I still think you missed the point of my comment. To ask a question regarding your point, if we'd all like nice things like universal health care, what difference does it make if it is paid for by insurance companies, the government or some other system? These nice things cost resources (usually measured by money); whether we are more or less individualistic doesn't change that.
I hear what you're saying. Off the top of my head, one of the biggest differences is that these nice things cost far fewer resources when we treat them as societal functions rather than as luxuries for people who can afford them. That's why libraries are far more valuable to a society seeking literacy than bookstores, for example. To me, that has everything to do with individualism vs collectivism, as one mindset (individualism) encourages more bookstores (and literacy for those who can afford it), while the other increases literacy for everyone, regardless of income level.
Or to bring it back to UHC, in pretty much every country with it, per capita healthcare costs are far less than they are in the US, and the same basic level of care is available to everyone (kind of like how everyone can check out every book in a library for free). You can buy more care with private insurance, of course (just as you can buy books from a bookstore), but you don't ever face the prospect of choosing between your health and your income, the way you do in a society without a collective safety net.
And of course, what we have right now with semi-universal health insurance is a far cry from a fully functioning UHC or UHI setup, although it's a large step in the right direction (e.g., by the mere fact that pre-existing conditions can't be used to deny health care or the fact that lifetime coverage limits are also disallowed) from a past healthcare culture that was nothing short of barbaric.
Okay. A quibble though. At least in the US, libraries began as private endowments. Carnegie is the famous example. Only later did they become public entities, and they are certainly not federal entities. Same for schools. The people decided they wanted schools, and got together and started them. (Later, local governments took over, and now we have bastard federal/state/local craptastic schools.)
I see this as very similar to the health care situation. Each time we add a layer of higher government, quality goes down and price goes up (excluding technological improvements which can cut both ways.) I honestly doubt that the ACA, or any other program designed by the US government in cahoots with big insurance will result in reduced costs for the average person.
The US government just doesn't work that way. If it did, the VA would be the best health system in the world. The US government has generations of experience running top-down healthcare for millions of people, and it's a disaster.
The one and only legitimate argument that I see for the ACA is pre-existing conditions. I work in insurance (non-ACA) and our plans do not cover preX. Just about every day I advise one or more people to cancel our plans and get an ACA plan because they bought it not understanding that point. That is so sad, especially since open enrollment is done now, and they'll have to wait until November to sign up for an ACA plan.
But did we really need to overturn a huge industry in order to cover this small minority of people? After you subtract medicare and medicaid-eligible folks, you end up with maybe a few million people who had no insurance option pre-ACA. So, our government chose the worst possible solution, the most expensive, that would cause the greatest disruption and the most bitterness, and rammed it down our throats, literally, in a late-night lame-duck Christmas eve vote.
Sorry, I could ramble on and on.