There's another aspect to universal healthcare which gets overlooked in mainstream discourse and that is the fact that when the government is ultimately responsible for paying for the health and wellbeing of its citizens, regardless of the flaws in real-world implementation, then the government has a financial commitment to the overall wellbeing of society.

Y'know how the US has lead in the water in thousands of areas?

That impacts on health outcomes. And that costs the government money in the long run under a universal healthcare system.

So there's a major incentive for the government to get its shit together and act to protect citizens in order to save on the long-term costs by engaging in primary and preventative healthcare under a universal healthcare model.

There's a reason why countries like New Zealand are taking a hard stance against tobacco - it's because that's a public health disaster and it costs the government a small fortune in healthcare when people are sick and dying because of smoking.

Do I hate the market rationalism? Of course.

But do I prefer the fact that under a universal healthcare model that the government has a direct financial interest in the health and wellbeing of each citizen? Of course.