[Dr. Frank fan]

we do have an "umbrella nationalized system" for poor people ...it is called medicaid

Right. And what the lefties will say (I've heard this approximately a zillion times :) is that under our current system, poor people mostly have a big incentive to wait until problems become bad, then use the ER for their medical care, because that's free. Lefties will say that this is the most costly way to deal with that poor person's medical problem, and given that we're already covering that poor person one way or another (which I would rephrase: given that we already have socialism to some extent), why not revamp the system so that it covers that poor person in a more efficient way, at a lower cost?

I don't think this argument is incorrect. If it is, I don't know the counter argument.

A response like "we shouldn't move to socialism" seems to miss the point that we're already halfway there. That horse has left the barn.

My preferred response would involve more free market in whatever way feasible. At the very least, this position would allow conservatives to at least look more like they acknowledge there are problems.

[socialismisinsidious]

Yes, make medicaid a better, more efficient system. That can be done without shoving everyone under the socialist umbrella. We can improve access for the poor without smothering the entire system...these two ideas can be integrated; it does not have to be all or none.

[wordsofearnest]

Medicaid people in most states have primary care coverage, they are for the most part too irresponsible to take care of themselves or their "dependents" until it reaches an "emergency" status at least in their eyes. As a group they are the most demanding and ungrateful bunch of patients.