I long believed we wouldn't get "universal health care" for a long time if ever in the US, but I think it is likely to happen after this election. The problem is that there isn't enough money available to go 'round to give the best to everyone. As things stand, we in the US tend to give the fortunate the best of everything, with little reason not to insist on the best, and to leave the less fortunate with nothing, until they get in a catastrophic situation, when they too get the best of everything, and we will spend a huge amount of money to fix a problem that often could have been avoided by spending a small amount of money on preventive care.
Pretty much everyone agrees in theory that it is smarter to provide that basic preventative care to everyone, but there is strong opposition to doing it in a "universal health care" system, partly funded by companies that profit greatly off the present system, and partly driven by people who sincerely believe that having the government do this would be wasteful or even morally wrong. Even most of those people are in favor of providing something along those lines, but insist on doing it through a privately-owned system, details of which are a mess to work out.
The biggest obstacle to a universal health care system probably isn't the groups I just mentioned, but the realization that it means that even the people who are now privileged to own insurance and have free access to the best care in all circumstances will have to accept health care rationing even for themselves. When that sinks in, many members of the middle class and upper middle class who are in favor of the system on principle will oppose it because they're the ones who might get diddled. I have sympathies that way myself, even though I am largely hostile to the large profit-driven companies that provide most health care to us now!
Democracy makes for messy results and difficult and inefficient pathways, doesn't it?
