disabled, war-widows, etc etc? What about those.
You just, inadvertently stepped into the number one reason why the government should be out of this from a 'universal' standpoint. I am going to use vets as an example because it is personal to a lot of people. No one here will argue that we should take care of injured veterans, it is an obligation for their service to us. However, how do you help those in need when you are saying 'everyone' is in need? If you have a bucket of water and you want to help ten thirsty people, do you give the water to everyone, whether they are thirsty or not, or do you just give it to the thirsty? If you have an obligation to take care of wounded vets, how can you do that when you are spreading out the funding to everyone? With universal systems, those who are truly in need and you have an obligation to help are those who are hurt the most because the pool of funds to help them, is spread out among everyone.
That’s why we have Medicare. Those people are still taken care of, even without “universal health care”.
Disabled people could rely on private charity if government wasn’t taxing us to death. War-widows can get the life insurance from their spouse, since the government is an employer, and most employers provide that.