I took the liberty of copying this list of questions from the Wikipedia entry for Universal Health Insurance. Wikipedia is typically a suspect source of information. However, some entries are well written, and more importantly are well referenced.

Debate in the United States

It has been suggested that some of the information in this article's "Criticism" or "Controversy" section(s) be merged into other sections to achieve a more neutral presentation. (Discuss)
Common arguments forwarded by supporters of universal health care systems include:
  • Health care is a basic human right[52][53][54] or entitlement.[55]
  • Ensuring the health of all citizens benefits a nation economically.[56]
  • Coverage should be provided to all citizens regardless of ability to pay.[citation needed]
  • About 60% of the U.S. health care system is already publicly financed when federal and state taxes, property taxes and tax subsidies are included A universal healthcare system would merely replace private/employer spending with taxes. Total spending would go down for individuals and employers.[57]
  • A single payer system could save $286 billion a year in overhead and paperwork.[58] Administrative costs in the U.S. health care system are substantially higher than those in other countries and than in the public sector in the US: one estimate put the total administrative costs at 24 percent of U.S. health care spending.[59]
  • Several studies have shown a majority of taxpayers and citizens across the political divide would prefer a universal healthcare system over the current U.S. system[60][61][62]
  • Health care is increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals.[63]
  • Universal health care would provide for uninsured adults who may forgo treatment needed for chronic health conditions.[64]
  • Providing access to medical treatment to those who cannot afford it reduces the severity of epidemics by reducing the number of disease carriers.[citation needed]
  • Wastefulness and inefficiency in the delivery of health care would be reduced.[65]
  • America spends a far higher percentage of GDP on health care than any other country but has worse ratings on such criteria as quality of care, efficiency of care, access to care, safe care, equity, right care and wait times, according to the Commonwealth Fund.[66]
  • A universal system would align incentives for investment in long term health-care productivity, preventive care, and better management of chronic conditions.[67]
  • By reducing paperwork a universal system would allow doctors to spend more time with patients, thereby increasing physician productivity.[68]
  • Patients would be encouraged to seek preventive care, enabling problems to be detected and treated earlier.[63]
  • A centralized national database would make diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors.[63]
  • Universal health care could act as a subsidy to business, at no cost thereto. (Indeed, the Big Three of U.S. car manufacturers cite health-care provision as a reason for their ongoing financial travails. The cost of health insurance to U.S. car manufacturers adds between USD 900 and USD 1,400 to each car made in the U.S.A.)[69]
  • The profit motive adversely affects the cost and quality of health care. If managed care programs and their concomitant provider networks are abolished, then doctors would no longer be guaranteed patients solely on the basis of their membership in a provider group and regardless of the quality of care they provide. Theoretically, quality of care would increase as true competition for patients is restored.[70]
  • The profit motive adversely affects the motives of healthcare. Because of medical underwriting, which is designed to mitigate risk for insurance providers, applicants with pre-existing conditions, some of them minor, are denied coverage or prevented from obtaining health insurance at a reasonable cost. Health insurance companies have greater profits if fewer medical procedures are actually performed, so agents are pressured to deny necessary and sometimes life-saving procedures to help the bottom line.[citation needed]
  • According to an estimate by Dr. Marcia Angell roughly 50% of healthcare dollars are spent on healthcare, the rest go to various middlemen and intermediaries. A streamlined, non-profit, universal system would increase the efficiency with which is money spent on healthcare.[68]
/ Common arguments forwarded by opponents of universal health care systems include:
  • Health care is not a right.[71][72][73] As such, it is not the responsibility of government to provide health care.[74]
  • Higher Taxes [citation needed]
  • Universal heath care would result in increased wait times, which could result in unnecessary deaths.[71][75]
  • Poorer quality of care.[71][63]
  • Unequal access and health disparities still exist in universal health care systems.[71]
  • Universal health care would reduce efficiency because of more bureaucratic oversight and more paperwork, which could lead to fewer doctor-patient visits.[76] Advocates of this argument claim that the performance of administrative duties by doctors results from medical centralization and over-regulation, and may reduce charitable provision of medical services by doctors.[73]
  • The profit motive, competition, and individual ingenuity which lead to greater cost control and effectiveness would be eliminated by centralized control.[63]
  • By law, uninsured citizens receive emergency care regardless of ability to pay. The health care safety net, which includes free medical clinics, charity care, and nonprofits and government-run community hospitals provides necessary care to the uninsured.[63]
  • Government-mandated procedures would further reduce doctor flexibility.[63]
  • Healthy people who take care of themselves should not have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.[63]
  • Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay would dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.[63]
  • Government efforts to incentivize college graduates to study medicine, which could include additional subsidies of medical student's education expenses, would increase the costs of a universal health care system. [citation needed]
  • Likely loss of insurance industry jobs and business closure in the private sector.[63]
  • Universal health care would eliminate the right to privacy between doctors and patients.[77]
  • Empirical evidence on single payer-insurance programs demonstrates that the cost exceeds the expectations of advocates.[77]
  • Universal health care systems, in an effort to control costs by gaining or enforcing monopsony power, sometimes outlaw medical care paid for by private, individual funds.[78]
  • Whether an individual can get treatment or not will be determined by their doctors or a bureaucrat [citation needed

This is the single-payer FAQ from Physicians for National Health Insurance. Obviously, this group favors a single-payer system. You should be able to apply the methods of evaluating premises to their arguments.

Balanced Politics is one of many organizations that attempts to provide information about issues without interjecting bias. You should be able to identify biases in the article.