The arguments against a national health program: science or ideology?

This article provides empirical information that questions some of the major arguments put forward against the establishment of a comprehensive and universal health program in the United State. The positions that (1) "Americans do not want a further expansion of government roles in their lives," (2) "a National Health Program would further increase the rate of growth of health expenditures," (3) "the federal deficit is too large and needs to be reduced before establishing a National Health Program," and (4) "people do not want to pay higher taxes," are shown to be ideological rather than scientific. The author presents evidence that questions each of these assumptions.