I see an interesting distinction in this debate...
It's one thing for people to debate the pros and cons of a nation providing healthcare to its citizens. It is another to indignantly declare that everyone should have all their medical bills paid for as a basic, human right.
Believe me, I know what it's like to be without insurance, and I know what it's like to owe an enormous amount of money to hospitals and doctors. But I do not believe that simply because I was born, that someone out there owes me anything.
I definitely believe in a safety net for those who really need it. But there must be some way to provide for those in genuine need while ensuring that abusers do NOT continue to abuse. Someone suggested only about3% abuse the system. I'd love to get better information on this; I will wager that it is enormously higher than that.
If we as a Society think it's a good idea to provide medical coverage for all of our citizens, then perhaps we should. I happen to feel that education, for instance, is something that should be made available to all citizens. If someone is offered a decent college education--and fails to utilize it--then (as far as i'm concerned) they're on their own. But I would only be willing to vote for something like this in the event that this government goes through a pretty gigantic slash and burn process of eliminating the pork. I mean really taking the chainsaw to it.
I don't think people realize that the notion of government "providing for" or "taking care of" everyone is what has so often led to disaster. The more they provide for you, the more they start expecting of you. For those who believe government is here to provide for us, are you just as adamant about preservation of all the personal rights we now enjoy? The more they do for us, the less freedom we may enjoy--and the more we pay in taxes. The slippery slope leads to a situation in which we are all dependent on the government instead of ourselves.