I'm sorry the quality was so poor in the country you were born in, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's (only) because the service was free (there could

I'm sorry the quality was so poor in the country you were born in, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's (only) because the service was free (there could be other reasons), or that poor quality is a necessary consequence of healthcare being paid entirely or mostly with public funding. Public healthcare isn't entirely free where I live, but the fraction of the cost paid directly by the patient is small enough that it qualifies as mostly free to most people. Complaining about public healthcare almost seems like it's a national sport, and it's true that you can get shorter queues and faster response in non-emergency cases if you go private, but the quality of public healthcare as a whole still doesn't suck, and especially emergency care and treatment for serious conditions is still pretty good. Doctors get paid less than e.g. in the U.S., but they're still among the most well-paid professions. What I think leads to disaster is if funding to public healthcare is poor and the quality is low, which leads to people not appreciating the service and thus towards further devaluation of the public system, which becomes a vicious cycle. It may also make sense to not have healthcare entirely free so that people don't start going to see a doctor too easily for reasons not requiring a doctor, but I think a system where it's potentially way too expensive does at least as much damage. I don't claim to know what happened in your country of birth, but there could be factors other than just free healthcare.