The short answer is no. The long answer is that the government should provide basic and necessary medical care to all people if at all financially possible for the country.
The difference between basic and all medical care is the point of problem here. Basic medical care is the care that people need to survive and that they can honestly expect to have access to without needing to mortgage their house. There is some debate over what all fits under the “basic medical care” umbrella and what doesn’t, but the concept is pretty clear.
When someone talks about government paying for all of anything (free education, free health care, etc.) then the responsibility that used to be required by the people is thrown out the window. This is the responsibility to use their judgment over if something is necessary, makes sense, and is required. For example if you have to pay for plastic surgery you will stop and consider if you really need it, how much it will cost, and so forth. If instead the government paid for it (and all medical procedures) then far more people would wake up one morning, decide to change their appearance and have it done at the drop of a hat… for free.
The problem many people have with even basic medical care provided by the government is the “for free” attitude. All the money the government has to spend came from you and other people like you – taxpayers. So this “free” service is actually paid for by everyone through their taxes. It has the effect of raising taxes to pay for medical care, but it ensures that everyone has access to the medical care they need. This concept results in many trickle down benefits from fewer sick days due to employees getting the timely treatment they need for small illnesses, to early detection and treatment of disorders and illnesses that might later force people out of the workforce entirely at an early age. Essentially people’s quality of life will improve; companies will have happier and healthier employees, and all for slightly higher taxes.
Any time the consequences of an action are removed, people will do stupid things. If you remove the penalty for murder, do you think there would be more murders? By all means there would – because there is nothing there to balance those wrong actions. If you ask anyone on the street if it is wrong to murder, they will say yes. But without penalties for murder those same people wouldn’t hesitate to pull the trigger or swing that club in the right situation. The penalties in place are there to make people think before committing the crime. The same is true for large purchases. If you could buy a 50″ LCD TV for $10, how many would you have? Likely one or two for each room in your house. For that price to happen the government would have to pay the rest of the price of the TV. And where you likely have one or two TVs in your house now, you just agreed that you’d go out and get up to a dozen because of the price – no matter if you really need them or not. This is another example of how good judgment is thrown to the wind when government intervenes.
If the government covers everyone’s basic medical costs it will result in a more productive, healthier, and happier country. But if the government covers all medical care of all kinds, it will mean disaster both from financial point of view and from a personal moral and ethical point of view as well. But everyone would be beautiful and have a permanent smile stitched onto their face.