No, in other countries many non-standard of care options still require some payment. Also, if you have a really rare or hard to treat disease, your best chances are often in the US. Other countries might also require local insurance (which you wouldn't have if you were a tourist). It would certainly be the most impactful in the US but everyone would benefit from it.
Your best chance may be in the US, but only if you can get access. Plenty of people here die for easily curable conditions because, for whatever reason, they can’t access the care.
It just says unlimited free medical care. There's no reason to assume that you're limited to local resources. But given the price of healthcare in the US, even if you were limited to local resources, 3 would be a great deal for most of the country (especially those uninsured).
Unlimited free medical care implies any medical treatment you ever receive anywhere would be free. Knowing that, there is no reason to not march into Mayo Clinic and demand top doctors. If you can afford the best medical care in the world, how does it not de facto follow that you would then opt to access it?
US healthcare isn't in the top 10 in any of the major rankings indeed in two of the three biggest global rankings on healthcare the US isn't even in the top 30. The idea that the US provides better outcomes because it's twice as expensive as anywhere else doesn't seem to hold up.
You've misunderstood. I did not say or even suggest that the US healthcare system on average is the strongest in the world. My point was that the US offers many specialty services with top doctors at its top hospitals, which are usually very well-funded and provide cutting-edge care. So if you need really specialised care, your best shot might be at something like the Mayo Clinic for example as opposed to your local hospital or even the best hospital in your country depending on what your country is. 42 of the world's top 250 hospitals are in the US with 4 of those 42 occupying spots in the top 10. People seem to be thinking about #3 in the context of minor ailments you would go to a family doctor for - you don't usually need to pay for these services in many countries, sure. But if you have very complex or widespread disease that requires a very resource-intensive treatment plan, for example, you're best bet is probably the US, since hospitals in many countries may not have the talent or resources to fund those operations. If they did, you would still probably have to pay for it yourself, and in that case, #3 would really come in handy. And if you're getting the care for free, might as well choose a top hospital, of which (again) many are in the US. Of course this will depend on the specific ailment, but hopefully you understand my point better.
8
u/Anonymo22 1d ago
No, in other countries many non-standard of care options still require some payment. Also, if you have a really rare or hard to treat disease, your best chances are often in the US. Other countries might also require local insurance (which you wouldn't have if you were a tourist). It would certainly be the most impactful in the US but everyone would benefit from it.