>>Quality of health service depends on how much wealth a country creates to afford the service. If wealth is sufficient then even formally >uninsured people will be Ok. If wealth declines, i.e. not sufficient then enrolling everyone to some kind of universal coverage will still >leave them with miserable service.
>
>OK but this seems not to apply to US, one of the wealthiest countries in the world. We help so much other countries but we do not fix the problems we have in here. Also, I tend to think western european quality of life is better.

Obviously, I see no reason to affect your thinking, but still, 'quality of life' measure is subjective to so many peculiar whiffs, usually of political sense, that bringing it up dilutes any discussion, imho. In regard to more specific healthcare issue, as long as USA is one of the wealthiest countries, health care service will be Ok here. I don't know how our help to other countries relates to it, so I would use more specific example: there are still many people around the world trying to get medical care in US-based facilities.
Fixing the problems is elusive term. One man fix is another man breakdown. Again, I would recommend to look at health care situation in context of more general wealth creating issue. More specifically, a country cannot commit itself to produce less wealth and gettting better health care at the same time.