The alternative is universal single payer health care, paid for by taxation.

And who is dealing with the hospital fees? You need some organization to do this, this is how it works everywhere.

You are aware this currently already happens with Medicare and Medicaid correct?

No, I live in EU, not in US. This is why I ask questions, because I don't know the answers.

The problem is the Medicare / Medicaid rates are not currently enough to sustain the hospitals.

Last I checked, governments are still organizations?

I live in Europe, I dealt with the health care system. Governments here do not manage health care, they have organizations doing that. In my country (Romania), it is called National Health Insurer. Public institution, but it is an insurer - this is what I said. We also have private ones. Yes, Romania is part of the European Union and it has a system that exists in other countries in EU.

Europe is hardly homogenous, their are insurers in Netherlands and Switzerland...but other countries have more public based systems, or are at least mixed (Germany?). So...saying European model isn’t very clear to me.

Especially since Germany's "mixed" mode is multi-mixed: the largest private insurer is a non-profit coop. With all the complaints about for-profit insurance companies, I don't understand why that isn't a thing in the United States. By the people, for the people and all that.

A lot of health insurance providers are technically non profit, just like a lot of hospitals are. Blue shield is non profit in many states (eg California) as is Kaiser. Chances are, your health insurance provider is a non profit, but still has high “administrative overhead” so it doesn’t mean much to you and me.

These non-profits aren't controlled by their members, I take it? Thanks for the info, it's hard to understand the US health insurance system and get hard facts on differences and similarities from afar - mostly the extreme positions & talking points tend to reach everywhere.