My goodness - what excitement about the point of a National Health system!!!
Both in the UK and Israel (and I believe in NZ and many other countries) it is considered a basic social provision - like education, security, etc. etc. etc. - that the government has to ensure for the entire population.
Under the American system, that is within the realm of the State governments to provide, not the Federal. The Constitution is very clear on what the government can, and can't do.
Selma, 'Promote' is not the same thing as 'provide'. We promote the general welfare through regulation and oversight, not through provision of services. I have argued in the past (sorry, OT, I'm not going to search for the exact post, this thread isn't the only place we've had this discussion) that there are several places where we violate the Constitutional limitations on governmental powers, and that we have to live with those violations in the name of 'compassion', 'security', or whatever. Libertarians seek to roll that back, most of us aren't willing to go that far, but we are seeking to draw the line so that we don't wind up chucking the entire concept behind our system of government on the basis that we're entitled to access the pockets of everyone.
Yes, OT, that is a basic Constitutional premise - you or I or anyone else are not entitled to someone elses property - their money, their labour, or their livelihood.