So, I'm no economist, but I think that Universal Health Care would be easy to exploit.

I'd be glad to hear from supporters of the system as to whether or not my issues are realistic:

1. There would be a tendency for people seriosly needing care to be overlooked or forced to wait.

I would cite in examples Canada, where some patients have died while on the waiting list for major operations, and England, where there is a law that patients cannot be in the waiting room for longer than 4 hours, and as a result sometimes patients have to be left in the ambulance they arrived on.

(These could be rumors as I am not especially tuned in to Canada or the UK.)

2. There could be a tendency for people who really don't need aid to skim off the system. The idea being similar to wellfare, where people who could easily go out and get jobs apply for wellfare simply because it's easier.

Thus, couldn't the system be flooded with moochers and slobs, thereby wasting resources and denying aid to those who really need it?

I mean, look at any such program in the world. If you offer it as FREE, there will be a lot of people who ordinarily wouldn't be interested in it, but just come because it's free and they want to make a buck or because they're lazy.

3. It would not be hard at all for the system to be used as almost a weapon against opposition.

"You don't agree with my policies? Fine! I'll put you on the waiting list for a kydney transplant until you croak. Problem solved."

And it wouldn't have to be some kind of high-level conspiracy either. Supporters of the current administration just happen to be higher on the list by and large...

4. Obviosly it's a considerable amount of money to spend, especially considering the success of other recent measures...

5. In any kind of organization, a thing will become more awkward and sluggish as it becomes larger and more complicated. This would tie in with #1.

As a thing grows larger, there is less time and less resources available to pay as great of attention to detail. The best you can do is compartmentalize it, but it still isn't as efficient.

As in business. A great big corporation simply doesn't have the diversity and flexibility of several small companies. In short, it's like putting all your eggs into one basket.

So why are we in a big rush to put the whole system under one management? Sure, it can regulate easier, and perhaps you would avoid some problems that way, but you would also become less effective in general.

Beauracracy tends to become sluggish as it grows, you know? Look at any other government agency? They often become downright sloppy. Do we really want health care like that, or do we think "Oh, it will work THIS time (even though it hasn't worked before)."

Take schools, for instance. Does anybody want to take the side that public schools are turning out really fine students these days, and that any public school kid is better off than in private school?