I think we'd be looking at significant tax increases to match the coverage you see in most European countries - which is why their tax rates are way higher than ours. Of course, they aren't spending the tax dollars on the military industrial complex like we are, so there's that...i get what you're saying, but i don't think it would radically change our society to provide universal coverage for healthcare. (note - i do not see marginal increases in taxes and/or healthcare expenses to be radical changes).
Again, I get it, BTDT.a lot of folks don't have the luxury (myself included as of 6 years ago) to choose whether or not to use health insurance as health care, so i think that presenting it like that oversimplifies things. our oil changes and regular maintenance are in the thousands of dollars every single year and that is with insurance.
Ultimately, it comes down to this - MOST people can afford health insurance without subsidies. MOST can. Because MOST people have flat-screen TVs, MOST have cell phones with monthly bills, MOST have relatively nice cars to drive around in. There are some truly poor folks in the US, but there are tons who 'cannot afford insurance' but can afford lots of life's luxuries.
I guess ultimately, if you're going to take money from my family in order to help someone else, you best make sure they need it. I'm a very charitable person, but I also use discernment before giving money to fill a 'need'. And no, this is not some sort of 'welfare abuse' comment, I'm simply reiterating the point that healthcare isn't not some innate right, so if you're going to force me to pay someone's way, we should at least be certain they cannot afford it.
This sort of subject really gets my libertarianism fired up.