Couple things.  First of all, "police and fire care", as you call it, are both administered by local governments, as it should be.  There is no Constitutional authority for fire protection or a federal police force, (although we're headed in that direction if the president has his way.)  Simply put, you're comparing apples to oranges.

Secondly, your argument that it is somehow immoral to "profit from the sick and weak" makes no sense at all.  After all, is it "immoral" when a restaurateur or a grocer "profits from the hungry and thirsty" or when a hotelier "profits from the tired and weary"?  Since when did medical care become such a moral imperative?  Why is it any more important than food, clothing or shelter?

Thirdly, are you aware that the majority of health plans in the United States are non-profit?  In fact, 48% of insured persons are covered by non-profit plans. Furthermore, "non-profit" does not necessarily mean "fair and equitable".  Are you also aware that the claims denial rate for Medicare, which you seem to think is so fabulous, is almost double that of private insurers?

I agree with you that the medical insurance system needs fixing, but putting the federal government in charge of it isn't the way to do it.

Regards,
Scott Perry