1,2& 3 is already free is most countries and even in developing countries like India. Why are Americans so averse to universal health coverage?

They aren't against it, they are against the incompetent government that will oversee it.

You've just moved the goalposts. Your original comment said:

> I'm running out of things that the progressives want the government to pay for without any logic and mathematics behind it

The logic behind the first three as presented is "most countries already do this," along with the implication (justified, in my opinion) that it works out well for their citizens.

So why wouldn't it be the same in the USA? Is our government uniquely incapable of this? Is it that the model of these other countries is unsustainable? Is it that we have a huge propaganda machine in place that is convincing many of our citizens to conclude without serious and informed consideration that it shouldn't be the role of our government to provide these things? Or is it some other option?

There is absolutely no such thing as competent government. Even here in Australia the medicare is an absolutely marvelous thing although I cannot say that about the current government. The policy should be sound, not the people who created the policy.

How do the first three have no "logic or mathematics behind it"?

Developing nations can afford to create such programs, and run them successfully without harming themselves.

Surely the US is mathematically, and logically, capable of providing such services?