On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 07:14:16 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

Before you jump, understand this: Universal health care is something I
support.
It's one of the few liberal leanings that I have. But, here's one problem
as I see it:

Regardless of how fair and standardized health care becomes, there will
always be
more expensive doctors and optional treatments/services for those who can
afford to pay for them.

It's actually going to be even more complicated than that. Every
country that I'm aware of with universal coverage has some sort of
implicit or explicit rationing of care, i.e., if you don't have a
condition that is immediately life threatening, you go on a waiting
list which can stretch out for months or even years.

Should an individual who can afford to pay be allowed to seek out a
doctor or hospital that can provide the care immediately?

I argue yes, otherwise the whole plan reeks of socialism.