Aight, healthcare for everyone (even if it is not equitable, and doesn’t cover a bunch of stuff) can be your definition.

TL;DR for you: Medicare isn’t nearly as good as it should and can be, and it’s kinda sad people call it a “universal healthcare” system.

Also no one forced you to reply. Am I supposed to feel bad for writing out my reasoning in a medium length comment? Just seems like you want to say someone is wrong without actually justifying your position.

Healthcare is whatever medical professionals deem medically necessary, that’s where I would draw the line.

I’m no doctor, but dentistry and optometry is most certainly medically necessary (at least, this is my understanding of what medical professionals say!), and those are largely NOT covered under Medicare.

“Universal” is a superlative. It makes sense that it should mean everything, yes.

Universal is a synonym of all. I’m dying on this hill.

Even if people think it’s just it ‘covers’ everyone, how much it covers is relevant. My hyperbolic example is that just because it covers everyone doesn’t mean we should call it universal if it doesn’t cover everything (or extremely little in the case of the US). I’m saying, if we want to call it universal, it should actually cover you for everything you might actually need for your healthcare.

That is objectively not the case. Medicare does not cover you for a bunch of things, and as discussed in a previous comment, makes you wait months and months for medically necessary but you-won’t-die-today surgery, when we have more than enough wealth in this country to pay for it all.

Universal healthcare should cover all medically necessary healthcare in a timely fashion, private health should receive no subsidy, and you should be ineligible for public healthcare when on private, to make it compete (it won’t, it’ll immediately be a bad deal, which it is).

This isn’t pie-in-the-sky requests, it’s possible, it would just hurt the profits of private insurance companies, and private clinic owners who charge way above the rebate and make you pay out of pocket costs. We can and absolutely should create a fully public system, where people are employees of the health service.

Just pay medical staff properly so we don’t lose anyone to overseas, and let’s make it universal.

Medicare isn’t that good, is the point I was trying to originally make.

Rant over 😅

We shall have to agree to disagree then. Calling a healthcare system that doesn’t cover all available healthcare universal just doesn’t make sense.

I can accept that’s what people call it, but that’s about it.

I think they’re wrong.

By this logic the USA has universal healthcare, because a hospital must treat you for emergency, life-saving care, even if you’re unable to pay.

So, the definition is absurd if it’s just that a system covers everyone.

Universal healthcare means it covers all healthcare. If you’re needing pay pay out of pocket to private providers, and it doesn’t even cover a bunch of things, I refuse to call that universal - and so should you.

Universal means nothing, otherwise.

Medicare defenders really need to dream bigger, damn.

Yes, but the first one is not true.

Tired of calling what countries like Australia and Germany have as “universal healthcare”.

It isn’t. Simply isn’t.

In the case of Australia most familiar with. It’s a weird mix of public and private, with most medical costs covered under a private subsidy model, where your health service can change whatever, and you have to pay the gap between the Medicare rebate and what the services charges.

Doesn’t cover dental, has a small rebate for physio and other allied health (again, private providers, public rebate) and covers a basic check up for eyes every 3 years only, but doesn’t cover most optical.

The hospital system is also an absolute mess of a two-tiered system I won’t get into here.

It’s not fucking universal and I’m sick of people pretending like it is. It’s just kilometres better than the USA, which is the lowest bar ever.