I see what you're saying, but you're still not taking things in context, but rather still doing a comparison of "us vs Them". In the blog "Blue Genes" posted out of the UK, the writer states:
So, we have to dismiss the ours is better way of thinking because, as the rednecks say, that dawg wont hunt. So rather, we need to look at this in terms of what IS in place and how it can serve best those few who deserve most.
America, as a rule, is anti anything remotely "social" but we tip-toe that way when no one is looking. We were founded on the belief that every man has the same right to make what ever life he chooses and then to live within those means. So a nation-wide, social approach is foreign to us at our very core. Granted, now that there are less actual Americans and more "people who just run shops here" its not as strong, but it still exists.
The blog also goes on to say in one place: "we actually provide more care to more people at the same cost." but fails to mention the part earlier where they skip across: "Its disadvantages are: patchy funding depending on region for high-tech treatments that have a poor cost-effectiveness or are purely elective (the ‘postcode lottery’), wards with little privacy, and high rates of hospital-acquired infection."
So, in effect, you provide more care, of potentially lower quality, to more people at the same price we charge for the best care out there. And on top of it all, we spread the risk of hospital acquired infection, like spreading jam on toast. What good is treatment for the masses if the masses all come down with staff infections which require MORE treatment? According to the blog, some areas don't possess the tools to perform the more high-techy procedures. You can go to any place in the country and find adequately funded and supplied clinics, pharmacies, and Emergency care facilities.
Our system may be foreign, but only in so far as people are expected to toe the line. In return, they get the best bang for the buck. If you can't pay, there are programs out there designed to HELP so that you can STILL get the best bang for the buck. The only difference, really, is that where our system is privatized, yours is government run.
If someone here doesnt have insurance, they may qualify for medicaid or some other programs. The percentage of folks that don't qualify for that, often pay for their own healthcare insurance privately or find alternate methods of payment to the hospital directly. But in the end, they ALL GET TREATED, just like you.
I realized, we're going back and forth over billing practices essentially. Thats bureaucracy, not medicine, PA. Thats bean counters, not doctors.