Ninja Edit: I'm not going into the reasons why because that's not what this is about.
I've heard the argument that because health care (or insurance) is a necessity of life so it should be provided by the government. Why doesn't the same principle apply to food?
It does, as well as access to water and shelter. Did you think universal health care was the "final boss"?
We as a country have more than enough resources that people shouldn't have to starve on the streets if they happen to go bankrupt.
Ideally, we wouldn't need insurance "middleware" of any kind, but when you need some expensive care like a CAT scan or open heart surgery, the expertise and equipment required is simply too expensive for most people to afford without some sort of insurance coverage.
I agree that the government often mismanages large programs such as these, however, other countries with national health care tend to be more satisfied with their health care than Americans. [0]
[0] http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2009/0...
No, and I feel morally justified because I've more than paid into it with taxes. The healthcare isn't free. You just get to pick who pays for it.
Insurance as a way to reduce risk is a great idea. Doesn't mean the government has to do it, though.
People are healthy, no one gets shot, the government is held accountable and is relatively corruption free, and taxes are lower than in the US as is state debt.
All in all things are pretty good with a different model of operating.
New Zealand?