Found this post by a 31 year old female in the United State, afterrding her short but specific rational of Universal Health care it made sense, as she says
She can go 2 ways, as a taxpayer have other pay for her needed surgery, recover and go back to work because her private insurance is to expensive OR l do hnot have the surgery, remain disbaubled and lve off th system the rst of her life

her are her exact words:

I am a 31 year old American female that has been working since I was 14 years old. I have a family and a decent job, but my insurance is astronomical in cost and doesn't' even cover everything. I am facing the possibility of having to have surgery to remove a growth deformity in the heel of my feet. If I don't have it done, I will do more damage to my tendons and ligaments and ultimately end up disabled. I want to have the surgery so that I won't have to face disability and that I will be able to work, but sadly my insurance will not cover the surgery. So here I am at 31, now facing the fact that I might have to apply for disability because insurance is outrageous.


Now tell me, and don't forget I am a taxpayer too, would you rather help pay for my insurance so that I can have surgery and go back to work, or would you rather me end up on disability, then on public assistance and food stamps for the rest of my life?
Which makes more sense?