Nonsense. I'd be paying for it for you, as would everyone else who has insurance now. Anyone who would benefit from universal care is pretty much guaranteed not to to be pulling their weight in taxes. Anyone eligible for any "subsidy" already pays no meaningful taxes.
The reality in the US is that the large majority of people are happy with the healthcare they have. Universal care would reduce quality of care.
The US system, warts and all is arguably the best on earth.
The only good metric of quality of care is not "lifespan" or other nonsense that is confounded by lifestyle issues. Look at treatable but otherwise fatal illness incidence, and mortality rates.
Do this for breast cancer. Mortality/incidence is better in the US (we have a much higher incidence, but slightly lower death rate). The only factor here is delivered care. The US stats include the uninsured, medicare, medicaid, etc. We still "win." The US is the best place to get treated for cancer where living and dying is solely a function of medical care quality. The stats are similar for cancer after cancer. Heart disease is harder since lifestyle is so very critical for that.
<EDIT>Here is a prostate cancer example, BTW (from a UK urology journal). The top is incidence per population at large, bottom is mortality per population at large:
Put death rate per 100,000 over incidence per 100,000:
USA: ~17% mortality.
UK: ~47% mortality.
Sweden: ~44%
Is it cheap? Nope. It's a diminishing returns thing. You can get close for a LOT less money. With universal care, that's what you'll get. Actuarially the society might benefit, but it also means that mom might have to "take one for the team" when she gets breast cancer. It's great to do the most cost effective thing unless it's YOU who has to pay the price.
In the US, over 90% of lifetime healthcare costs are incurred in the last months of life.
I'll type that again:
In the US, over 90% of lifetime healthcare costs are incurred in the last months of life.
Understand that. Insurance profits at most 2% of total cost. 90% of cost is needless care (needless if buying a few quality months is considered needless—which I would not think if it was time to be with my kids, for example, before dying, I'd be all for buying even 2 months at huge cost to spend time with them).
Reducing defensive care would take a "generation" or two of docs to come into effect (the "culture" is already inculcated), but could save 10-20%. The only other way to reduce costs is to ration end of life care. "death panels" might be hyperbole, but guess what, any public system or public rules that are supposed to reduce our national cost either ration care for possibly terminal disease, or they are so much BS. So if such a system claims to cut costs in any meaningful way, it MUST ration that 90% cost.
But back to my observation about US death rates to cancers. Part of the reason out rate is better is that we do waste this 90%. The deal is that some people respond really well, but oncologists don't know until they try. It;s a case where empirical care might do squat for a lot of people, but do really well for SOME. My mom was on tamoxifin, and responded super well. It was very expensive, but it bought her a few
years. Others she knew took it, and it did squat. So we can reduce those costs, but some people then have to die.