A recent post on the online physician discussion board Sermo (www.sermo.com)
asks:

" Is universal healthcare and universal coverage the same thing or
different? Do we bring everyone up to a better level of care by
lowering the base level of care to those presently in the system?"

The post goes on to comment:

" I am for Universal healthcare.
I am not for govt sponsored, run, and administered universal health
insurance.
There is a difference and that is where the debate belongs, and that
is where we need to move the discussion."

----------------------

Dr. Paul Hsieh, blogger and co-founder of (FIRM) Freedom and
Individual Rights in Medicine (www.WeStandFirm.org)answers this way:

" That's an excellent question.
Health care is definitely a need (just as food and clothing), but
that's not the same thing as a "right".

I would love to see everyone have enough to eat, but I would never
want to see any kind of government "universal food" program.

Furthermore, one of the big problems in today's health care debate is
the myth of conflating health *insurance* with health *care*.

The two are related, but not the same. In fact, conflating the two
can be extremely dangerous, because it leads to such bad public
policy.

Many socialized systems guarantee "coverage" but don't provide actual
care. Conversely many people have easy access to care without using
insurance per se (but instead use other financing mechanisms).

The current insurance system has been distorted through years of
government interference in the free market, and in many cases does a
grave disservice to patients and doctors alike.

This subject is covered in:

"'Health care,' more or less"
http://tinyurl.com/58rs5t

"The Difference Between 'Health Care' and 'Health Insurance'"
http://tinyurl.com/5cuqgd

For more information, please also see the article Lin Zinser and I
wrote for "The Objective Standard", which discusses this issue in
more detail:

"Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care'"
http://tinyurl.com/25zffu