2.) Why might some individuals not want universal care?

Money, simply put. But not just money for the big guys at the top. The middle and upper-middle class stand to lose out as well.

I'll use myself as an example. I am currently covered through my employer. I am young and healthy, so I select a relatively inexpensive plan with a high dedutible each year during open enrollment. The plan has a HSA (health-savings account) feature that allows me to save over $3K a year, tax deferred. If and when I do get sick, I can use those savings to buy health care services, tax-free. If I am somehow incredibly lucky, and I make it to retirement with no major medical incidents, I can use that money (which could very well grow into six figures by my 60s) just as additional retirement savings.

The passing of the ACA already meant more expensive coverage for me. Given that "Affordable" premiums in the act, is defined by no more than 9.5% of a person's earnings going towards coverage for themselves, my company had to stratify health premiums, so that people making more money paid more for the same coverage so that people making less money were subsidized. 

I would have to imagine that people like me would be hit even more were universal healthcare to pass.

I am not wealthy by any means, but I am young, healthy, I have a good job, and I am good with money. The fact is that the American healthcare system works out phenomenally for me and many others like me.

15 million of the 22 million, CBO projected increase in uninsureds stems from people losing medicaid eligibility. 

If they could afford private insurance, they wouldn't have been medicaid eligible. 

I'm no expert, but I have to remind you that universal healthcare is not the same as ACA.  Your company pays a butt load of money to provide that health insurance for each and everyone of its employees.  Now that cost would be 0.  That money could then be used on other things for their employees.  So both the middle and upper would actually benefit from it.

Perhaps that is why they're becoming uninsured. Again they can just buy insurance. Nothing is gonna stop them.

Ah.

Implicit in what I was getting at, was the assumption that while I may benefit from a reduction in health premiums (as would my company), that personal benefit to me would mostly be wiped out by increased taxes to pay for the new universal care system. 

Of course, no one knows how it would actually play out, but I assume that my taxes would probably go up.

Of course, countries with universal care pay less per capita than the USA does for healthcare, but it wouldn't be as simple as adopting a Nordic system and having Nordic prices overnight. A lot of money and a lot of benefits circulate around within the US healthcare system, and even if we had universal care, I wouldn't expect the beneficiaries of the current system to go quietly into the night.

For example, general practicioners and nurses in the US are among the higest compensated in the world. Cutting their pay overnight would be a disaster. Switching to universal care would also likely mean care rationing if we wanted the same low prices that other countries have (think wait times, not "death panels").

I expect that universal care would save us money and headache in the long run, but I don't think it would be as simple as passing legislation, and then our costs fall to European costs. I would expect that I'd likely be picking up a chunk of the tab. 

There's a bunch of what I was talking about in the article here: http://mediatrackers.org/national/2013/10/01/8-charts-explain-explosive-growth-u-s-health-care-costs

ya, taxes would go up(I think I heard some estimates were about 2%), but ya, initially hospitals would be crowded, but eventually things would level out.  I honestly don't know how everything else would play out.

This claim didn't hold water when Paul Ryan tried it, and it doesn't hold water now.

Per the CBO analysis of the Senate Bill:

"Enrollment in Medicaid would be lower throughout the coming decade, with 15 million fewer Medicaid enrollees by 2026 than projected under current law in CBO’s March 2016 baseline"

Over two-thirds of the 22 million that the CBO projects would lose out on insurance, would lose out through Medicaid. Medicaid is a hell of a deal and it would be a pretty big stretch to say that those losing out on Medicaid eligibility "don't find value" in it. 

As for the other 7 million, perhaps they would theoretically be making a value calculation, but remember that the bill would dramatically change that equation. 

Under the BCRA, subsidies would change. Currently, they are based on a benchmark plan with 70% actuarial value. The new benchmark would be a plan with 58% actuarial value. So while some of those 7 million may lose coverage because they "don't value" it, part of the reason why they may not value it has to do with this proposed bill lowering the value of the coverage available to them. 

Except for that whole "can't afford it" thing.