I do not believe that the government has any intrinsic obligation to provide healthcare for its citizens. You may not like my opinion, but at least you know what it is.
It may or may not be desirable for the government to provide such a service. There are persuasive arguments from several perspectives. My concern is that if the State offers the carrot of subsidized healthcare, then it will feel the more entitled to use the stick of interventionism. Arguing that it has the right to dictate individual behaviors that may impact its costs, we will move further into the Brave New World scenario where "everyone belongs to everyone else." Further, I have reservations about the ability of the State to deliver the services it promises, leaving us in the unfortunate situation of all stick, no carrot.
It has occurred to me that it might function as a stimulus to consumer confidence if the average citizen were not paying such a cut of their income to insurance premiums. . .
My views on the desirability of government involvement are not settled. As I continue to listen to opinions and analyses of the situation, two things become apparent:
1. Somebody who is making a ton of money off the present situation might be motivated not to be 100% truthful in representing their positions.
2. It is remarkably easy to promise impossible things when there is very litle probability that you will be called upon to deliver.