One of the most straight forward arguments I've encountered yet found in a local paper forum:
Originally posted by Skeptical1:
If people would take their ideological blinders off and look at the whole picture you would realize that we are already paying for nationalized healthcare. First off, collectively, governments (federal, state, and local) are the biggest employer in the nation. We all pay toward the healthcare for all of those employees regardless of the level of government. We also pay for veterans, medicare, and medicaid.
Secondly, the next largest covered group is employees of companies who contribute to the healthcare cost of their employees. A portion of the cost of everything we buy, food, gas, electronics, cars, houses, etc. and a portion of every service we purchase, phone, internet, electricity, legal help, dry cleaning, etc. is paying for the healthcare of the employees of those companies.
Additionally in Polk County we pay a 1/2 cent sales tax for indigent healthcare, so we who live in Polk County are not only paying for those insured all over the country we are paying for those not insured and illegals if my understanding of our indigent healthcare service is correct.
The purpose of health insurance sold to governments and employers is to pool the risk and reduce the collective cost of healthcare for that group. When a person walks into the emergency room who is uninsured and treated that individual doesn't have the leverage a group has so that uninsured person may pay $10,000 for a broken leg, which a person in a group may pay $5000.00 for. Here is where it gets interesting. In most cases that uninsured person can't pay the bill, so the hospital takes that cost and rolls it into the cost it charges health insurance companies, who in turn roll the cost into the premiums that all of the rest of us pay for health insurance; therefore, we are all paying for that uninsured person's broken leg through our insurance premiums and through every product and service we purchase as explained above.
That said, we would all be better off if that uninsured person was insured and only had to pay the $5000 for the broken leg like the rest of insured people pay. We, every person in the nation, would have just saved $5000 fixing that person's leg if he/she were a part of a risk pool and insured.
Like it or not, we are already in a nationalized healthcare system, and the way to reduce cost is to make it so everyone is insured to make the currently uninsured a part of a collective risk pool and reduce their costs that we are already paying, so we end up paying less for their healthcare. That is called being fiscally responsible. Currently even if an illegal walks into a hospital and gets medical treatment we are all paying for it. Civil debate and proper legislation can stop that and reduce overall healthcare costs by eliminating illegals from the equation and placing the currently uninsured in a risk pool to reduce their cost that we are already paying.
I am not proposing a single payer system. I am not proposing a government option. There are many ways to meet the needs of providing insurance for all legal US citizens and that is what the debate needs to be about. My argument is that we are already paying for the uninsured at inflated rates, and by insuring them we can reduce that cost because they become part of a risk pool that can leverage reduced costs; therefore, cutting the cost of their healthcare that we are all already paying for, like it or not.