Actually, everyone in the US is covered, there are just different plans. The gap is wrt insurance. The uninsured have "free" (read taxpayer supported) options. (Yes, there are treatments that aren't covered in those options, just as there are in every system, including those in "universal healthcare" systems.)
Note that about half of the insured are insured through US govt programs. Interestingly enough, the cost of those govt programs is about the same as the cost of the private programs that cover the other half of the insured. And, the results of those govt programs is not better.
If you're going to argue that the US govt can do better than the private sector, you should explain why it doesn't. Same cost, same results. Why will making it universal change any of that?
Better yet - work on the US govt programs and then open them up at cost. When they're better and cheaper, folks will flee the private system. Until then, why should we believe that they will be any better than they are?
The uninsured do not have "free" options. The "taxpayer supported" mechanism kicks in only after you've been bankrupted. There's a difference between uninsured and broke.
The key point remains that the US govt has a huge role in the current healthcare system. The programs that it runs that have comparable scope to the private programs do not produce better results or cost less.
Why should anyone believe that they'd do better if they covered everyone?
That's not the key point of your argument at all. Your thesis is that everyone is covered, under different programs. That's demonstrably, decisively false: the "program" that covers the uninsured first denies them long-term preventative coverage, then forces them into emergency rooms, and finally drives them into bankruptcy. It is the most expensive, least efficient mechanism for all parties involved.
The easiest way to come to the conclusion that the government would do better is to recognize that the only way we could possibly do worse would be to let people die in the emergency room instead of treating them.
Your argument appears merely to redefine the word "covered" to mean "screwed".
You appear to be confusing flu shots and zithromax scripts with a real health care system, which responds to cancer, heart disease, and life-threatening injury.
Note that about half of the insured are insured through US govt programs. Interestingly enough, the cost of those govt programs is about the same as the cost of the private programs that cover the other half of the insured. And, the results of those govt programs is not better.
If you're going to argue that the US govt can do better than the private sector, you should explain why it doesn't. Same cost, same results. Why will making it universal change any of that?
Better yet - work on the US govt programs and then open them up at cost. When they're better and cheaper, folks will flee the private system. Until then, why should we believe that they will be any better than they are?