After reading through this entire thread, I am of the opinion that there are several, quite separate, issues which are being conflated.
One is The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), informally referred to as Obamacare, to which many Americans appear to object for differing reasons. I can understand a particular objection to this Act - that of it not providing universal health care, but merely acting as corporate welfare for the health insurers. I would not want it in my society.
Another issue is that of health care being a right in any given society, and of the government's responsibilities in that area. It is not a naturally occurring right, in exactly the same way that freedom of speech, the provision of education, or defence, are not naturally occurring rights, but are of benefit to society. So in the societal sense, and as a benefit to society as a whole, it should be as much a right as freedom of speech, education, or defence. A healthy society is more productive, thus generating more societal wealth and ability, which may be regarded as a clear benefit to that society. So, however it is funded, universal health care is a necessity for a successful and prosperous society.
Yet another issue appears to be the fear that any form of universal health care will increase the cost to the individual of his own health care. This has not been the case in the rest of the developed world, as the US has the highest health care costs in the world. It may not be argued that this has resulted in the best health care outcomes, as the US was ranked 37th in the only ranking done by the WHO.
So let us look at the financial principles involved. A taxation financed health care system has several fiscal advantages over one financed by premiums to many separate insurance companies.
One of the more obvious advantages is the removal of the profit margins and operating costs of hundreds, if not thousands, of insurance companies.
A greater advantage is the purchasing power of one powerful entity, as opposed to a myriad smaller ones. The pharmaceutical companies (a major cost in any health care environment) can be brought to heel on bulk buying - which is what happens in most UHC systems, resulting in much cheaper medications.
And because everyone capable is paying into the system - one section of the community is not subsidising another. In a properly regulated system of this kind, the individual costs would in fact be lower than in the system current in the USA.
This is not just theory - it is what is being practiced successfully in every other developed society. Which is why I was puzzled (in my earlier post) why this was even a matter for argument in the USA.
And lest anyone consider that I am lecturing Americans on how they should run their society - I am not. I am pointing these things out as a matter of information (and because this is the topic under discussion) but how you run your country is your concern. You might also note that I have made no mention of a moral element in this issue.