I'm not sure how this would end up translating to a hypothetical national health care system, but being a practitioner in the only socialized health care system that I know of, I can tell you that there are more positives than negatives in terms of how the patient is treated. Possibly the best thing about it is that if a patient comes into my clinic or to the ER with a problem, I know that I can use the resources I see fit to take care of the patient. I don't need to worry about whether a CT scan is going to be covered, etc. And these 8 month wait times for surgery that people talk about simply don't exist. If I get a call from a gastroenterologist about a patient with a new colon cancer, for instance, I'll bring them in and schedule them for surgery, usually within a couple weeks. So the horrible wait times really don't pan out. At civilian hospitals there's also usually someone looking over your shoulder trying to get you to discharge patients, etc. to save costs. More of that is left to the practitioner. I can also count on one hand the number of times I've had to go toe to toe with the cookbook-wielding high school grads who try to deny care, and those exchanges are usually brief and centered around something well out of the ordinary.

The most disconcerting thing about a national system IMHO is whether the system would be sufficiently tailored/adjustable to the national level. In the grand scheme of things, military health care serves about 8-9 million beneficiaries and is a pretty small slice of the military spending pie. Start thinking on a national level and policy changes/practices/etc. could become much more challenging to implement.