There are several talking points that people use (particularly Democrats) to justify the current healthcare reform bill (HR3200) which I would like to provide reasonable arguments against. I will be quoting from the following Wiki article throughout to provide some backup for my arguments. Before anyone questions Wiki as a source, check the sources cited by the Wiki in the article first. Ok, the site will not allow me to post the link until I have 15 posts. The Wiki article I am talking about here is titled "Health care in the United States". The first talking point I would like to address is regarding the ranking of the US healthcare system, such as the ranking the World Health Organization provides. Democrats are saying we have a system with a low rating compared to other countries and this is true and they want try and get our system rated higher. What is not told is how the rating system works. There is more weight on covering all citizens than there is on the citizen satisfaction. From the article: How can countries have some of the highest healthcare ratings, yet their citizens are completely dissatisfied with the system and rate it poorly? That makes no sense. Another part of this rating system is the price per capita paid or the total cost as a percentage of GDP. The US does pay the highest per capita and highest percentage of GDP for healthcare spending. However, once again the entire context of why we spend so much for healthcare is not told by the Democrats or others that are for the current bill. Let’s examine why our costs have increased. It is not just the greedy health insurance companies. Another quote: The fact is we spend three time more per capita on medical innovations than Europe does (see the article for reference to this). Another quote to provide more context here from the CBO quoted in the Wiki article: This gives us a good indication as to why health care spending has increased, yet we do not seem to hear this from those for the current bill. Another interesting fact is that the US seems to be shouldering much of the cost of these technological advances. As an example from new drugs developed: Other countries are riding on the backs of U.S. consumers. So, they get to keep their costs down since they do not have to front the developmental costs, yet the US takes a hit on its rating system because of it. That does not seem too fair, does it? OK, let’s turn to the talking points about saving money. I understand that the majority of the funding for technological advancements and research is privately funded. Yet, the main point of the current health care reform bill is to reduce health care costs, correct? Is the government going to fund all of the research and development of innovations with their health care plan? If not, how are they going to save anything on this when it constitutes half of the growth in health care cost? Another argument used is that preventative care will save a lot of money. While it may save some cost, there are offset costs with people who never become ill. From the article: Another fact from the article is that the government already pays around one half of all the health care costs. The US government alone ranks in the top ten in total spending for health care. This is mostly for Medicare, Medicaid. SCHIP, etc. This represents a large portion of health care spending, so how is the government going to decrease these costs? Let’s not forget the fact that the government intervention with these programs has already caused cost increases in the private sector. Again, from the article: I am for health care reform and know it needs to be done; I just completely disagree with the current reform bill and the way in which it will substantially increase government control. Mainly because this will lead to fewer choices, and lower quality of care down the road. The Democrats are selling us their plan without giving us the entire context, such as all the reasons why we have higher costs. They are telling we will still have a “choice” which is not going to be true in the long run either. The government system will continue to shift more of the cost onto private insurers to the point that the majority will not be able to afford them either. They will continue to put insurance companies out of business with seemingly “more affordable” coverage.