So if our taxes went up a bit (and they'd have to, but the net cost per person would likely drop due to no insurance premiums), and the government paid--even went to bat to ensure that it wasn't overpaying--who stands to lose?

How is it that this debate perpetually comes up for nearly a century without resolution? I smell a wealthy, influential group who doesn't want the light of regulation shined on their inner workings. It's not doctors, nor the AMA, though they have their failings (see Newsweek from a few weeks ago for an article that is all too accurate from what I've seen). It's not patients--we don't give ourselves cancer so we can get MRIs. It's not hospitals, generally--they're trying to provide a public service, not make a buck. It's not even, necessarily, Big Pharma--who is trying to make a buck.

The group that stands to lose the most is the insurance companies and the investors behind them. (Disclosure: My 401(k) contains shares in mutual funds who contain shares of these companies). I propose, without evidence, that the difference between the american medical institution and those elsewhere lies in the fact that we have insurance companies, who, through their well-funded research, have created "health plans" that deliberately limit consumer's choice of treatment.

Currently, these insurance companies share the role of "payer," though I suspect little actual money is actually paid to anyone other than investors. If the government takes over that role, they, and the powerful investors, including the venerable Mr. Buffett and his organization, will be out of a job and a great deal of money. They know this, and that is why they wield significant clout in the halls of Congress, to keep the public out of their cookie jar.