Anti-universal healthcare individuals, What would you do if your insurance company decline watchfulness you needed?

Answers: If I thought I had be treated illegally, I would exercise my Constitutional right to seek redress. Otherwise I would of late have to put up with it. My comfort and convenience are not your problem or responsibility.

My tangible concern is that the Democratic Party will use their socialized (not "universal") health care scam to skint private insurers and implement socialism in a country that was designed to be free.

I told my children that I could not afford to send them to the good school they chose. Nobody listened to me. It's not my fault. Really.
settle up for it myself.

Another reason against UHC: You're going to enlist 50 million new patients and hold people seeing doctors for everything under the sun and not mortal responsible about it (some things like a sore throat don't require a doctors pop in like some of the illegals I see in the ER for it, insurance next to co-pays help motivate people to transport care of some things themselves that don't require a doctor) yet you're not going to build any new doctors? Or how are you going to make different doctors? Would they be quality? (No....)

How's that going to work?
Pay for it. Free enterprise increases quality and decreases costs through competition. Socialist programs enjoy the opposite effect; while it may seem the costs are lower they are within actuality spread out among the entire population, whether they need the services or not.
pay envelope for it - just like I hold always done - with or short insurance.

reasons for universal HC:
- uninsured citizens (US) have grown to over 45 million (although this number includes illegal immigrants, etc.).
- have become increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals. (duplicate paper work, claim approval, insurance submission, etc.)
- centralized national database which makes diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors.
- focus on salutary the patient (rather than on insurance procedures, malpractice liability, etc.)
- encourage preventative prescription and inquire about problems early when treatment will be bedside light
- pre-existing conditions can get health coverage.

reason against UHC:
- government is not an efficient examiner (tax code/IRS, postal service)
-"free" health care" is paid for beside taxes (higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. )
- profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity enjoy always led to greater cost control/effectiveness.
- government-controlled HC decrease patient flexibility, making total costs several times what they are now.
- uninsured doesn't indicate no health care received (nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't own insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a deficiency of insurance.)
- government-mandated procedures reduces doctor flexibility, leading to poor lenient care.
- healthy inhabitants pay the burden (smokers, are obese, etc.)
- transition will have to steal place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new lenient record creation.
- loss of private practice options (and possible reduced pay) dissuade pursuit of the profession.
- malpractice costs expose the policy to legal liability (deep pockets invite more lawsuits).
- further loss of personal freedoms. (government is more likely to go by additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc)
- merciful confidentiality compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintain by the government.
- equipment, drugs, and services are subject to being ration by the government.
- there is no means of access out once established --- near impossible to remove or curtail it subsequently when costs get out of control.
- 'second opinions' will be moot
IOW, politics, lifestyle of patients, and philosophical differences of those contained by power, becomes the determining factor. patients may be subjected to extremely long waits for treatment (as evidenced surrounded by other countries). from each according to their ability - to respectively according to their need, ALWAYS puts somebody else in charge of what sympathetic of care the individual gets AND how much they enjoy to pay to get it.

adjectives have the right to get married - within accordance with the laws contained by place. that's how a democracy works. public schools are paid for by the public near the exception of those fees and expenses that are considered "extra".
Either no one is against it or they aren't willing to have a word about it. I am all for it.
I agree with Phrog on every point.

Related Questions:
Once I database an auto claim next to the other those insurance company, how long until I hear from them?   How is an insurance company denying coverage different than the "annihilation panels" we've be told to scare?   How to stump the Insurance Company:)?   Who do you contact when an insurance company does something unprincipled?   What is the average time surrounded by which most insurance companies give somebody a lift to authorize hysterectomies?