If you read the comments from those who are against it, most of the opposition seems to have more to do with poor people and immigrants getting healthcare than it does the increase in taxes that would be necessary to implement the program.
I think it will eventually lead to government forced prevention of unhealthy or risky activities, which I find far more problematic than the cost. The moment where we are coming up short of funds and some research says that we could save $500 billion a year in medical costs by banning {unicycling} is the moment where {unicycling} is banned and the degradation of our freedoms marches on. Hooray nanny state.
you mean like helmet laws?
But honestly what are some real examples of this in countries with nationalized health care? Where is {unicycling} banned?
Helmet laws are a great example, as are trans fats bans -- activities in which the only person at direct risk is the one partaking in the activity. We have added these laws as a direct result of the financial entanglements brought about by our medical insurance system. While a regrettable result, I don't think that is a good reason to limit a person's choice.
I don't know if there are similar examples in other countries to be honest, and I'm resigned to single payer being our best of many bad options at this point. I worry about the consequences and think that such a move will accelerate those limits on our freedom to do whatever we feel like doing.
I also think that consenting adults should be able to have a duel to settle disputes if they so desire, and I believe that "sin taxes" are as immoral as the moniker suggests, so I understand I'm at an extreme.