EDOFTENNESSEE:Mr. Miller, if you became disabled, I would not mind contributing my tax dollars to help you, no matter how wealthy you are....or become !!!
Much of your post is devoted to aid for the disabled. Social Security disability income (SSDI), which is the federal program for disability, is not means tested. Thus, if you are on SSDI and win the lottery, you don't lose your SSDI benefits. You lose SSDI only if you become fit enough again to resume working.
SSI (a form of welfare that has nothing to do with providing health benefits) and Medicaid (health care for the poor) are means tested and you do lose those if you hit a big win on the lottery. Those programs are meant only for the poor—if you can afford to pay for your necessities of life, you don't need SSI and if you have the money to buy health insurance or pay for medical care out of pocket, you don't need Medicaid.
Government provided health coverage is opposed by many not because they invest in life insurance companies (the vast majority of people are not stock holders in those companies) but because Americans traditionally distrust government programs and big government generally. There is a reason for that, as the U.S. government has not traditionally been a particularly good steward of the taxpayers' money. There is unfortunately a lot of money that is not spent wisely by federal agencies. Moreover, it's not guaranteed that government provided healthcare would be run at all well. I've not had any experience with the Canadian health system myself, so I can't speak to what it's like. I have had experience with the U.K. and French health systems, and they were both very poor compared to the health care delivered in the U.S. I'd not want either of those systems here.
That's not to say we shouldn't do anything. Polls indicate that most people perceive our current system is broken, and I agree with that. The issue is how to change it for the better.The basic approach of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), popularly known as "Obamacare," provides what could be a good alternative to the socialized medicine of countries like Britain and France. The plan needs some significant changes to improve it, in my view, but unlike some I don't favor totally trashing it and simply keeping the system we now have. The rules in the Act to require insurance companies to accept all individuals regardless of pre-existing conditions, to require a minimum level of benefits in health plans, and to require that rates be the same regardless of pre-existing conditions are steps that go a long way towards universal health care without totally changing our current health system and largely leaves the government out of individual health care decisions (which is one of things that many Americans oppose about government provided health care systems).
We will find out soon, probably in June, whether the PPACA survives Supreme Court review.