Be careful what you wish for. Just because something is broken doesn't mean there's only one way to fix it.Like it or not our health care system doesn't work for a very large number of people who work hard and pay taxes. At least Hillary admits there is a problem, the republicans in the debate last night just seemed to tell us over and over again that our reality was wrong and everyone was actually getting richer.
First, no national healthcare system is free. The people and suppliers involved in it must be paid, and the money must come from somewhere. If they won't get civilian-level wages and profits, they'll get something else, such as immunity from malpractice.
Second, when the inefficiencies of the governmental system hit, you can expect cuts and shortages in service, and government-mandated demands upon the "beneficiaries." Maybe your fast-food diet caused your heart-attack, so the government now has a vested interest in mandating that you can't eat such a diet. Think that's far-fetched? Think about the recent ban on transfats (NYC, I believe) or law suits against McD's.
Third, if you hand over health care to the government, it will "giveth and taketh away." While traveling in New Zealand during the Clinton presidency, I met a Brit in his mid-60s who warned me about the then-hot-news of HillaryCare #1. At 60, this guy's knee gave out, and the UK's national healthcare system classified him as disabled. He was put on a waiting list to get knee surgery and was given a disability classification so he didn't have to work. Three years later, when the system was financially strapped and he was still waiting for his long-promised surgery, he received a letter reclassifying him as fit. So he was removed from the waiting list for surgery and told to go back to work. His dilemma was that his knee had gotten worse and no one would hire a guy his age with a bad knee. But according to his "free" healthcare, he was good-to-go, no problems.
About a year later, the US news carried a story comparing the much-vaunted Canadian healthcare system to the US system. One thing they looked at were some sort of expensive heart monitoring machines. At that time, Seattle, WA, hospitals had three of the machines, which was exactly how many the entire country of Canada had. Apparently, in similar fashion, lots of Canadians were making their way to US hospitals because the Canadian system either had none of the facilities that the US had, or had so few of them that the wait was upwards of a year or so versus a few weeks in the US.
From my personal experience, during my military days my first wife had a pre-cancerous uterine condition that I begged her to get civilian medical attention for. Trying to save money, she opted instead for military care (about the same as you'd get under a national system, although probably better). The military performed a "cone biopsy" procedure that, we discovered later, was abandoned by the civilian medical community several years earlier because it tended to make matters worse. It certainly did for her, and she finally went to a civilian facility and got the problem fixed. Yeah, it cost us money, but it didn't cost us her life.
Expensive care that you can get beats "free" care that isn't free that you either can't get or takes too long to get.
When you think of national healthcare, think of DMV in charge of your medical needs, and you'll be in the right ballpark.