[pieceofthepuzzle]

The difference is that in American health care there have traditionally been multiple ‘third parties’ with multiple separate options for how much you paid in order to enter into a payor contract with that particular third party. In any national health service there is only one third party - the government. That difference does have a big effect.

That said, I understand what sounds like your predilection for a market driven system. However, having health care be strictly fee for service, in a standard market driven manner, is problematic because modern care involves so many different people and the need for a substantial infrastructure.

[Alberta's Child]

In American health care there hasn't "traditionally" been anything. The private insurance system dates back to the 1940s when companies began offering this benefit to their workers in lieu of pay raises that were prohibited under World War II price controls.

Outside of military facilities and personnel, government-run health care didn't exist in any substantial way until Medicare and Medicaid were implemented in the 1960s as part of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" socialist entitlement programs.

However, having health care be strictly fee for service, in a standard market driven manner, is problematic because modern care involves so many different people and the need for a substantial infrastructure.

I'm not sure I understand your point here. The production and sale of an iPhone involves so many different people and the need for a substantial infrastructure, but somehow Apple manages to get it done without having its customers submit claims to a government agency or insurance company in order to buy one of them.