Mike: Without trying to take issue with the entire Ross clan - again this is an entirely different issue to the question as to who should have access to healthcare. The disconnect between the size of America's health-care spend and the infant mortality rate and citizen longevity is clearly a matter of efficiency and effectiveness of how the monies are deployed (as your link says).
It's an even more obscene observation to know that a sizable quantity of the tax purse that is meant to provide health care in your country is being siphoned into the pockets of "crime syndicates" - appalling that your Government has (and continues) to permit this!!
I don't find the two to be mutually exclusive. If pockets weren't being lined, and if things were done more efficiently. I, and I'm sure many others would be open to providing healthcare for everyone. However, so long as a majority of that money is being wasted, I will not support universal healthcare.
I don't know how much wasteful spending goes on in Australia or even other parts of the world such that do have such systems like Europe, but the US just bleeds fountains of money into the most obscure and inane places.
If the Government really wanted to fix the problems this country is experiencing right now, there are a few things it needs to do .
1. Close tax loopholes. In the US, it only takes ~$400,000 a year to be in the top 1%. However a vast majority of those in the top 1% don't have enough money and resources to actually take advantage of these loopholes, and often times end up paying an effective tax rate at 50% of higher. This is often times the small business owners who do account for a large portion of jobs here. Meanwhile those in the Top
0.01% (i.e. CEO's of huge companies) will pay effective tax rates lower than 20% because they have the best of the best tax people and can more readily shift their funds and assets in way that aren't really feasible for the rest in the top 1%. This isn't to say that I think the rest of the people in the top 1% shouldn't be paying higher taxes than the middle class, but the whole notion of attacking these "greedy rich people". Is very misguided and not at all reaching the intended targets that those in the middle class have in mind.
2. Cutting the useless spending. Instead of writing some long winded blurb on this feel free to read this list
here. And this was a decade ago, I'm sure things have only gotten worse since then.
3. As previously alluded to, I think it's gotten to the point where banks and healthcare services need to have stricter regulations imposed upon them. They've shown that they clearly can not handle themselves responsibly. The finer details of HOW to go about this, I quite frankly haven't the slightest clue, but something has to give there.
4. Get the f*** out of the rest of the world. Drastically reduce foreign and fighting proxy wars. One great notable example is how much money is hemorrhaged into Israel alone. Cut down the size of the military (QUALITY > quantity). Sorry but when you are allies with a vast majority of the other world powers (besides Russia and China) You don't need to spend the most on military over 2 fold. If that means turning away young teens looking to enlist, then so be it. If you want more details on the ridiculousness of the size of the US Military, watch
this video.
What I feel won't have an impact either way, is lowering or raising taxes. Lowering taxes encourages businesses but results in a lower portion of the pie. Raising taxes, discourages businesses but increasing the portion of the pie. From the government's perspective, the tax rate ultimately becomes relatively unimpactful.