The concept of universal healthcare hurting the middle class doesn't include the much-discussed prospect of said coverage helping keep healthcare costs a lot lower
Robbing Peter to pay Paul doesn't decrease the ACTUAL cost of anything. You'd paying higher taxes vs. paying your health insurance premiums. Less options. Job losses. Doesn't make any sense.
While I recognize that there is a broader debate about efficiency in the private vs. public sectors, there can be little debate over efficiency within the realm of healthcare. Statistical and anecdotal evidence is overwhelming that the Veteran's Administration, Medicare and Medicaid all operate with significantly less overhead than their private counterparts even though Medicare and Medicaid actually use
that private system for the actual distribution of healthcare.
Why is that? Well, no CEOs making $20 mil per year (on the low end), no shareholders, no marketing, no sales commissions and less administrative costs. Hospitals have people whose sole job is to determine what's covered and who to bill based upon your insurance provider and individual policy restrictions. I'm not saying that those questions are irrelevant when dealing with Medicare, but they're streamlined because everyone has (or should have) the same Medicare coverage.
You're welcome to make the case that a government employed union road worker doesn't work as hard as his privately employed counterpart, but such arguments don't transfer over well to the healthcare field. I've never heard anyone complain about VA heart surgeons taking too long on their lunchbreaks. Statistics don't lie... the VA gives top-notch healthcare for a fraction of the cost of a private hospital. If you find a veteran who eschews his free healthcare in favor of a trip to Meriter, you're welcome to post it here.