Steve R.
I have no objection to a national healthcare system. A reason, it removes the insurance industry as the "middle man" and it would also restore some semblance of capitalism by eliminating government payments to insurance companies.
I'm sorry but somewhere in there I got lost. If the government doesn't pay the insurance companies in a national health care system then the only other way that can happen is that the government pays the hospitals/providers directly, which will instantly lead to either:
(a) non-competitive price controls OR
(b) forcing people to pay extra for some institutions vs. others, even if the cheapie joints have a chop-shop reputation.
Price controls STIFLE competition. See, for example, the Nixon era when that was actually tried. (Yes, I'm old enough to have been an adult during that experiment that didn't even last a full year.) As to paying extra to get into a better institution? ... see below and my responses to your points #1 & #2. Remember also that some people from Canadian socialized medicine will take jaunts into the USA for medical treatment because they can't wait for social medicine to call their number.
Remember,
any time the government steps in, their "controls" tend to have loopholes, oversights, and many avenues of waste, fraud, and abuse. Because of course in ANY massive industry, there will be cracks for things to slip through. I recall in the last several years where some doctors perpetrated Medicare fraud to the tune of tens of millions of dollars (per doctor) and billions overall. We can get rid of the middle man and take away some of the compound interest implied therein, but I'm leery of getting the government involved.
So... what did YOU have in mind for a nation healthcare system?
Let's also be clear. Of your numbered points, I agree with #3 completely & #4 mostly. If all the insurance companies ever did was to deny claims, they would have no customers after only a short time - so they have to do SOME good for SOME people SOME of the time. (See also Abe Lincoln's quotes.)
Your points #1 and #2 equate survival with wealth and death with poverty, which is an elitist position. We can talk about equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the USA. Taking a medical elitist attitude seems contrary to that concept. There has to be a balance somewhere.
As to #5, that "my brother's keeper" mandate doesn't come from the people directly, given the outcry when New York tried to limit drink sizes. So from where does that perceived mandate originate and (important sub-question) does that originating group actually have the right to tell people how to live?