Uh... what Johanas? Americans don't expect everyone to pay for their own education, nor care if they can. Why? Because its in the nations economic and moral interest to do so, to have an educated population. People aren't expected to hire out police officers like mercenaries (might happen with corrupt police officer maybe). If your house burns down the fire department doesn't hand you a bill. You pay welfare to disadvantaged people that have economic trouble for whatever reason, because it is in the nations interest (even if people that can't think long term disagree). "Free marketeers" bailout corporations that have failed under the free market, due to political and corporate shortsightedness and destructive self interest. All these benefits are socialistic, I doubt you will find many conservatives supporting Reaganomics complaining that only people supporting a war should have to pay military tax, that people only for drug Prohibition should have to pay for the war on drugs. Or that when welfare is abolished only people robbed by welfare recipients which are now forced to adleast steal to support themselves (not every unemployed person can find a job but just don't want to you will actually find that type in the minority), should contract out police, pay their muggers legal fees, and possible jail term. Yet somehow only rightist America stands against national funded healthcare.
Privatized healthcare hurt American businesses competitiveness because they need to provide health plans to employees in some cases, it hurts the majority of the people at the benefit of the few, since it is in the health insurances interest to deny treatment whenever possible instead of treating people when needed. It hurts the consumer based economy, by causing health and pharmaceutical costs to become artificially inflated to generate profits, reducing disposable income for the majority of Americans, which in turn hurts jobs that could be generated from this extra cash. And after all isn't that the basis of Reaganomics? Increase the general populations disposable income and in turn generate growth that is ment to generate government income to counter additional costs incurred by the government.
Also GDP and growth is a terrible way of determining economic development in my opinion. I think standard of living, purchasing power, national debt - projected growth of income, and employment. Would be a greater determination of economic achievement, after all whats the point of being the richest nation on earth if a significant population lives in poverty. And growth has to peak at some point (if it hasn't already), which then the communist manifesto prophecy might come true (I'm not a communist).