Healthcare is a mess--not just in this country, whatever the truth of that email was.
Is it a right? I'm always worried about putting things this way (there's been a real proliferation of so-called rights), but it does seem to me that we as a society do not want people dying on the streets, old people (and young ones) choosing between food and vital medicines, etc. That just strikes me as something you don't want, if you can find a way to avoid it. The Herbert column linked above is an example of this sort of thing.
So, accepting that there's a responsibility of some sort for us as a nation, what do we do? Here, I think it's in part an economic question: how do you most efficiently bring care to those who need it, to avoid the stuff we want to avoid? And there, things get tricky. Healthcare, as I understand it, does not work in the same way other industries do. If you add a shoemaker to a town with a few shoemakers, the cost of shoes will drop. If you add a doctor, the cost of service goes up--one becomes a specialist. Plus, there is the very difficult conflict between what doctors want to do (and what patients need) and limitations on budgets and resources. Doctors may say of a patient "this guy needs a transplant" but it may cost too much if everyone who needs one gets one. What do you do then? Answer: Rationing. Canada does it. But so do we: we ration out services to those who can pay. (For what it's worth, we pay on the back-end, as people as a last resort go to public emergency rooms, after a preventable condition becomes serious.) Somethings gotta give.
It's a very tough situation--there's no obvious answer. Most economists would say you need a single-payer system, in some fashion, to pool the money, spread the costs, and subsidize those who need it. But why would the rich opt in? So it's got to be "socialized" in some sense. One factor that is moving things in this direction (MAYBE) is the need for American business to avoid the massive health-care costs of their pensions. but maybe they'll just dump everyone--go bankrupt and drop the retired workers. That, of course, might cause a rebellion of sorts, and push the single-payer approach through.
Two big interests are opposed to change: one, obviously, the insurance companies, who right now are raking it in--so much of those costs are "administrative" as well--nothing to do with care. The other is doctors: do they really want to be paid like the schlubs in England and Canada on National Health? No way--they need those big bucks to flow to pay for the life-style they've come to expect (and to cover liability insurance--another issue). The insurance and doctor's lobbies are very powerful in Congress--you don't get re-elected without their money, often. See how they smacked down Hilary last time! (They had some help from the republicans, no doubt!)
Hilary is out front on this issue--she has a plan of some sort, and that's better than most who just talk the talk. But that makes her a target--you'll hear lots of "socialized medicine" talk this election, aimed at her. Check who paid for the add--probably someone called "Americans for Health" or something,which is a PAC for the insurers and lawyers. (Maybe they wrote that Canada email?
)
I hope that some decent debate does come of it, but Hillary is such a lightning rod that it may get lost in the mudslinging. One way or another, somethings gotta give.