The reason many Americans are resistant to an NHS-style system is that it would mean the wealthier ones would have to share limited resources.
If you are ill in America with good insurance and/or private wealth, some of the treatments available really are world beating, but they're horrendously expensive.
People like "Professor" Sikora are in favour of American healthcare because he sells proton beam therapy, which is successful but extremely expensive. Sikora has called the NHS the "last bastion of communism" and has criticised NICE for limiting the use of expensive drugs in the NHS. The trouble is that for every patient treated with a world beating, expensive procedure or drug, many more people with more mundane conditions could be treated. People can't have both, unless funding is increased. If funding is related to progressive taxation, people don't want to pay for other people's healthcare.
It's a difference of values. Either use your money (if you have it) to pay for the best healthcare available for yourself and your family or use your money to contribute to the healthcare of the whole nation.
If countries go down the latter route, people start "blaming" other people for not doing enough to look after themselves. As countries become more developed, more illness is caused by preventable lifestyle factors rather than infection, so there is some underlying justification for urging people to look after themselves. However, that needs public education and an understanding of why people don't always look after themselves. It becomes complicated.
The other issue with private healthcare is that it's an opportunity for people to make a profit. It would be naive to suggest that some people don't make a profit within the NHS, but it's a question of degree. A crude comparison of the amount spent on healthcare in the US and life expectancy suggests that money isn't being spent efficiently.
