You don't want national healthcare.
What will happen is someone will notice that nearly all (over 90%) of healthcare spending is spent on the last year of life. A law will be passed saying "let 'em die" more or less and this will rescue all healthcare in the US immediately - and the costs to the taxpayer will be 10% of what is spent today.
Not so popular with anyone over 50, but immensely popular with everyone under 50. And most of the people paying taxes, unless they happen to be older. The main difference between US healthcare and the rest of the world is that spending ratio. Eliminate it, and all will be well with healthcare spending.
But not so popular with anyone over 50.
I don't know about other countries with national healthcare plans, but where I live, it certainly isn't so that we don't spend on the dying. In fact it's common knowledge that a considerable amount of money is used for taking care of people their last year alive. My guess would be that this also is the case with a great deal of other countries having a national healthcare plan.
The whole argument you're making assumes that democratic governments would be allowed to treat elderly like that, I doubt it for most western countries.
No, but it's certainly a clear indication!
The time spent on any item of the agenda [of a finance committee] will be in inverse proportion to the sum involved. -- C.N. Parkinson