US incomplete health care is $600bn/305m people = $2,000 per person.
UK national health service is $120bn/60m people = $2,000 per person.
The US needs a really hard look at why it is getting such a bad deal. You already have socialised medicine (anyone can go to the ER and it gets amortised over private insurance patients - essentially taxing the rich) but that cost is on top of the $2k/person you pay for an inferior national program!
Note that about half of the insured are insured through US govt programs. Interestingly enough, the cost of those govt programs is about the same as the cost of the private programs that cover the other half of the insured. And, the results of those govt programs is not better.
If you're going to argue that the US govt can do better than the private sector, you should explain why it doesn't. Same cost, same results. Why will making it universal change any of that?
Better yet - work on the US govt programs and then open them up at cost. When they're better and cheaper, folks will flee the private system. Until then, why should we believe that they will be any better than they are?
Why should anyone believe that they'd do better if they covered everyone?
The easiest way to come to the conclusion that the government would do better is to recognize that the only way we could possibly do worse would be to let people die in the emergency room instead of treating them.
Your argument appears merely to redefine the word "covered" to mean "screwed".
Some do, but others don't. You can go to county or free clinics. When/if they bill, ignore.
It's not the ear infections that bankrupt people.
If we want real innovation in the health care sector, the personal tax deduction will help but ultimately, we need to get rid of these two bloated freaks. Too bad that that is one sacred cow that no politician is going to touch with a 9 foot stick.