Outside of discussing which model best provides quality care to the most people for the least amount of money, I don't see why we're even debating whether or not the United States (or at least, the states which compromise it) should issue universal health care. With the exception of some fringe libertarians like Stossel and Rand, most Americans have kept up to date with modern philosophy about socializing some consequences of a competitive society. Most of us would think it barbaric, for example, if a child starved without guarantee of food, or an employer's obvious negligence maimed an employee without legal dispute and counsel. Government recognition and enforcement of property by its nature excludes others from usage rights; having "stuff" or "space" that is your own is a necessary component to any society. We must also recognize that to grant legal protection around property, knowing that it excludes the potential for others to use that property (even if it is not man-made like resources), should be followed up with at the very least some protection.
Of course no one likes the idea of free riders, but I have to question the ethical simplicity behind singlehandedly dismissing universal health care because some people abuse their neighbors' fortune. Do you same people not donate to charities because some of it may/does end up in the hands of corporate executives?
I'm not saying we should just ignore the issue of free riding, but there are ways to discourage it and still provide universal coverage, and I also think we have to realize "Free riding" is not a simple issue of black and white. I hate using extreme examples to quantify my thesis, but if someone suffers from a diagnosable mental illness where self-virtue is exaggerated beyond norms, one can't simply say that the government should not provide for them because they're free riding. More importantly, we run into the problem of dismissing candidates with overly simplistic qualifications for membership, such as some proposed "employment history."
