If your last statement is your philosophy on this issue, we want the same things. I just put conditions in to prevent abuse and include the ability of the system to enforce preventative care.

I wish I could embrace pure libertarianism where we all just get to do whatever we want but I know that there are undesirable aspects to human nature that not all people can control, the primary one being greed. That trait above all creates most of the political and societal problems we face today and any country that wants to evolve must confront it and continually fight its growth.

An unbridled universal health care system does not take that into account. Most people will self-regulate and can be treated equally under its guidelines but there will always be the people that will take advantage of the charity of society and turn the system into their personal bail-out trough. They'll pump out child after unwanted child knowing that they can unleash their little bundles of cells upon their neighbors free of charge. In a system where keeping costs down benefits all recipients, incentives to slow down or stop these prolific breeders make perfect sense.

When users of the system continually show up at the clinics for treatment of ailments caused by their intake of meth, simply treating the immediate problem and not forcing this individual to stop their addiction almost encourages the abuse.

There will be disparity of care in any system even if rules are in place to prevent it. If a patient comes in to a doctor and has the education to speak clearly and concisely, interacts well socially, and has a good knowledge of their bodies and science, they're going to be treated more fully and with more respect than some illiterate nobody coming in off the street for a rash caused by bad hygiene. It's human nature.

I don't have all the answers but I think it's worth a try.

Art