Assuming it's not high income but a real scrounger, this is leaving out way too much. Out of pocket health insurance will easily quadruple that number. Utilities could too, depending.
For the other 20 percent, it’s best to go to a private clinic, where the care is as good if not better than many US clinics but at 10-20 percent of the cost.
And the private clinics are not subsidized.
My wife just got an MRI at a private, fully for profit imaging clinic. The total cost was $217 USD for a study with and without contrast on a 2023 Siemens scanner. Labs for the contrast approval were $6.
What people pay in the USA is in no way justified by equipment or facility costs. Runaway liability and profiteering, perhaps. But not because of the “quality” of the healthcare or the equipment.
But I don't really buy the argument that healthcare quality is the same elsewhere. Like, do you really think you're going to get the same care for, say, long term multiple sclerosis in the United States versus Guatemala? I feel a lot of the "the care is the same" comes from younger people who have had relatively easy interactions with the healthcare system. When you're over 70 it's a totally different ball game.
You have two elements in healthcare , for the most part: expertise, starting with basic medical education, then gained by reading and being exposed to patients, going to conferences and other experiential factors. People are ill, injured, or old everywhere, so this opportunity is well distributed.
Apart from that, you have technology, and people with money pay to have access to it, and people with money are also everywhere, so that too tends to be distributed.
There are also a lot more doctors per person in many developing nations, because education of doctors tends to be highly subsidized in those countries. You get a lot more of a doctors time and focused attention with your consult.
It’s when things are rare that it can be harder, but even then, sometimes the leading specialists start out off the beaten path.