Should the federal government institute a national health plan?

Pro: National health plans ensure that all or most citizens have access to basic medical care.

Con: National health plans interfere with the doctor-patient relationship: doctors have to be responsive not only to patients but also to agencies of the government.

Con: National health plans do not guarantee that patients will receive adequate care.

Reply: Supervisors would see that health care providers maintain standards of medical and nursing practice.

Con: National health plans are very expensive, and taxpayers have to pay for them.

Reply: In the absence of a national health plan, many people go without attention from primary providers. And yet with some systems, when uninsured people who are sick go to emergency rooms, the government pays for their medical care. Taxpayers provide the funding for that very expensive service. With a national health plan, the cost to taxpayers is less.

Con: A national health plan would create a form of rationing.

Reply: Those with the means will be able to get whatever services they choose, even as they would in the absence of a national health plan. In any event, differences of wealth create a form of rationing: poor people cannot get the same services that rich people can afford. A national health plan would guarantee that the poor have at least the minimum medical examinations and treatments that they need, not only to benefit them in the short run but also to help minimize the ultimate costs to the rest of society for the use of medical facilities and the services of health care professionals.