There is no serious debate when it comes to healthcare; America is doomed to failure. The problem is that we are a large nation with many people too stupid to understand the benefits of universal coverage, so national coverage will be impossible to get off the ground in any meaningful way.
What we need is a multi-level system: federal, state and local, with the local being the most reflective of what the people in that community want. For example, let’s assume San Francisco wants a full-coverage plan, California wants an assistance plan, and the federal government wants a sort of voucher plan. As a resident of SF I pay a higher tax but get full coverage, the city claims what it can from the state and fed on my behalf to reduce the tax.
A debate involves thoughtfully researched arguements presented to propose the correctness of either one side of the arguement or the other. There are just some issues which can’t be seriously debated because the only people participating in the “debate” are the ones who already have their opinions/values set. I don’t care how well-defined your pro-choice arguements are, you will not change the mind of a person arguing against abortion. Of course the reverse is true as well.
California will never agree 100% with any other state on the best healthcare plan. But it’s not just California—New Jersey and Pennsylvania won’t even agree, and they’re basically the same people. So why try to force a watered-down medocre plan on everyone? We need to create a sensible framework that allows every government down the chain to customize it for their own citizens. That way, if you don’t like the San Francisco plan you just move to Concord where the plan suits you better.