Where's the difference: Why does the US treat socialzed medicine differently than other infrastructure?

Today much political rhetoric is being thrown back and forth over the issue of socialized or state run health care. Many conservatives view the move as fundamentally against American core values. What is unclear is why precisely the conservatives haven't been raising the same issue since we socialized the fire and police forces. While it is true that fire and police perform inherently different services than health care, most of the main reasons for implementation remain similar.
It is undeniable that asking an American citizen to pay out tax money for a government run health care plan would infringe on the liberties of that citizen, but so does restricting drunk driving. The important consideration is whether the benefit outweighs the cost. The police force exists to govern the people and enforce the laws of the state, but another or their fundamental roles is providing more freedom to the public. Imagine an anarchy where an individual had to constantly defend their family, home and possessions from attack and theft. In this society an individual has very little freedom to travel and pursue happiness. So by infringing on the rights of Americans by taxation, the government creates a far better environment for the general public. The benefit of the police force clearly outweighs the cost, especially since hiring personal guards would be much more expensive, and a general deterrent works almost as well.
Slightly different logic applies to the fire force, although the fundamental principles are the same; improve liberties for everyone via the minor evil of taxation. Private fire-forces have always led to massive extortion, as a fire-force can insist on any price or the house will be lost. This is one way in which people gain freedom - freedom from extortion. Another way in which the public benefits is that fires spread, and if your neighbor's house is on fire it's actually very much in your interests to contribute to the effort to put it out. So paying taxes for fire protection protects your property in several ways. The same value quality is true of the police force, privately hired fire fighters would be massively expensive and impractical.
Now we come to the issue of health care; if we examine it in depth we see that it is really no different. A socialized health care system would provide freedom from extortion in an emergency. If you go to a hospital today with an emergency the doctors will treat you, but will also slap you with a large bill afterward. It also acts the same way as the fire force; since diseases are contagious it is in my interest to keep my neighbor healthy. And like the two, health care would also be much more cost efficient when run by the state. There are those that argue against this, but that is simply not true. In the US 33 cents on every dollar payed to health insurance goes to doing paperwork that wouldn't exist if the government ran the system. And isn't the basis of America a free market, and if so, if the government can create a company that will out perform others isn't it beneficial for the consumer? If this isn't the case then I would like to know why all the insurance company lobbyists are shelling out cash left and right to see that health care isn't socialized. If it won't work better for citizens then why are they worried?
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427