[_zg4q]

"Universal Healthcare" is generally pretty terrible. I'm not saying the US system is perfect, it has plenty of flaws but at least you can't be banned from getting services you want [0]. Plus government is already subsidizing the cost of the vaccine, and creating a program for elderly and low income people to get the vaccine for fairly cheap [1].

[0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/17/nhs-provokes-fur...

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/katiejennings/2020/11/17/how-mu...

[DanBC]

Can you explain to me what you think is happening in your Telegraph link?

In particular, why you think this is "the NHS", and not some specific services in one part of the country, and also why these patients can't make use of private healthcare instead.

[_zg4q]

> Can you explain to me what you think is happening in your Telegraph link?

Smokers and obese people are being prevented from receiving surgeries that are not deemed "essential" unless they stop smoking for 8 weeks or loose weight, respectively.

> In particular, why you think this is "the NHS" and not some specific services in one part of the country

Maybe this question isn't to be taken literally, but multiple articles' titles with some variation of "NHS bans some obese and smokers from surgery 'indefinitely'"

> and also why these patients can't make use of private healthcare instead.

As of 2015, only 10.5% of population was using private insurance [0]. We could assume roughly 89.5% of population is covered by the NHS since it's given by default. If you cannot afford private insurance, you will only have NHS.

In my opinion, I believe having a public option will slowly eliminate private insurance or at least reduce the types of services available. Additionally I think it's dangerous for the government to set that sort of precedent.

[0] https://www.commonwealthfund.org/international-health-policy...