Criticizing the socialist alternatives is fair game IMO, and I was thinking moreso of Canada and England's systems. The detoxes and rehabs I brought up because those can literally be life changing and the lack of quick access to them can be a life or death thing. It's an area where I have a lot of personal experience. I once talked to someone in England who was an alcoholic who decided they needed help. They said they were approved for rehab but they'd have a bed in 8 months. Compared to next day or next week for private insurance, I think it's fair to call out the differences. There's obviously a lot of other differences too. Criticizing a system isn't a black or white thing, where doing so means you want it entirely annihilated and disavowed.

30 million is a lot. In a country of roughly 330m people that accounts for about 9%. That's pretty good in that it indicates that 91% do have insurance. The remaining 9% need options too, but ripping out something that works pretty well for 91% to accommodate the 9% is not a good strategy. Better to consider how to approach that small percentage instead while working in the existing structure, which is certainly doable. The problem is, people don't get elected for good, simple, boring solutions, they get elected for declaring they're going to rip everything out and bring utopia for us all.

For one thing, when I was in rehabs there were some people there who were under "scholarships" as the administration put it. They had no insurance and were there for free. It was because someone who cared for them reached out and described the situation to the facility, kindly asked if there was anything they could do, and they opted to take them in at no cost out of compassion. That only works though when it's a small percentage, they need to sustain the system with the majority of people who have insurance paying their way.