Everything you've said is true, however all you've done is given the state the responsibility of deciding what part of the avalanche of advice is good and what part is bad.
There's huge parts of the country where government at every level is regarded as corrupt and dysfunctional.
When a higher authority (fed > state > town > individual departments > subgroup within a dept.) has to tell the offending institution to step in line it's usually very welcome. People being screwed tend to place their trust in the other parts of the government stack (the parts that haven't screwed them yet).
Bay Area housing and transport problems can only be solved at a metropolitan level. Compare to New York and London which have political bodies covering the majority of their metropolitan areas. This enables them override the nimbyism and beggar-thy-neighbour policies of most Bay Area municipalities.
Frankly, expectations for what government can achieve just seem far too low here. California seems constitutionally hobbled.
And you forget that in Scandinavian countries, the state is generally considered to be trusted by the citizens.
Ninja Edit: I'm not going into the reasons why because that's not what this is about.
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]
[0] http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2009/0...
No, and I feel morally justified because I've more than paid into it with taxes. The healthcare isn't free. You just get to pick who pays for it.
Insurance as a way to reduce risk is a great idea. Doesn't mean the government has to do it, though.
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.
New Zealand?
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?
It does, as well as access to water and shelter. Did you think universal health care was the "final boss"?
We as a country have more than enough resources that people shouldn't have to starve on the streets if they happen to go bankrupt.
All the state does is run the numbers and make sure the kid has what it needs, even if the parents have problems of some kind or another.
In the U.S., we simply don't do that. ("Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.") To paint with a hugely broad brush, political problem-solving here is frequently about hurting others or the political version of Make.Money.Fast. schemes; in Nordic countries, politics is generally a lot more boring, but focused on actually fixing things.