Really good discussions over at the Atlantic from McCardle about the nationalization of health care, and the things people in favor of government involvement tend to overlook. Various links (which for some reason I can't access at the moment) but here's the general Atlantic/McCardle link.
If you look at her links of recent posts you can see several related to nationalization efforts in regard to healthcare.
Neither Medicare nor the Military (which are our two largest socialist Federal programs) can contain their own costs nor improve significantly their service delivery to the people. That one would think the FedGov can implement a program more effectively, efficiently, and satisfactorily (to the citizen) should really make one question your assumptions.
Personally: I have no qualms about nationalized health care in any of its forms, but that's because I realize care is going to have to be rationed on a cost-effectiveness basis. I accept the fact that the buraucracy will have to pronounce death sentences based on cost-benefit analyses of the population of the country as a whole. In fact, I'm the kind of guy who could sit across the table from you and say, "You're cancer treatment is too expensive for the limited benefit it would provide to your life expectancy, and so, we can only make you comfortable while you await your inevitable death to this unfortunate disease. Sorry."
Now, that's heinous, of course, but it's objective.
And before you think my inhumanity is legend in stating this, bear in mind that I buried my girlfriend at the age of 37 after she was diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme
. So I have walked in those shoes and witnessed what it means to be a survivor when you're given no chance to survive.