Just yesterday, I had a discussion with a coworker about "free" health care. His position was that a .gov run health care system was needed, because some people could not afford to get the health care they wanted.
My position on this is threefold:
1 Practicality- the .gov is not going to make health care cheaper, it will simply spread the costs of the care, in addition to the government's costs in administering the system, around. This means that health care will be more expensive, and the people who need less health care will subsidize those who need more. The only way for the government to keep costs affordable is to either tell doctors what they can charge, or ration out the care. (or both)
2 "Fairness" - The other argument for government health care is that the poor do not get the same care as those with more money, and only way to make this "fair" is for the government to run it. I guess the government NEVER shows favorites. Not only that, the rich will still get better care, they just will be paying higher taxes at the same time, because they are busy paying for the care of others.
3 The moral reason I oppose this plan, is that I have a hard time seeing how you can call a system "fair" when you are charging me a mandatory tax (read as taking my money by force) to pay for something that someone else wants. I EARN my money, and just because you work in a menial, unskilled job that pays poorly and offers no insurance because you smoked pot and slept instead of paying attention in school is not my problem.