People arguing for a national health insurance plan often state that the United States is the only developed nation without one. They say this as if it is sufficient argument for one. They apparently believe that we should have one just because our peers have one. Never mind the fact that medical care in other developed nations is inferior to ours. Never mind that the vast majority of emigrants choose to move to the United States over the other developed nations; for them, national health insurance doesn't seem to be a strong criterion.

Those in favor of national health insurance seem to believe that universally available health care is preferred over good health care. But the flaw in this argument is that universally available health care is already available. Private health insurance is available to anyone who can afford it. For those who can't afford it there is Medicaid, SCHIP and charitable institutions. You might be denied knee replacement surgery under Medicaid but that will also be denied under a national health insurance plan.

There is also the false assumption that a national health care plan will ensure that everyone is covered. If the plan is universally available but voluntary not everyone will opt to pay for it. If participation in the plan is mandatory how will the cost be collected from those unable to pay? The cost won't be collected from those unable to pay so we're back to the system we have now: health insurance plans that are available to those able to pay and public assistance for those that aren't.