Been off a couple days and it's obvious this thread's turned into an endless repetitive loop.
But I want to make a couple points that are basic here. First, Jeff, by your definition, practically every act of every government constitutes "stealing" from you (and Greg) to do something the (in this country elected) government thinks is in the public interest. It could be building or fixing a bridge you don't use, or plowing a road you don't drive on, or building and operating a public school your family doesn't use, or sending a rocket into space without you, or sending emergency relief to help victims of a storm that didn't come anywhere near you.
Second, the converse notion that you don't "get anything from" or "need" the gov't is just nonsense. No way you can afford to pave, plow or maintain just the roads you drive on every day, to say nothing of the bridges, tunnels, airports, police and fire departments, water and sewer systems, army, navy and air force from which all of us benefit. If there weren't a gov't, we'd have to create one for the infrastructure alone.
Third, there are about 48 Million Americans without health insurance. According to the Census population clock today, there are currently a bit over 306 Million Americans. So even if there are no cost savings from pooling risk, universal healthcare would cost 306/258, or an additional 19%. And that would be for the same cross-section of coverage people have now. But, in actuality, it wouldn't be anywhere near that much because the 19% now uninsured are NOT, for the most part, receiving orderly preventative care and thus become acutely sick and need treatment in the ER or hospitalizations which are vastly more expensive than preventative care. And we taxpayers wind up paying for most of that sky-high acute care. Besides, when people find out how much cheaper the "public option" is than what they're now paying for the coverage they've been programmed to worry about losing, they'll stop paying insurance company profits, the cost will go down and that many more people can be covered for the same total cost. The only players who'll lose will be the insurance companies.
I saw one of the first reflections of this "new HMO math" when I started an engineering job in 1974. When I paid that intake visit to HR the first day, I was offered the usual BC/BS or this new thing called an "HMO," which was explained to me as a group practice for my primary care, plus BC/BS hospitalization. Both were the same (then free) cost to me. So I asked, "Are you telling me I can have 'A' or 'A+B' for the same money?" And the answer was, "Yes." So I took the HMO and was in one of the very first of them. Never paid a cent for anything, except a $10 co-pay for doc visits. Got regular physicals, meds, all included. Great idea. Only downside was I had to travel to where the group practice was in the city for my doc visits.
How could they do it for the same money? Well, anybody who's ever looked at hospital bills can (and likely does) figure out how many doctor visits can be paid for by one day's costs and fees in a hospital. That HMO, back in 1974, was able to prevent enough hospitalizations to provide preventative care to its patients for free. The simple truth is that there are huge savings to be realized if you can avoid just a few acute illnesses by prevention and early detection. And, if it weren't so profitable, the insurance industry wouldn't have made it its business to fight universal care for the past 16 years.
So the bottom line is that it can't be more than 19% more costly -- and very likely quite a bit less than that -- to achieve universal coverage like people have right now. The insurance industry has proved that keeping people healthy is vastly cheaper than waiting for them to get sick. It's not "socialized medicine"; the key to keeping costs down and avoiding "rationing" of care isn't rocket science; it's effective preventative medicine.