How would it lower health care standards? It wouldn't effect doctor's pay, nurse's pay, or hospital's income. And how on earth would providing more health care make health care less available?!
Public health care works like this: You now allow everyone to go to the doctor's for free so they do. Waiting list become insanely long. It will take months for you to get a simple physical or scan, mean while you may die. You lower the quality by increasing the quantity. Because the government now runs health care it does lower doctor's pay. Doctor shortage is already a problem we have and it will be worse because they will go from wealthy profession to government job pay. Right now the quality of health care is at the level it is because doctors set their rates and have private practice and are forced to compete with each other, having to contently seek the best possible healing methods so they can stay in business. You take away that quality goes down. You want proof,we're modeling our system on the European one. People in Britain pull their rotting teeth in their garage cause the dentist won't see them for two years. I have a Bulgarian teacher who says he came to America to get away from the exact system we're trying to start.
# There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care? Quick, try to think of one government office that runs efficiently. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? The Department of Transportation? Social Security Administration? Department of Education? There isn't a single government office that squeezes efficiency out of every dollar the way the private sector can. We've all heard stories of government waste such as million-dollar cow flatulence studies or the Pentagon's 14 billion dollar Bradley design project that resulted in a transport vehicle which when struck by a mortar produced a gas that killed every man inside. How about the U.S. income tax system? When originally implemented, it collected 1 percent from the highest income citizens. Look at it today. A few years back to government published a "Tax Simplification Guide", and the guide itself was over 1,000 pages long! This is what happens when politicians mess with something that should be simple. Think about the Department of Motor Vehicles. This isn't rocket science--they have to keep track of licenses and basic database information for state residents. However, the costs to support the department are enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV and didn't have to stand in line? If it can't handle things this simple, how can we expect the government to handle all the complex nuances of the medical system? If any private business failed year after year to achieve its objectives and satisfy its customers, it would go out of business or be passed up by competitors.

# "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. There's an entitlement mentality in this country that believes the government should give us a number of benefits such as "free" health care. But the government must pay for this somehow. What good would it do to wipe out a few hundred dollars of monthly health insurance premiums if our taxes go up by that much or more? If we have to cut AIDS research or education spending, is it worth it?