There are going to be trade offs with any kind of health care system. You know why Great Britain only recommends the flu shot only for the elderly and young children? Because that is all they are willing to pay for. Nationalized health care means cost must be controlled and controlled costs mean rationing of care.
Here are some fun anecdotal "facts."
Fact. In 2007-2008, when I was self-employed, I went to an insurance brokerage site and purchased BCBS insurance for about $100/month. It did have a $5k deductible, but included reasonable Co-pays, Rx, and also included pre-natal coverage. (I know this to be a fact, because we had a kid on it in 2008). The 6 month premium was $660. There were CHEAPER policies, I distinctly recall a $65 policy, with a higher deductible. The point is... insurance WAS and COULD BE affordable, and people could have always chosen to figure out how to pay for it. But they didn't. They prefer to smoke, dine out, buy new cars, have cable tv, etc etc... And as such, any gap in coverage did create a situation where they could develop a condition that would be "pre-existing" when they try to get coverage. Imagine, if instead of the bullcrap we got with ACA, we instead got something where every citizen was mandated to buy insurance, and they could choose a $50-100/mo policy that was a safety net? The govt can mandate it, but not design it or manage it. They are horrible at that. I'd go with that, but I am dead set against the bastardized ACA, that caused prices to skyrocket (mine went from $350/mo to $750/mo), and kicked people off their plans "that they could keep." (my dad, my brother, and many others). I think we all agree that having insurance is a good idea, but having the govt. manage it is a horrible idea. I mean, we all hear delightful stores about visiting government agencies, all the time...
Fact. My dad happens to be the chairman of a rural hospital. For years and years, they built into their budget a line item for "indigent care." It took care of the people that needed treatment, but had no means. Contrary to misconceptions, hospitals don't turn away people in need. ACA came in, and they can barely stay afloat, whereas many others have simply closed up shop. There are areas that are completely un-served by hospitals, clinics, or even a doctor of any type. The burden of bureaucratic regulations, paperwork, decreased reimbursements have had a crushing effect on rural hospitals. A friend of mine is leading a charge to help bring tele-docs to small towns, where people can at least get basic care without having to drive for hours.
The govt has a role to play, but it should not be involved in how things are run. People complain about "for profit" hospitals, but when it's time, you'd definitely rather be at the hospital that is state of the art, as opposed to one that has to cut corners to keep the lights on, including only attracting staff that work for bargain wages.