I guess that all the US politician don't have this point of vue.
Never mind.
The french and english system are a bit different. It works pretty well in France, everybody has an insurance ( state healthcare) and also, many people have an additionnal private insurance for the stuffs the healthcare doesn't want to pay for.
It works, but it's very expensive and each year the healthcare debt is growing ( in french " le trou de la sécu").
This debt is strangely separated from the state debt, probably to show to the french people that they ( we ) spend too much for health.
When people are too poor to have a private insurance, the healthcare pays all the bill.
It's quite easy to have an appointment with a GP.
It takes more time in many places in France to see a specialist.
The wait for surgery is very acceptable, except if you want the best surgeons of course.
The english system is similar, but they have a private system that is much more performing than the public one. It creates a kind of inequality between the poor and the rich ( the poor waits). It's changing since 10 years and the public healthcare made very big progress.
Now, if we still can say that the acces is easyer in France, we can't say anymore that our sytem is more performing than the english one.
The organization for a national healthcare is very difficult, but no one can say that it's a mess in France or in the UK.
If some politicians in America says that, it's probably for some very bad reasons.
