Universal health care (UHC) coverage is a highly controversial issue all over the world, but of special interest in the United States. The U.S. is considered one of the few truly industrialized nations in the world which does not provide some form of comprehensive health care coverage for its citizens. This paper will examine some of the arguments and data against a universal health care. The U.S. has been in turmoil over the topic of Universal Health Care for some time now. The idea sounds simple enough; government provides coverage for everyone, rich or poor and everyone gets the services they require. However, many citizens may think twice about such a program when they look into the details of how it is funded and delivered to the public. One proposal, popular among many on the political left, is “Medicare for All,” a proposal that would put most, if not all, Americans under the auspices of the government-run health insurance program for the elderly and disabled. Before the U.S. adopts such a system, it is important to evaluate these claims. Taxes and the price of anything medical would sky rocket! This would make everyone unhappy. Before getting in too deep in this subject it is important to understand the term Universal Health Care (UHC). Universal health care refers to government mandated programs intended to ensure that all citizens, and sometimes permanent residents, of a governmental region have access to most types of health care. Patients may pay for some portion of their care directly, but most care is subsidized by taxpayers and/or by compulsory insurance (Search 2010). UHC is a very broad term which could mean anything from government financing (as in Medicare / Medicaid for all) to use of tax law to bring everyone into the private health-insurance system (as recently enacted in Massachusetts under Republican Governor Mitt Romney).