Bob:

I'm aware of the malpractice suits - I shudder at how much the lawyers make from this.

But I suspect the largest lobby against UHC in the US is from the insurance companies. They stand to lose far more than the lawyers.

Interesting fact: In Saskatchewan (I lived there for fifty years) and here in BC, when you license a vehicle, there is the licensing fee, plus mandatory insurance. But the insurance company is the Saskatchewan Government Insurance Company (SGI as they call it) or ICBC, and they are crown corporations. One can get additional insurance for more liability or coverage on glass, etc. but this isn't nearly as expensive as the basic policy. Another point is that the insurance is so-called "no-fault" insurance - if you are responsible for the accident, your vehicle etc is still covered - automatically. No fighting with an insurance company, and no lawyers involved. Yes, it costs a bit more than private insurance, but I've never had to retain a lawyer to get coverage even when it was my fault when I rear-ended a couple of cars. The lawyers would have cost way more.

Fortunately when UHC was started, we had very few small health insurance companies, so they couldn't put up much of a fight. I strongly suspect that you are victims of the insurance companies. It's really too bad, because although our system is a tax burden, you'd have to look very long and hard to find anyone that would do away with it (and most of the ones you would find don't live here).

Glenn