The benefits of a nationwide health care system are so attractive that virtually no politician openly opposes the idea. The issue is, however, not without debate. Why? Because there are several (perhaps infinite) ways to go about designing, implementing, and handling such a system.

How it should be done ultimately is determined by personal views on the role of government. That is, whether government exists to serve the public, protect the public, sit back and let the public fend for themselves, and so on. It's a social, political, and economic issue.

While I favor a more socialized, government universal health-care system, the question I am answering for Hubber "Thooghun" is in regards to the benefits of a nationwide private health care system, which are almost entirely economic.

Proponents of private versions are often opposed and/or afraid of "big" government and so oppose what they view would be a bureaucratic socialist program. Still, few can deny that the American people are both in want and need of universal health care, thus is born the idea of private socialism.

The primary benefit of a private national health care system is the maintaining of free market capitalism in the insurance market. Most forms of PHC (private health care) are essentially the same as car insurance; everyone is required to have car insurance and it is up to each individual to find and choose their own corporation for coverage based upon their own criteria. A few states have already implemented such a system and it is popular amongst republicans since it not only avoids disrupting the economic stability of these corporations, but actually hugely benefits them as it requires the millions of uninsured to buy insurance, yet requires little or no change of the insurance company's procedures or practices.

Ideally, in a PHC system all people would have cheaper insurance and have medical coverage without disrupting the governments budget, and further benefiting the strength of the American economy via corporate tax revenues. Realistically, we all know how corrupt, inefficient, cold hearted, and often useless health insurance companies are. PHC advocates might say the same of government bureaucracies, additionally pointing out the possibility that insurance companies could be hurt by implementation of a socialized system.

The debate can be very heated most every possible choice has it's benefits. While I may be better able to advocate a socialized solution, I can easily see the benefits of the opposite, many of which are not in this hub. However, any discussion of universal health care inevitably turns toward philosophy of government roles and responsibilities concerning the people, corporations, and human rights.