American healthcare is a joke. Healthcare should be fundamental human right and free for everyone. Nobody should be paying for healthcare in a civilizied society.
Free? How?. Do you want doctors to work for free, as slaves? Or with "free" do you mean charging others for it, no matter if they agree or not?
In most European countries, Healthcare is viewed as an essential public service, alongside the police and fire brigade, coastguard and military, etc..
All these are paid for through taxes, not at point of use.
Do you think you should have to pay for police services? How about fire services?
The US does this in some areas since not all common public service are nationalized, particularly with fire-fighting service. In some areas, people effectively pay a kind of "fire insurance," and if you pay, firefighters will fight fires threatening your house. If you don't, they might bring a truck to sit around and make sure it doesn't spread to fine, paying customers. You could pay for "fire insurance" or pay at point of use. Some states will reimburse local property taxes for the poor (or those who otherwise have little to no state income tax liability) which usually pay for these kinds of services, but many don't, and in cases where they don't, these are non-progressive fees, which are pretty unusual in the US.
Anyway -- since none of this is nationalized and the US has very rich and very poor communities which rarely integrate too much, you will find lesser public service in rural, and especially poor areas. I'm assuming this is relevant to point out since I'm thinking you say taxes and mean them to be what're effectively progressive annual fees, so the poor can expect a certain standard of public service. It's very nuanced in the US, varying state by state and town by town (and county by county, too, if the town isn't independent -- and some towns will form financial agreements with each other, so maybe two or a few towns will come together to fund a public school system which serves all of their towns), but the US does federally fund a small portion of most local public services, and many states try to enforce minimum standards of funding regardless of local wealth, too... but no local government could operate any kind of fire or police force, or have any kind of meaningful education system on federal or even state dollars alone, so it does still largely come down to whether or not the people of a town are poor or wealthy with regards to the quality of their public services; very, very few public services in the US are particularly "progressive."
ETA: As an aside - everything looks more unified and federalized than it really is because federal and state block grant systems are functionally like systemic government-to-government blackmail. They hold funds hostage until community services do this, this, and that -- and the federal government will hold funds hostage from states until they do this, this, and that. Nobody wants to lose the money, of course, even if it doesn't make up the bulk of revenues, so they go along with it.