Near the start of his term, President Barack Obama proposed a plan that would allow - or require - all Americans to have health insurance. His ideology is that every American should be provided healthcare at the federal level. While perhaps not proposing a complete absorption of the medical field into government policy, it suggests that the government could offer better healthcare options than the current system. This is dangerous. Donations offered by the government are usually accepted and more are expected. This brings up an important question. Should the government take control of healthcare to ensure everyone receives it, or does the current system already meet the country's needs? The answer is that the US government should not control the healthcare system because it cannot determine who actually needs healthcare, controlled healthcare costs will dissuade potential healthcare providers from training for the profession and the regulation that would be necessary would hinder the speed and ability to provide efficient healthcare. Contrary to this argument, there is an opposing view that every person living in the United States deserves healthcare. From this perspective, we assume that the medical system has the time and manpower necessary to provide for each individual. Under this system, lawmakers would be the ones deciding how to equitably distribute healthcare workers' talents and time. Maybe they would create a law that requires the provider to treat every patient who walks into the lobby asking for help. To guard against the long lines caused by the previous law, another law could be written requiring everyone to have scheduled appointments. This could lead to a law requiring... means of paper... documentation would multiply if every patient was government sponsored. Since time is spent filling out forms, time is wasted with patients. Ultimately, time spent on government regulation will lead to a loss in the quantity of health care, lack of medical benefits will lead to a loss in quality of health care, and unqualified legislators will lead to a loss of health care. organized. While there is an emotional appeal to having federally funded health care, the consequences of the change are too risky. Some may assume that our nation's health care should be provided to those who cannot afford it; however, they do not realize that the distribution of healthcare will significantly reduce its value. Thus arises the real question behind the entire debate. It is better to have expensive but helpful healthcare or to have cheap and ineffective healthcare??