> lower quality of healthcare No. US does not have better health care indicators than other countries with similar development levels. https://en.wikipedia.or

> lower quality of healthcare No. US does not have better health care indicators than other countries with similar development levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_quality_of_healthcare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_quality_o... > increased government spending Maybe... But you will spend much less overall on healthcare, so it'll be a net positive for normal working Americans. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.PCAP?year_high_desc=true http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.PCAP?year_high_de... > increased chances of corruption Countries with better healthcare than the US also have less corruption perception. I'm not suggesting public healthcare causes that, but it certainly does not cause the opposite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index > creating a moral hazard of not working to earn what is consumed Moral hazard "occurs when one person takes more risks because someone else bears the cost of those risks". How does this affect healthcare? We know that a lot of diseases have a strong genetic factor, so moral hazard isn't an issue there. Of course, behavior is also an important factor. But working insured Americans are already subject to moral hazard (since they're on a group policy, their disproportionate costs are already supported by others). Medicare and Medicaid recipients are also already subject to moral hazard. So moral hazard will be created for uninsured people and people on an individual policy, for behavior induced health problems. If that's a deal-breaker for you, you should be against federally funded healthcare.