I'm a Belgian national, living in France (under the French health care regime). If I need medical assistance while I'm in in Spain or Germany, the care will be reimbursed per the local rules, by the French health care system.

Quoting Wikipedia:

The European Health Insurance Card (or EHIC) is issued free of charge and allows anyone who is insured by or covered by a statutory social security scheme of the EEA countries and Switzerland to receive medical treatment in another member state free or at a reduced cost, if that treatment becomes necessary during their visit (for example, due to illness or an accident), or if they have a chronic pre-existing condition which requires care such as kidney dialysis. The term of validity of the card varies according to the issuing country.

The intention of the scheme is to allow people to continue their stay in a country without having to return home for medical care; as such, it does not cover people who have visited a country for the purpose of obtaining medical care, nor does it cover care, such as many types of dental treatment, which can be delayed until the individual returns to his or her home country. The costs not covered by self-liability fees are paid by the issuing country, which is usually the country of residence but may also be the country where one receives the most pension from.[1]

It only covers healthcare which is normally covered by a statutory health care system in the visited country, so it does not render travel insurance obsolete.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Health_Insurance_Card

My position is to take care of that person, like weve been taken care of visiting while other countries, but trying to avoid the illegal/undocumented immigrant strawman for clarity.

Okay, but what about people in other countries? Why don't we have an obligation to help them, to?

I would say yes. I've read where the UK does this as do other countries. Of course, any mass migration for free health care would bankrupt us, so we would need some sort of protection against that.

We do, if we can. We are not obligated to try impossible things, like caring for everyone in the world.

That's a different question which is outside of the scope of healthcare in the US IMO.

So let's talk about healthcare in the US. Don't Britons have a moral obligation to get taxed and that money get sent to the US to pay for the US healthcare system?

The underlying reasoning for universal healthcare is based on a principle, does this principle end at the US border, which I'm told is just some arbitrary, meaningless line right?

If it's not clear, my tongue is firmly in my cheek as I say that, but where it isn't in my cheek is when I'm telling you some people don't just buy your simple pro-universal-healthcare argument wholesale, especially when you refuse to defend it against valid questions like this.

I live in the US and I pay taxes in the US, so yes - healthcare for US citizens/residents paid for by US/citizens residents ends at the borders. If there is a better, more efficient system that is morally right (i.e. provides basic healthcare for it's citizens) than universal healthcare I would like someone to propose it ?

Why is it morally right for me to contribute to healthcare for someone who lives in America but doesn't pay taxes, but not morally right to pay for someone who lives in a different country and doesn't pay taxes?

That's a nice saccade you've made from "you are a terrible person" to "healthcare ... ends at the borders."

Universal healthcare would be great if it was cheap and covered everything.

It might be a little hard for you to understand - but on the other side of the USA is... another country ! And they are free to do whatever they want, which in the case of developed countries is universal health care !

Ah, the confidence of a young liberal, it fills the heart with hope !

I'll offer some advice, although I doubt you think you have much more to learn in life. If you're walking around looking for donations or support towards a cause, perhaps mocking those who may not share the identical philosophical beliefs as you isn't the optimum approach.

Care for them under the universal system, but bill the cost of the universal system directly.

My mom got injured while hiking in a country with universal care. She hobbled to the next town, found a clinic, and got treated. Then she wanted to pay. First, the person at the clinic said: "What do you mean, you don't pay for health care." My mom explained that she was from another country. It turned out they didn't even have the means to take her money.

Treating a few foreigners for free might actually be cheaper than setting up a billing system.

Evidently she was not hiking in Canada, where they definitely will treat you and then make sure you the tourist does pay the sizeable (though not USA exorbitant) bill. The Canadian system in fact does have many payers; federal, provincial, private insurers, are all payers.

I'm a Canadian, but accidentally let my health card lapse right around the same time I had a fall that tweaked my wrist. At the clinic I went to, they explained that I would have to pay cash for the visit and to keep the receipt because it would be reimbursed by the provincial ministry of health once I got my card renewed.

Had a visit with a GP, he sent me next door for Digital X-Rays, and then I went back to to the GP where he looked at them and sent me home with a brace (no break).

GP visits: $25 X-Rays: $25 Brace: $15

I don't think I ever ended up submitting the receipts to SaskHealth... Just wasn't that big of a concern :)

I'm a Canadian, living in America and therefore not a benefactor of Canada's healthcare system, even if I'm visiting Canada. On a trip to Canada a near car accident caused abdominal pain for my pregnant wife and a subsequent trip to urgent care to confirm if everything was OK. The bill was $600.

Most UHC countries have reciprocal deals where a citizen of one has all the same rights as a citizen of the other when travelling. Its just a lot cheaper than having to ship people around or delay treatment or all the paperwork.

The US has no such deals because it does not have a UHC system to deal with. However, most UHC systems that do not charge aren't going to pay out for setting up a billing infrastructure for the occasional American. The ones with co-pays etc already have a billing structure in place, and may charge you. Or not, it would be pretty mortifying to have to charge someone for health care.

For small stuff almost certainly, but if you get medical "tourists" explicitly travelling for say cancer treatment?

If you are a legal resident, you are covered. If you are a visitor it depends on what deal your national UHC system has with the nation you are visitng. Normally there would be little reason to go to a foreign country for treatment.

Keep treatment free only for accidental injuries or harm caused by third parties.

If a country has cheap treatment though, they could earn a lot through medical tourism.

What about organ donation, can foreigners get on the donor list?

What if they aren't? Are there criteria that can be met that make the decision to leave someone injured on the side of the road morally sound?

We aren't on the side of any roads here.

Fine. Sidewalk, in the middle of a restaurant, in your livingroom, at the airport. Pick a location and then feel free to explain what selection criteria make ignoring the injuries of another moral.

Okay. I pick any of the injuries of others that you're ignoring right now.

I am not currently actively or passively ignoring anyone's injuries. I'm a trained first responder, registered organ donor, and actively lobby my local, state, and federal government for universal healthcare and robust international humanitarian aid. It is instructive to note that two attempts to shift goalposts and distract with trivia have been made while nobody seems willing to take a crack at what is a very simple question.

You haven't helped care for my injuries. Lobbying for international (paid for by others) is like calling a taxi when you've got an injured man by the road and telling the cabdriver to deal with it.

You intentionally confuse turning a blind eye with limited ability to render aid, further attempting to obfuscate the central question. Again I am not that easily distracted. Last time, for the cheap seats, what criteria make ignoring others' injuries a moral choice?