Universal health care is the special coverage system that ensures that all residents of the country have an access to the medical facilities and assistance. Universal health care is funded through a variety of different programs worldwide. All of the developed states, accept for the USA, have universal health care system. It seems to be global trend today, as some of the developing countries try to imply various programs that would cover 100% of the population. However, the question still remains: is the universal health care a solution to all of the problems in the sphere? Should such programs be implied everywhere else in the world? I suppose no. With all its benefits and positive sides, universal health care has a number of serious drawbacks and counterarguments that should not be ignored.

The first argument is relatively simple: universal health care is extremely expensive.

It is hard to estimate the costs of introducing the universal health care in the US, but the sum will obviously be huge. There may simply be not enough money to provide the entire population with free medical assistance. The approximate sum needed for the reform of the health care system is said to be over $1 trillion (FoxNews.com).

Secondly, it is rather obvious that free health care is not a constitutional right. Effective health care is rather a privilege that has to be paid for, than a government-ensured right of any citizen. There already is a number of responsibilities carried out by the federal government. It is high time to remember Kennedy’s words and ask what one had done for the country, than what the country has done for him.

Then, it is rather clear that waiting time would increase dramatically, which could lead to serious problems. Once the health care system becomes free for everyone, the lines in hospitals will double or even triple. People with most insignificant illnesses or with none at all might want to consult the doctor “just in case”. Eventually, the waiting time for those actually needing help might increase.

Moreover, it is rather likely that over-regulation might emerge. In case the government spent money on the health care coverage, it would like much more control over where the money is going. The doctor’s profession is already extremely formalized, but in case medical workers become employed by the government, the amount of bureaucratic work will increase substantially.

The fifth argument states that universal health care is likely to be much less efficient than the system that is already used in the US. In case there is no consumer for the good or service, its quality usually falls significantly. If the medical care is funded by the government, medical staff receives the same compensation regardless of the quality of their work. Material stimulation is one of the most powerful ones and universal health care actually lacks it.

A number of economists argue that serious disproportions in the income redistribution might emerge. Some of the health services are extremely costly to perform. Everyone receiving similar health coverage is simply not fair. Some people work hard and pay taxes that eventually cover the health services. Others, however, remain idle or unemployed, generating no income for the state. These people will eventually get sick and receive adequate health services, making the rest pay for it.

And finally, tax burden is very likely to increase dramatically. Introduction of the universal health care would mean spending at least trillion of US dollars. US debt is already the largest one in the world and the largest in history. In order to finance these spending, some taxes would need to be increased, which is likely to lower overall economic effectiveness.

All the grounds and warrants provided above are rather obvious to an educated person. Simple economic models and laws prove that universal health care is not necessarily a remedy. Monopoly power is almost always negative, and government control over the economy is seldom effective. In the years to come medical spending are expected to reach 20% of the GDP  and granting control over such an industry to the state, eliminating competition is rather dangerous.