Doesn't federally funded healthcare system have problems like lower quality of healthcare, increased government spending, increased chances of corruption and creating a moral hazard of not working to earn what is consumed ?
lower quality of healthcare
Not overall, but arguably yes for people with perfect healthcare plans at the moment. I think that everyone having 90% "rated" healthcare is better than a split of 0%/50%/100% by wealth bracket.
Increased government spending
Yes. Absolutely - you have to tax people the money that would otherwise go to insurers and spend it as an insurer. Since the US currently spends the highest proportion of GDP on healthcare for incredibly unequal healthcare you can decide for yourself whether even big government could manage to be less efficient.
Increased chances of corruption
No.
Creating a moral hazard of not working to earn what is consumed
Sure. It's a problem when there's zero cost involved in healthcare - something many systems struggle with. Often in european countries you'll see some kind of excess/copay so people have a little "skin in the game" before using the system. The UK uses waiting lists and gateway doctors (GPs) to assess need.
Rationing of healthcare on a basis of need, rather than wealth seems smarter to me from a population basis.
There are many healthcare systems, all have trade offs. Most of the first world is unconvinced that the current American system is optimal
On the very top end of healthcare? Maybe, but countries with public healthcare aren't doing too bad on that side either. On average? The quality is insanely higher. Until budget gets cut because some dimwit thought it would be a good idea to stretch their resources thin.
>increased government spending
Covering everyone costs money, yes. But considering the amount of money that is already being invested by the US govt. into health care and the abysmally poor results it gives, it can't really be worse.
>increased chances of corruption
Very little. And it solves lobbying, doctors being paid by companies, etc. It's usually a net positive.
>creating a moral hazard of not working to earn what is consumed
Screw that. People have a right to live decently, even without earning it. That's why we made societies. That's why we keep elders alive, and not immediately send them off to the glue factory as soon as they retire, that's why we keep children and feed them and teach them until they're able to be a useful member of that society. In most sensible systems, their education is largely free too.
No. US does not have better health care indicators than other countries with similar development levels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_quality_o...
> increased government spending
Maybe... But you will spend much less overall on healthcare, so it'll be a net positive for normal working Americans.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.PCAP?year_high_de...
> increased chances of corruption
Countries with better healthcare than the US also have less corruption perception. I'm not suggesting public healthcare causes that, but it certainly does not cause the opposite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
> creating a moral hazard of not working to earn what is consumed
Moral hazard "occurs when one person takes more risks because someone else bears the cost of those risks". How does this affect healthcare?
We know that a lot of diseases have a strong genetic factor, so moral hazard isn't an issue there.
Of course, behavior is also an important factor. But working insured Americans are already subject to moral hazard (since they're on a group policy, their disproportionate costs are already supported by others). Medicare and Medicaid recipients are also already subject to moral hazard.
So moral hazard will be created for uninsured people and people on an individual policy, for behavior induced health problems. If that's a deal-breaker for you, you should be against federally funded healthcare.
Would likely have cost less, reduced redundant agencies and staff, and had a chance at making things better.
While our emergency system is often at the point of creaking it at least isn't anywhere close to American levels of having to deal with what should be primary care problems. There's also the massively real hazard of what happens when you have a large proportion of the population who can't access basic healthcare, for instance a greatly increased communicable disease risk. Then there is the economic cost of people unable to work, or work as well, due to potentially treatable medical conditions or bankrupted by medical bills. On a purely economic basis there is a case for universal healthcare.
How much of this "creaking" is intentional underfunding or political meddling by politicians looking for a payday from American medical insurance companies when they ruin another nations healthcare is debatable.
It's very similar to recent Trump moves of putting people who hate what a government department does in charge of that same government department. Jeremy Hunt the former Health Secretary previously called for the NHS to be replaced with an insurance system. So how can you trust that he's not trying to achieve that goal by crippling the existing system?