The health insurance dilemma - 2

It is good to compare the situation in different political systems to get a panoramic view of the problem. In socialist countries, it goes without saying that nearly all the population are covered in one way or another by free health service, from the treatment of common cold to the most difficult highly specialized surgical operations, and rehabilitation thereafter.
We can name some countries as Cuba as one example, which has reached a high standard of available free public health, due to such policy. The new socialist republics of South and the Caribbean ones are going in the same direction, to raise the health standards of their citizens. On the other end of the scale the United States of America, the most rich high tech country of the world, due to capitalist policies, and despite having some sort of basic health services which can be provided free of charge, especially in natural disasters and special situations, but there is always a third party that pays the costs, whether a benevolent organization, the Church, an endowment or through limited governmental aid. Medicare of the elder people is a good example, and the Medicaid system too, though these systems are subjected to ups and downs due to which party is governing or having the majority in both houses of the Congress. But to my mind the most advanced health insurance schemes are in Scandinavian countries, on top of them is Sweden. And my second favorite are the western European countries. France, Germany and the United Kingdom, have all very advanced health insurance systems where subscribers pay installments and may get refund some times, even they may be covered by the protective health umbrella while traveling or residing overseas.
No one denies that providing quality comprehensive health services whether protective or curative to all the population of a certain country is a highly complicated issue with many interplaying factors. It is difficult but not impossible. We have not to re-invent the wheel but only to adapt it to our resources and needs. Globalization doesn’t mean that the health services of the masses is admittedly a free-market issue. No, it is not, as I can gather. More planning, good use of resources, more modernization of the services, more training to physicians, nurses, technicians and employees, more fair remuneration with attractive real salaries which grow as the inflation grows, more plausible comfortable work environment, more financial transparency, will give us a robust stand-alone system which can be a safety valve for the community and can co-exist with other health systems ( the University, the Military, the Private sectors etc...). If the rising running costs, maintenance, salaries are the problem, subscription can be raised gradually commensurate with the level of the salary, proportionately increasing with high salaries. Dividing the health service provided into levels each to a particular subscription package i.e. basic, partial, .. and complete, will mean more segregation of the needy people to deny them access to important vital costly health service which they cannot afford alone. The human being is the most expensive resource on the Earth, he is the maker of the different modern life elements. Without securing the health of the individuals in any community, no one can guarantee a steady progress.