Not so with health; as lifespans increase, the probability of major health care services being individually required basically nears 100%. Obviously, this outcome cannot be insured, which is why nationalized health works from a maintenance perspective. That is, you may not get great care, but you also won't be left to die on the side of the road.
Add to that mix the ill, poor & indigent, and you have a baseline demand for basic healthcare among those who cannot afford it. Since society will not turn them away, the middle-class ends up paying for them anyway in the form of greatly increased health 'insurance' premiums/deductibles for themselves.
The solution, of course, which may eventually be reached, is to have two tiered approach: (a) basic services provided for the ill, poor & old, and (b) 'insurance' for the great center of healthy, working, self-sufficient, young/middle-aged people. In this way, health insurance would actually work, since risk could reasonably be measured and assigned. But once people move past 55+, it longer is really insurance; rather, it's practically inevitable that a major health care event will occur.
You hit it right on the mark. I'll re-post something I posted yesterday that I thought captured the "insurance dilemma" well:
This isn't like a homeowners insurance policy where the house may never burn down, or a life insurance policy where premiums are based on the probability of a single event (death) that will occur with 100% certainty at some unknown time in the future. It's an "insurance plan" that covers unknown medical events that occur at unknown times in the future, with unspecified (and unlimited) costs.
There's no way to "fix" this nonsense.
1. An insurance company develops a new type of insurance plan that combines attributes of both health insurance and life insurance. Annual or monthly premiums are paid just like a life insurance policy, and the payments are invested by the insurance company in relatively safe, stable investments.
2. The U.S. government gives every taxpayer a deduction up to $5,000 per year ($5,000 per year for each family member, for those with dependents) in premiums for this "hybrid" insurance policy. This amount may increase over time as the taxpayer ages, or simply to keep up with inflation.
3. Taxpayers are free to make withdrawals from these accounts for health expenses. Maybe this is for ANY health expense, or only for major expenses requiring surgery, hospitalization, etc.
4. Any money that is left in the account when the person dies is treated as a life insurance benefit, and is passed on to a named beneficiary tax-free (as is the case now).
5. I see only two roles for the government in this: (A) changing the tax code as I've described, and (B) perhaps serving as an independent regulatory body (like a pension review board) to ensure that the investments are appropriate for the long-term solvency of the insurance pool.