their workers in a bid to reducing the expenses and in the long run the individual is the one to suffer. This being the case, some business may join together in discouraging the public from using certain products like the cigarettes in order to cut on their health costs, the tobacco industry will in this case be dealt a blow resulting in massive lay offs of workers. To avoid these side effects and the ling tern effects of the introduction of the universal health care opposers of the plans argue that the private control of the universals health care should be allowed to continue.
Since the majority of employees with insurance coverage provided by their employers will retain them, federal spending would be to a large extent lower than the case of the universal health care system. The government should put in place a cost effective health care system to put the current government spending in check. Similarly universal health care will cut short the spirit of competition for provision of services thus impeding the growth of the medical industry. Similarly drug companies will stop research due to the price controls and government regulations thus development of new medication will stop here.