Preventative care might not save money, but in a nationalized system which is funded by tax collection, having participants healthy so that they can live longer and pay more taxes sounds like a good idea.

I feel like it's not only a moral argument, instead it's a better alignment of those who pay and are served by the system. At present, the goals of insurers and providers are very different from patients, partly due to profit-seeking, partly due to the disconnect in who pays for it (49% of US population receives employer-covered healthcare).

Huh, thank you. I hadn't known that. I tend to go with the monetary argument first, since it helps to convince people who are primarily self-interested. I definitely think that there is a moral argument for option G, and will stick to those arguments overall in the future.