Universal Healthcare, as good as it sounds?

Healthcare is quickly becoming a bigger and bigger issue in America, as a result more people are speaking of universal healthcare. Before we simply jump to this system and proclaim it the answer to the healthcare problem, perhaps a closer look is needed.

Many people seem to be under the impression that making healthcare government run is as easy as it sounds. The government does not have an infinite amount of money, as a result it must choose just how much money to put into each area. Although our government may be able to afford to put a large amount of money into healthcare, it still may not be enough. The idea of universal healthcare would be pointless if the government does not put in the large amount of money to make it work, otherwise everyone just suffers from poor healthcare. Hillary Clinton I believe at one point in the primaries gave everyone an indication of just how expensive a quality universal healthcare system is. I believe the suggestion she made was to simply take the money we are spending on the war and put it into a universal healthcare system. It goes pretty much without saying that no country can fight a war forever in terms of cost. Even if we are able to pay that much by taking from other programs and by adjusting the budget here and there, what happens when the government needs money to go to war in the future? Or the economy starts to go bad? Sounds like a taxpayer's worst nightmare.

Also on the subject of a bad economy, it seems to me like the recent declines in our economy are part of the issue. Housing isn't doing so great, yet there don't seem to be many calls for government distribution of housing. It's quite possible that with inflation and the economy turning south that healthcare is just one of the areas suffering and is trying to keep up by increasing prices.

We also must not forget the nature of the field. Doctors require years of education to meet the requirments of the field, obviously they don't want little pay for the high level of education required. Not to mention, most doctors are only a lawsuit away from losing just about everything. Policies to insure that doesn't happen aren't exactly cheap either.

Finally, a problem with most universal systems is that it is universal. There are many mistakes the government can make here. Too little pay can make doctors worry if they can meet the cost of insurances policies or believe it is worth the high level of training needed for the field. It is also always possible that without competition, quality will go down. With no one to compete with, there is no need for doctors to insure better quality as there will be no reward or risk of going out of business. Also how does the government determine pay? Most government institutions, don't pay that great as it is expensive enough even to pay government employees a decent salary. Naturally there will be turmoil if an ivy league graduate and a local college graduate are paid the same, assuming they will be satisfied with a low wage in the first place. Also, universal systems can take long amounts of time to process things, which can mean waiting 6 months for a surgery you need now.

With that being said, I don't believe getting completely rid of our privatized healthcare is necessary. However, I believe there are some common grounds though. One is to have the government only aid individuals who have very expensive diseases such as cancer after they've paid x amount of dollars, since obviously diseases like the common cold and cancer are not in the same price range. Another is to have local governments decide what best suits their interests, as I believe some governments have already decided to go a different route.