I don't follow. "The minimum insurance that they get is inadequate to my needs" seems like a poor argument when the alternative is "absolutely nothing, which is inadequate for everyone". In the US, instead of wait times, we have people who just go without entirely. I know if I was unemployed, I'd much prefer an 18 week wait time to a "no".
And for anyone privileged to be able to afford good insurance in the US, you can presumably pay for better private insurance/service in Europe, right?
If you don't mind long waits, then a UK style system may be a good option for you.
Places like Germany have taken a very different approach. Govt stays out of delivery of care entirely, but everyone has coverage basically (80% public/20% private maybe).
Public care is pretty good with low waits. But govt not delivering it.
And for anyone privileged to be able to afford good insurance in the US, you can presumably pay for better private insurance/service in Europe, right?