Europeans and Canadians all have something approaching universal health care run by government – what we would imprecisely but not inaccurately call socialised medicine. They like that. They think there is something wrong with Americans for not having it.
They have wait times for medical procedures, which they agree are a problem. They see these as a result of inefficiencies in the system, which can be gradually improved, not as the automatic result of government controlling a scarce resource. Americans – some Americans, at least – see the wait times as part of the system, eliminated only by great increases in cost. Solving 90% of a problem costs X. Solving 99% does not cost X plus a little. It costs 2X or more.
There is a death rate in those wait times, BTW. Plus whatever discomfort your untreated condition costs.
There are also quality losses, not always easily visible. Two from the Telegraph (Caveat: in neither report do we get much of a compared-to-what?) These are also seen as bugs in the system, to be contained by greater regulation, monitoring, training, etc. The long-term effect of medicine becoming a less-attractive profession, attracting fewer of the best, goes unnoticed.
Still, they get pretty decent health care. Only about 1 in 700 Canadians foregoesfree care in order to pay for it in America (presumably highly concentrated around the border and medical centers, so perhaps even 1 in 100 in places), and David Cameron wants to introduce some market safety-valves into the NHS, but really - not bad.