An important aspect of the "Nordic model" that I don't often hear about, which is germane to the discussion about the U.S. healthcare system, is the massive disparity in medical technology and advancements. The U.S. accounts for 91% of the entire world's medical advances measured by patented devices, therapies, and procedures, as well as peer-reviewed research. That's the power of the profit-motive, for better or worse. For example, the average cost of bringing to market a generic drug (i.e.,Tylenol knockoff) is $500 million. The average cost of a brand new drug is $2 billion. These accounts for research, development, compliance, FDA protocols, and trials. The prices could be lowered, but there's a deleterious effect on safety in doing so.
I'm not arguing one way or the other, just pointing out that with a single-payer, Nordic style system, profit motive is diminished if not removed since that system necessitates price controls. Now we could certainly move to that system, but we have to accept a lower level of progress in medical research breakthroughs. This is an area I research and I haven't seen a way around that trade-off. Maybe we're at a point where that's an acceptable policy; after all, medicine has come a long way and universal coverage could arguably be worth it. On the other hand, the medical breakthrough that enables us to repair a damaged spinal cord and reverse a patient's paralysis, which is maybe 10 years away, will now be about 40-50 years away. That's the trade-off, and it's kind of a crappy one to consider no matter which side you take.
Medical research is a little expensive, doing it safely is REALLY expensive. Without a profit motive, those breakthroughs will slow; they just will.