"free" is a broad term, as someone obviously has to pay for it, either from his pocket or via taxes or whatever. Nevertheless, everybody has access to health care after all which isn´t true for India and water supply.

Beg to disagree. If you have money in India you can get water supply. Even if you're located in a remote village with no plumbing, water trucks will deliver weekly and fill up your domestic water tank.

So...the analogy to healthcare in the US isn't too far off. If you have money and/or a good job you can get healthcare in the US and water in India (healthcare too).

Free healthcare? That'd sure be amazing. Oh, you mean non-free healthcare provided by taxes, paid for by anyone earning an income and only actually free for anyone not earning an income.

Anyone not earning an income in the US gets 'free' healthcare and has for decades. It's anything but free, it's very expensive.

Just ask any developed nation with socialized healthcare just how free healthcare is, as they all universally struggle to afford it (which is why Canada's wait times are so atrocious despite being held up as a good system).

One can make a great argument for socialized healthcare without pretending it's free. Claiming it's free is just an absurdity, as it's extremely expensive.

> Anyone not earning an income in the US gets 'free' healthcare and has for decades. It's anything but free, it's very expensive.

My impression was that the only way it's "free" is if you walk into an emergency room with no money. And the fact that uninsured people can only go to emergency rooms (routine issues fester and become serious) is in part what drives up the cost.

In places like Canada the wait times are atrocious due to triaging. If your problem is serious you will get looked at immediately. If it's not, you have to wait. And if you can afford it, you're still free to go to a private clinic. But it does seem like overall health outcomes and costs are better than the US.

So...yeah it's true calling it "free" healthcare is a bit of a misnomer but no one actually thinks it costs $0 to provide. Think of free healthcare like freeways: paid for by tax money for the public good, and occasionally you'll have to pay a nominal toll (co-pay or whatever).

You make some very good points.

I think people use the term "free" in the same way that the term "free" tricks people into spending more than they would have otherwise. Calling it "free" let's you mentally sidestep the details.

I mean free as in if I chop my arm off, no worries, no bills, I get fixed up. I mean free as in my wife is pregnant, no worries, no bills, my baby is delivered in a hospital. I mean free as in my kids gets cancer, no worries, no bills, they get chemo or whatever they need. I mean never going into debt because I need my life saved. I mean never not going to the doctor because it'll ruin me. I mean everyone pays consumption tax here, nobody gets a free ride, and everyone gets looked after. I mean not looking down on another country because they're not perfect when your country isn't either.

You can say that it's practically free given how much US spend for a non-free healthcare vs how much countries with universal healthcare spend.

It helps when another nation pays for your defense, frees up money for other things.

I can't understand your comment. Regardless of military expenses a lot of countries with universal healthcare spend less per capita than US where is not universal. Can you please explain me how military expenses affect the amount of money spent in healthcare?

Just for reference, the biggest (med-high, annually recurring) expenditures of Westernized Democracies tend to be social welfare (penchants and such), agrarian supply chain, healthcare, and security/defense. Water figures heavily depending on geography. The unifying factor is the need for continuing, consistent investment just to maintain, non inclusive of repair, renovation, or improvement. This is why these things are so expensive.

The European Bloc has benefitted from defense/security being bolstered by US equipment/investment since the Marshall Plan. I believe this is what the other poster was referencing.

I think that "free" does generally mean that someone else paid.

It seems like a specious claim that they're struggling to afford it, when so many do manage to afford it.