Lee-apromise,
Some clarification is in order, I think.
1) NVFR has to be a separate rating, or every PPL student will be forced to train & pay for a qualification that many don't want. This is highly undesirable.
2) Instrument ratings are renewed (or revalidated) annually in ICAO compliant states. If the USA wishes to be slightly unique, good luck to them! Although CASA has made the recency requirements relatively onerous, I must admit.
3) Retractable gear and CSU are endorsements so that the SEP class of aircraft can remain as a class, not specific type ratings. If necessary, you will get them built into your first MEP type training. Again, this is common with many ICAO compliant states and seems to be a good way of dealing with the problem of type training.
4) The USA does not operate a user-pays system. We do. On the whole, I prefer our system, although that's a political viewpoint obviously.