OK. The outcome is the same though, you get otherwise working age people unable to work because of health issues they can't afford to fix. Whether it was their fault or not I think it's desirable that they be back working ASAP.

... and the correct way to deal with this is to get these people to take the necessary steps not to get sick or injured in the first place.

True enough, but it's not going away any time soon. Meanwhile, useless people exist.

Providing/not providing this care for free won't change their behaviour. So if you care about outcomes, might as well provide it if it's economically efficient (which is another issue).

Yes, for now that can be argued for diseases or syndromes where the only viable alternative is making use of the most advanced research and technology. However, shelling out tens of thousands of dollars for childbirth, kidney ache or standard physiotherapy is stupid.

So you mean a safety net for medical injuries incurred through freak incidents of mass murder or a train crash or something?

Sounds good to me. It would certainly be more politically realistic to pitch than universal care, at least.

That's a big 'if' from what I hear and there are a number of other countries that provide care that's about as good and it's free or heavily subsidised for all citizens.

Australia has a mixed public/private system, the public system is essentially free but there are advantages in the private system, primarily direct consultant care and shorter waiting times for elective surgery/procedures.  The government provides incentives, for those that can afford it, to take out private health insurance to free up resources in the public system.

All medical training though is done in the public system though so it still retains much of the expertise and many consultant doctors work both in the public and private systems. The up-shot is that you receive a comparible level of care in the public and private systems but care is quicker to access in the private system (often nicer facilities too).

Treatment for emergency or life-threatenig conditions in the public system can be accessed without delay and for free.

The system is very good if not perfect, but we do pay for it through our relatively high tax rates.  My experience is that many Americans have this fear of socialised healthcare based on the belief that the standard of care must suffer and can't possibly match the costly healthcare in the US. I have met any number of US doctors who have come to Australia and leave with a very different impression, quite staggered by the standard of care delivered in the public system. 

Again it's not perfect but an example that sociliased healthcare is not always the demon that some people make it out to be.

If you separate the rare-dangerous stuff from the common-not-so-dangerous stuff (which I think is what you're kind of getting at), you can typically create a very cost effective means of providing both, privately.

If insurance companies only offered insurance for the biggies - heart disease, the worst cancers, etc (and also included elements for preventability - charging extra for smokers, people of certain weights, etc). The health insurance could actually be rather cheap. Although these procedures can cost tens of thousands of dollars, the insurance could still be relatively cheap as they happen so rarely.

Meanwhile, if dental care, vaccines, opticians, contraceptive care, check-ups, etc. were provided by a separate plan - be it another insurance plan, health savings account, or buying out-of-pocket, these things are far more common, but much more cheap. Nobody is going to end up homeless because they get an ear infection. The biggest problem with these is that universal care - whether private or public - is over-demanded. Economics 101 - when you get rid of the cost of marginal consumption, you encourage more of it. Very few people will go in for heart surgery on a regular basis, however, no matter how free it is.

"Caring for a gunshot wound victim who is hospitalized for four to seven days can cost up to $56,000,"

Pretty good deal considering the hospital I went to for my appendectomy charged 20,000 for one night stay in hospital which they wrote off to the government. I did pay (with parents help) the surgeon, anesthesiologist, pathologist, and the MRI scan.  I had no clue they separated all those bills in the hospital till after the surgery.  It was a nice wake up call on how the hospitals are overpriced. 

The surgeon, MRI, pathologist, anesthesiologist bills combined were about $2,500-3,000 (surgeon only charged 1k for a one time payment which he cut a little deal from his regular 2k or so charge since my mom worked for the same hospital at the time). 

So staying in a hospital bed being fed pain killers and barely checked up on is about $20,000+  No fraud going on here...

And "boom", goes the dynamite.

I would never pay that bs overpriced bill anyways.  I told them I was going into the Coast Guard (which I was at the time) but then I had to wait 6 more months after surgery and I changed my mind by then.