Of course the USA as a whole (including private citizens/private wealth) has money for health care. But it is the right thing for the government to collect taxes for and then decide how to spend? That's the difference - assuming for the moment that the carrier was necessary (I share your skepticism on that one - making a logical point), there is little hope that private action would somehow coalesce to produce that carrier. By contrast, most of what is health insurance today is in fact not an insurance against unlikely, catastrophic events, but a kind of subscription to regular medical service for needs that are entirely predictable - and that could, for that reason, absolutely arise based on private demand. It's the difference between providing something publicly (through the state) that can only be provided in that manner (the carrier) vs. something that need not be. If you then assume that the government generally is not the best provider of anything (how would you like to order your pizza from the government? Have them make your cellphone? Your sneakers?) it follows that the only place where it makes sense to bear the efficiency loss of government provision vs. private markets is in those places where it can't happen privately. Ergo carrier yes, healthcare no. So you're asking the wrong question. Of course the money is there!