Well wouldn't health automatically fall under "pursuit of happiness?" I mean... how can one pursue happiness without being healthy?

Nothing is free. It cost through government taxes. Plus the WHO has a lot of issues. I will just hit some highlights, and I am sure Kasz is writing a book in response to you right now :p

1. WHO mesures do not apply to quality of care. For example, if on a scale of 1 to 100, with 1 being the worst healthcare in the world, and 100 being the best. If in the US, the lowest class was 75, and the highest class was 100, we would rank lower then a country where all there citizens got healthcare at 60. Plus, the WHO has not done a study like this in many years, because it's hard to quantify there results.

2. In the US, 15% or so of Americans are on government healthcare. For the government to pay for those 15%, cost more then the entire private insurance industry that covers 85% of the people (including a lot of the 15% the government covers). I have no idea how entrusting the government for all of it would work in the US.

3. Lastly, and this is the biggest issue in all of this, we the US is ungodly unhealthy compared to Europe. We have the best healthcare in the world, and doing so for the worst healthy 1st world country. It just cost a lot to do that. Nothing really can fix that, until we live healthier lives.

There is nothing preventing people from pursuing greater health, and at all income levels (through a dedication to healthy living) more people are achieving greater health than has ever been possible before. Unfortunately, a large portion of the population continues to choose to maintain the least healthy lifestyles imaginable; and technology has been developed to keep many of these people alive at great cost.

Notice that word "pursuit"? That's there for a reason. Happiness is not something to be given to you. It's something you have to go get. It's not hard at all in this country to get health insurance. It's why over 90% of the people who want it, have it.

Now, I think the insurance companies are broken, and I want to fix the problem, but this bill does not of it.

Really only two things need to be done. One is it needs to cost less, and the other is insurance companies need to be held more accountable for droping people who get sick while on a policy with them.

Well, there is nothing in this bill, and no one is even implying, that healthcare in the US is going to go up because of this bill.

The best people are hoping for, is it covers more people, and does not go down. The problem is, most people in this country have great healthcare, and great experiences when they need to use it. The people who are tragic cases, are not the norm.

So no, none of this is good for the "general population". It's why over 70% of Americans don't want this bill passed. 

That's why more control is needed. This could open the door to health initiatives similar to what they have in Japan, either a positive or negative (or both) incentive system to help fix America's health problems.

This legislation is sadly incomplete, but it can serve as a solid start to a healthier America.

The DoI clearly states Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. How is one person allowed to pursue happiness if they don't have the most basic medical needs met? Even better, how is government protecting your right to life under those same conditions?

If someone could stretch those words into "we can build roads connecting the entire country," then let me tell you, universal healthcare is a far smaller stretch of the words. In the end there are only 3 things a government needs to do, infrastructure, defense, and health. So I really do not see how you can say you want government to do only what it is said it is allowed to do, yet be against universal healthcare.

Ah I see

The pursuit of happiness was really suposed to be property. But John Adams was against slavery, and he knew that if it said property, that it would be much harder for future generations to abolish it.

Anyway, one of the fundamental beliefs in the US, had been that I get to keep the frutes of my labor. That taxes should be collected to pay for things to run the country, like military, and employee salaries. But government was not allowed to take my money for the purpose of giving it to others. That's what my rights protect.

Money is effort. I work for it. If the government takes my efforts to pay for your healthcare, your getting a direct benefit from my labor, without me having a say in it. I am forced by law, to work in the service of others.

In the old days, that was called slavery. Some of us are against that.

It depends on what you mean by "most basic medical needs met" ...

On one end of the spectrum you can have the government providing vaccination clinics to ensure that easy to control communicable diseases don’t impact quality of life; and on the other end of the spectrum you have government paying for superficial plastic surgery because people are depressed about being not really, really, ridiculously good looking.

I’m certain that there is a middle ground that many people who oppose government run healthcare can agree upon; for example, I think there is a level of coverage (regular check-ups, dealing with minor emergencies like broken limbs and stitches) which represent a small fraction of healthcare costs and the bureaucratic cost of insurance companies or the government to pay for them is (probably) greater than the cost of the care.