There's a significant fraction of Americans (myself included) who don't want their government to be in charge of healthcare. Don't assume that the lack thereof indicates an inability.
Ninja Edit: I'm not going into the reasons why because that's not what this is about.
So, you will turn down Medicare when it comes time that you can utilize it?
Ideally, we wouldn't need insurance "middleware" of any kind, but when you need some expensive care like a CAT scan or open heart surgery, the expertise and equipment required is simply too expensive for most people to afford without some sort of insurance coverage.
I agree that the government often mismanages large programs such as these, however, other countries with national health care tend to be more satisfied with their health care than Americans. [0]
I don't live in Scandinavia, Europe, or even the northern hemisphere but we have free healthcare, free accident compensation, and certain types of insurance provided by the state. We also can't buy firearms without a reason (and self defense isn't a reason, a reason is hunting or pest control) and have to have a background check before we can get a gun license.
People are healthy, no one gets shot, the government is held accountable and is relatively corruption free, and taxes are lower than in the US as is state debt.
All in all things are pretty good with a different model of operating.
I've heard the argument that because health care (or insurance) is a necessity of life so it should be provided by the government. Why doesn't the same principle apply to food?
Ninja Edit: I'm not going into the reasons why because that's not what this is about.