The four health care outcomes

From what I understand, there are four ways we can model the health care system in the U.S. Each of these have their advantages and disadvantages:

1. Socialized medicine. This system is used in many other industrialized countries, such as Canada, South Korea, and many European countries. The positives are that health care costs are contained and everyone is covered. The negatives are that health insurance industry is effectively nationalized, most people don't receive the level of care that they're willing to pay for (both rich and poor), and patients are no longer customers -- they are recipients of a public good.
   
   
2. The current system (under the Affordable Health Care Act). Everyone must have health insurance, hospitals are required to treat everyone, and health insurance companies must provide a minimum standard of coverage. The positives are that everyone pays into a system from which everyone can benefits (a correction of a problem in #3) and people can get the coverage they want (with a certain minimum). The negatives are that premiums can be too expensive for the poorest parts of society and there have been uneven transition costs, especially for rural areas.
   
   
3. The old system. Health insurance was optional (and often employer-based), but hospitals were required to treat everyone. This led to an unsustainable, "eroding river bank" problem, where fewer and fewer people had health insurance, all while it became more and more expensive. The positive aspects were that young and healthy people could save money by not having coverage, and the poorest elements of society could still be seen in an emergency room.
   
   
4. Dying on the streets. This was how it worked prior to the Reagan-era 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. [Source] Only the people who were willing and able to pay for health insurance received its benefits (at least until they qualified for Medicare), so it was financially sustainable -- the people who paid into the system were the ones who received its benefits. However, it led to some undignified actions. Hospitals would discharge sick patients who didn't have insurance or dump them on other institutions, where they were twice as likely to die.

I've seen how the first three work. As a military service member (and a former resident of South Korea), I've spent the past 15 years living in that kind of system, so I'm OK with it. However, for the U.S. to adopt it universally would require Americans to have a different mindset than they're used to.

The rich would have to come to terms with the fact they will not get the best treatment their money can buy. The middle class would have to accept that they will have to wait in line for services they once could get immediately. Are they willing to do that in order to benefit the poor?

In my opinion, the change in thinking would be the hardest to overcome.