True vin. A lot of that is because of legal reasons (friggin people suing for anything)
HOWEVER, if you look at those systems, they are not so great. Yes, everyone is (technically) covered, but if you can't get in to see a doctor, that coverage is pretty much worthless.
For Canada (the much endorsed model for health care pointed to by libs):
The report shows that waits for primary and specialist care in Canada have not improved since they were first reported on in 2007. Among surveyed countries, Canada continues to have the longest wait times for older people waiting to see a doctor or nurse when they need medical attention, with more than half waiting more than 2 days, and nearly one-third (30%) waiting 6 or more days.
Older Canadians also have the longest reported wait times to see a specialist, with 25% waiting 2 months
or more for a specialist visit. Despite some variation across the country, wait times in every province were significantly higher than the international average.
Older Canadians also report more difficulties (51%) in getting care after-hours or on weekends than older people in any other country. As a result, 37% reported a visit to an emergency department for a condition that could have been treated by their regular doctor.
From the same report:
The U.K (60%) and Canada (57%) had the highest numbers of persons who had to wait four weeks or more to get to see a specialist physician. In the U.S., only 23% reported a wait of four weeks or more for specialty care...
The U.S. also did very well on measures of wait times for non-emergency or elective surgery. Only 8% of surveyed patients in the United States reported a wait time of four months or more for elective surgery, compared to 33% in Canada and 41% in the U.K.
The place where the US scored worst of the 6 countries was in getting after hours care WITHOUT going to the emergency room. I would submit that if you cannot wait until the next day for urgent care or a doctor's appointment, then that should be classified as a medical emergency.
As for the UK, your quote about Republicans decide
which of these suffering individuals deserve to live, and which must die because of cost concerns
rings hollow. Have you followed the news from the UK on the NHS? At all? I read UK papers all the time, and not a week goes by that there isn't some failing or trouble with the NHS... with people dying because of those same concerns. Scotland alone estimates 6 people die every day due to bad/inadequate care.
The bottom line is this. Why in the world would you give the power of healthcare decisions to some nameless, faceless, unaccountable bureaucrat instead of your local doctor? You want a national catastrophic coverage? i may be willing to listen, BUT you have to tell me how you are going to pay for it. The INDIVIDUAL is responsible for any gap coverage.
I agree with Who Do. The removal of pricing is a huge contributor to cost increases. All non-catastrophic services should be clearly labeled what they cost, so the consumer can decide where they want to get care.
Let's give the Democrats to the power to enact universal health care,
would like to volunteer for that role. 
