Yes; there is basically no practical downside for them. They might have political philosophies that are against it, but in real life (not that philosophies are unimportant) they will be better off. Currently, those who are unable to afford health insurance either pay through the nose for doctors visits, spend an inordinate amount of time at a free clinic, or wait until it's an emergency and go to an emergency room. (I think that's a trauma ward or A&E ward to you Brits.) And, generally speaking, those who don't have health insurance are poor and work hourly jobs, so time off of work to see a doctor not only means an expenditure they can't afford, but a reduction in their pay. Often, the public picks up the bill for these people when they can't afford their ER visit, either through bankruptcy, or through the hospitals and doctors increasing costs to cover their losses, or both.


Their arguments seem to be along the lines of (from least unreasonable to most, loosely) "private companies can't compete with government companies", "it's going to cost too much in taxes", "the government shouldn't be involved in health care", "you're going to come between me and my doctor", "you're going to make me change doctors", "this is just the first step towards a complete government takeover of health care", and "you're going to kill my grandmother".