I have no idea what you are talking about. I have said repeatedly that insurance is for catastrophic events, so I wouldn't expect only the wealthy to be able to pay for cancer treatment. It's a nice argument you are making, but unfortunately, no one argued the opposite point.
Insurance, in my opinion should not cover routine care. That is where a functioning market could exist, and did exist. I grew up in a small town in Kentucky in the 60s and 70s. We had very good Blue Cross insurance, but it did not pay office visits, pharmacy, etc. When we went to the doctor, we paid the office visit and when we got medication, we paid the pharmacy. There were no copays. The insurance covered catastrophic events, such as cancer treatment. There was a functioning market among providers because people would shop doctors based on quality of care/cost of office visits. To suggest otherwise is pure BS.
The rest of the industrialized world does have free, or subsidized health care, but it is not the great thing you suggest. In most of those countries, there are waiting periods to get surgeries, etc. You can say anything you want, but basic economics will prevail, no matter what governments do. When there is no interaction between supply and demand that creates a market clearing price, supply and demand will not match up with each other. In the case you describe, demand will outpace supply and there will be shortages of supply which causes waiting periods to receive services. That is the case in Canada, and pretty much every where else that offers free health care. It's the profit that brings in new suppliers, which ultimately lowers profits and balances supply and demand. In a system with regulated profit, the industry won't attract enough qualified people to meet the demand. Now the government may recruit marginally qualified people to take those open jobs, but then quality suffers. We have the best health care system in the world. Our problem is that a portion of our citizens can't afford treatment because they can't afford insurance. I question whether it's worth dismantling our system in order to cover everyone. I think there must be a better way to approach it, because basic economics tells you what will happen under universal health care.
Finally, it does not matter what the rest of the industrialized world does, or doesn't do. Comparing us to them, is like comparing apples and oranges. Every other industrialized nation has a different form of government than we do, and most, if not all, lean toward socialism instead of individual liberty. Trying to justify what you want here based on those other counties is absurd.