I think that arguments based on the fact that govt run healthcare is generally of lower quality, higher cost, etc., are interesting to number-chasers but ultimately fruitless. It was the same arguments that ended up with social security, medicare, medicaid, rx drug benefit, welfare, etc., passed.

Generally people don't care what is efficient or not, they care about what is right.

I am against Obamacare because, as a man with a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of my own happiness, I do not concede that is my moral duty to support others in need of medicare care. I do not agree that their need constitutes a claim on my paycheck, which by the way I work my ass off for. And I will fight the idea that my hard work is a means that some shmuck in DC can set the ends for as long as there is free speech in the US.

A "right" to any product or service - food, shelter or healthcare - just means the right of some men (who do not have the product or service) to the money of others. It means that some men are obligated - against their will - to work so that some stranger can have this "right." What is that, but slavery? The fact is, no one has a "right" to healthcare - at any price - because no one has a right to either force another man to pay for his medical bills or force a doctor to give him treatment.

As a practical aside, the medical industry is one of the most heavily regulated ones in the country. Govt regulations on insurance, malpractice law, a laundry list of laws that force hospitals to take in people who they know will never pay, all result in only one thing: higher costs for everyone. It is one of the great ironies of modern history that, as government intervenes in things "for the greater good," it causes systemic problems in whatever industry it does so. These problems are blamed, not on the government, but on whatever free enterprise is left in the system and used as an excuse to expand government power.