I originally was against universal healthcare because i didn't think we can afford an added luxury, especialy with a deficit and a war. However, after looking at many sources it seems that universal healthcare would most likely reduce the cost of healthcare.

If that is true than I don't think there would be any good arguement against a universal healthcare plan. Even though it would need a constitutional amendment, that wouldn't happen and the unconstitutionality would be the other true problem.

Universal Health Care - Finding a United Health Care Plan - National Health Care
I got other sources a few weeks ago...

Even the conservative websites that I looked at didn't refute that the costs of healthcare would go down but instead brought up other issues such as problems in a transition, inability to end the program, and... creeping socialism!

put the health insurance companies out of business and nationalize most hospitals and medical offices and make the govt the insurer.........IMO probably the cheapest but almost impossible to pull off

let the govt go into business with big pharma and big healthcare and become the primary insurer and let the profit motivated corporations rape the govt for all they can in the process while rendering mediocre service at inflated prices........IMO more than likely that will be where we end up if some kind of reform does happen

another option I guess would be to raise the minimum income levels drastically for free health care and somehow cap medical costs from increasing, but again trying to mix socialism and capitalism is like mixing oil and water, doesn't work too well, both have their downsides

Why not let the free market work? It is working in some sections of health care.ABC News: Healthy Competition in Health Care
I think the Health savings plan would be the best and most efficient system.

__________________
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."Ronald Reagan

On cold days, i run my SUV and my big ass truck 24/7 to make global warming a reality.

My argument for reforms that would help American healthcare are detailed here:
The Myth of "Best in the World"

I wanted to also address some things that were said directly:

The VHA has a history of poor performance, but it was overhauled in 1994 with a reorganization of management from centralized to regional, which lends credance to the idea that state-based healthcare with federal help may work. This was accompanied by the hiring of more primary care physicians, and shutting down extraneous acute care facilities. This shifted the emphasis to preventive care. They also developed a medical records program called VistA, and developed a drug formulary based upon available evidence with a shift towards evidence-based medicine unparalleled elsewhere in America.

Between 97 and 99, the VHA outperformed fee-for-service Medicare on 11 of 11 measures of quality and this trend has continued. With the help of VistA software, the VHA's accuracy in drug administration is 99.997%, compared to 92-97% in the rest of America. They also give recommended care 67% of the time compared to 50% in the rest of the country. Amazingly, they even spend less per person than the rest of the country, despite the fact that the population they serve has more problems with obesity, substance abuse, diabetes, etc.

Yes, but all of those nations do better than America overall on health and have higher life expectancies. Out of industrialized nations, America is roughly in the middle of the pack on cancer mortality while it is at the bottom on other measures. Australia, Japan, Sweden, Finland, Austria, and even Cuba (which all have life expectancies equal to or better than the U.S) do better in cancer mortality.

Overall, the free market cannot work well for healthcare, and just because it can work for plastic surgery and vision correction doesn't mean it can work for the rest of it. Why?

Health is maximized when intervention-based care is a last resort and prevention is vigorously pursued. Unfortunately, invasive intervention is more profitable than preventive care, so in a market economy, health comes second to profit. And since the "demand" is set by the supplier (the doctor usually tells you what you need, not vice-versa, except in cases like plastic surgery), the market leads to ever-escalating costs.

On a related note, when about a third of Americans are uninsured or underinsured, they cannot pay for catastrophic care that results partly from our lack of preventive care. Healthcare bills are the number one reason for personal bankruptcy in America. But as a result, emergency rooms lose a lot of money, and the hospitals must make up for it elsewhere, usually in oncology or cardiology. This leads hospitals to pressure doctors to give unnecessary care, which is inefficient at best, and dangerous at worst. Due to asymmetry of knowledge between doctor and patient, the patient is usually in no position to refuse this inefficient or dangerous extra care.

for anyone who puts faith in financial institutions or insurance policies be aware that these systems are for profit and shareholders. Increasingly self serving politicians and financial organizations will inevitably let people down. Government is there to serve the people but this is becoming increasingly less so in western society as a sort of insidious fascism creeps into society like a cancer.
In enormously wealthy western nations there is no excuse for any human being to go without proper health care and social welfare. These things should not be arbitrary and it is a government's duty to provide these for every generation. To allow and enable poverty and exclude human beings from the health care they need degrades all of us.