> 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).

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.

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.