Well you, as the consumer, have to decide what each service provided is worth. I would pay handsomely to have my fingers re-attached, but if I was on a tight budget I might think twice before going into the doctor for every sore throat (I do that now anyways despite having good coverage). It's up to the individual to decide how much care they want or require and are willing to pay for.
I like the thought that was the other reply to your initial comment: But what if that sore throat isn't just a sore throat, but something that will either get very expensive to fix, or kill you outright, the longer you wait? There are plenty of stories around where people thought they were just putting on weight, had some minor pain and it turns out - yup, giant tumor.
Universal health care that is either free or affordable without ruining your finances is absolutely possible today. Defending it behind some thin veil of "personal liberty" and the like is cute, but doesn't map to reality.
Sure a sore throat could be a sign of something worse. But most of the time, it is not. Running to the doctor every time you feel a little off is not practical, and it's expensive because doctors are relatively scarce. In systems where healthcare is "free", doctors give patients a couple of their time at most and are barely keeping up with the flow of patients. Nothing is free.
Doctors are not the ones getting filthy rich of this. At least not most of them. The money is sucked out of the system somewhere else (making it unstable for everybody involved - even doctors).
But that's besides the point anyways - the fact that people make health decisions based on their economic situation is fundamentally wrong.
Also - I live in Germany and even if it's N=1, I have yet to see the doom and gloom that I always hear is supposed to be my reality.
> the fact that people make health decisions based on their economic situation is fundamentally wrong.
People make all sorts of major decisions based on their economic situation, including what type of food to eat, where to live, and how much education to invest in. It's not fundamentally wrong, it's how the world works. It's up to individuals to determine what amount and type of health care, shelter, education, and food they need. Not some bureaucrat.
> I have yet to see the doom and gloom that I always hear is supposed to be my reality
I have yet to see it in my country (USA) either, but then again we are but two data points, aren't we?
