> One of the most important things, which I doubt is in dispute, is access to healthcare.
One dispute seems to be over the meaning of the word "access". Some people, like my Libertarian friend, feel that "access" is satisfied if you have the freedom to choose your provider (or none at all) -- but god help you if you don't have any money, because no one should be taxed to pay for others' health care. For many, taxation is viewed as state-enforced theft. (I'm not sure how to argue against that viewpoint.)
Others (like Senator Sanders) believe that "access" means "you can get it" -- and include the ability to afford it in that metric. This is why some people in our country argue that we Should Be making sure that people _get_ their medical costs subsidized by taxes. While it's a tax on all of us, the costs end up being lower, and you don't end up people forgoing routine preventative care because they feel they can't afford it, simply because the chance of them having something catastrophically bad is low.
Many that oppose this point to anecdotes of people who needed Serious Help and could not get to it in time, or flew to the US to get it, rather than in their home country.
The last time I participated in a discussion about this, the best system seemed to be Australian. I'm likely oversimplifying, but basically everyone paid into a national system that covered basic things and normal socialized care, and you also had the freedom to have additional insurance that would cover the things that the national system might not be inclined to give you for various reasons. I liked this idea because it meant that poor people and children all had basic care, and anyone who cared about their freedom to choose their doctors / treatments could do so (at a price). The net price still sounded like it was less than what I pay for my family here in the US for medical care.