Universal healthcare isn't a single thing though. It's easy to say we need universal healthcare, but much more difficult to define. Take Canada's version of universal healthcare. A version which caused me to leave Canada after 10 years and move back to the US[1]. In this case, the boy would most likely be forced to wait. Private care would be available, but at a much higher cost (this on top of the taxes that would need to be paid to cover the public option).
So while universal healthcare might sound great, in practice, it's not so easy.
1. Specifically, the Quebec arm, who I despise with all the hate a father who basically watched his son get abused for more than a year by a corrupt and horrid system as well as the people that make up that system. No care is better than the "care" he received.
A different perspective: my dad was diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer in 2006. Even though his prognosis was very bad, he got top notch care, got MRI/PET/CAT scans whenever they were needed, got put into an experimental chemo program, and generally received fantastic care. Although it wasn't enough, and from a financial POV was probably a Poor investment, I cannot in any way fault the care he received. There are certainly problems with the Canadian system, but every experience I've had with it (even and perhaps even especially the unsuccessful ones) has been fantastic.
But that's luck. Getting amazing care like that is a matter of circumstance in Canada. By luck I don't mean, "it's usually bad, but you got lucky", I simply mean that it all depends on where you live, what doctors happen to be kicking around, what facilities are present and if you manage to talk to the right person with the right pull at the right time.
Good health care is a scarce resource. The US has decided that it will ration it based on who can pay, Canada based on a queue. Both methods have disadvantages.
> In this case, the boy would most likely be forced to wait.
Unlikely: the reason for wait time in UHC systems is prioritization based on needs (rather than money). This child would likely be labelled as high needs (highly depressed immune system and "easy" treatment) and be at the front of the queue.
Bullshit. This is ignorance talking. In practice, it's based on legislation and man power. Even if the law mandates a time frame, it can still be ignored. This is exactly what happens in Canada.
Of course it's based on manpower, prioritization can only happen based on available resources, if there are no resources prioritization can not do anything. And it couldn't do any more if the prioritization scheme was different.
> UHC systems is prioritization based on needs (rather than money)
You seem to be confused. The reality is based on manpower, but you seem to think that manpower is the same regardless of the system used. That isn't true. Manpower is defined by funding, pure and simple. Lack of funding? Lack of manpower. This is the current problem in Canada.
So, you can prioritize treatment, but it's meaningless if you don't backup that treatment with proper funding.
Essentially, you want prioritization based on needs and manpower, but you don't discuss funding in anyway. You also ignore who sets prioritization.
Now, collecting funding is relatively easy to discuss: taxes. Of course, the flip side is paying. The government can put requirements on the cost for various services. But unless you are suggesting all doctors must accept government insurance, this doesn't affect private costs. Those costs will go up. Essentially, if you want more money, go private (again, same thing you see in Canada). This pulls workers from the public sector, and swamps the system. That's when you get 3 years waits for services, sub-standard workers, etc.
By ignoring who sets prioritization, you also skip past a sticking point. Who controls that? Government or doctors? Well, regardless of who you'd want, it's the government. After all, they are defining what they will pay for, and the costs. Even if the doctors say one thing, say something is needed, the government doesn't fund it? So sad, too bad. Your paying for something that isn't covered. And don't think for a minute it will make sense, either, what they cover. I'm not talking about rare diseases or conditions.
No. It's easy to suggest how you think things should be done, and make simple remarks like "Just base it on need." It's akin to me saying "Don't get sick." or "Save money for your health care." It's like if I say to a poor person "Get a better job."
So while universal healthcare might sound great, in practice, it's not so easy.
1. Specifically, the Quebec arm, who I despise with all the hate a father who basically watched his son get abused for more than a year by a corrupt and horrid system as well as the people that make up that system. No care is better than the "care" he received.