Japan isn't alone in having a problem with rural depopulation. Much of Europe as well. These cheap houses are not always going to be move-in ready, and there may be limitations on foreign ownership. So due diligence is in order.
Most jobs are in the city, as are schools and interesting places. Village life isn't for everyone.
I'm considering those all the time when I drive by them, but the price likely isn't low enough to get me to live there, away from everything I enjoy.
Starlink should help in this regard. You don't really have good alternatives to landline broadband today in the US generally.
Setting up a wireless ISP (posted quite often on HN) might be another solution. But, if it works for you, it's probably not worth the investment.
If I were going to be living there full-time, better Internet is something I would probably have to look into. My brother did look into options (as have others along the same road) and he concluded that a hot-spot with limited data now with hopefully Starlink in the future made the most sense.
For occasional use, limited Internet is fine. I don't depend on streaming for myself and I don't expect to work from there to any major degree. (And can always go into the town library or wherever.)
Where are you now?
Everyone has their anecdotes. The data is clear Americans pay orders of magnitude more worse care and outcomes than other OECD countries.
My worst experience with US healthcare has been with billing of anesthesiologists.
They are out of network usually, you can't find out ahead of time, and they charge a thousand dollars per hour
If the response is, “Get a better insurance company.” I agree! Hence seeking EU citizenship.
To your point, one should not have to optimize to be judgment proof in order to exist in their country, and that’s why (at least for myself) I’m optimizing to get out. There are so many other welcoming countries to expats, there’s no reason to stay if you have means and a network of colleagues that can ensure you can work remotely in perpetuity.
One of the issue is that a most of the healthcare issues that young, healthy people run into are surprisingly cheap. But the big costs come from chronic and elderly care. Who are the people who can't afford it. So it always seems like young, healthy people can get a better deal, but then who will pay for them when they're old?
You didn't tell us where in the EU, so why does it suddenly matter where in the US?
Because of the laws surrounding ER care [0] and the fact that most hospitals with ERs are Trauma I & last resort, almost all operate in triage all the time.
The end result is that if you're not critical, you get care once they have enough time. And they never have enough time. Because they never have enough people.
Recommendations: only consider ERs in wealthy suburbs (where they'll be less overloaded with last-resort patients), go to an urgent care center (and expect to be screwed on price), or a walk-in doctor's office (best option).
[0] EMTALA, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_...
Welcome to what thinks they are a developed country.
On my own accord I went to a cardiologist who immediately did an echo and found a very serious problem.
Maybe places in the EU don't have great healthcare, but that's not much different than the US except that in the US you can still go bankrupt paying for bad healthcare, even if you have insurance.
In rural Italy ? You are deluding yourself ... Expect to go private for a lot of stuff that isn't life threatening (source: we have a growing medical tourism sector in Croatia that caters in large part to Italy, especially for dental and physical rehab)
But even with the modest drops, rental prices in such cities are still waaaaaay above anywhere else, and the prices are already on the rise again.
Apart from that I have no clue what you're referring to.