Housing and health care are both superior goods. What this means is that as people become wealthier they want to consume more superior goods. Inferior goods are items which are consumed less when people become wealthier, say for instance, Raman Noodles or Kraft Dinner. There probably aren't many billionaires around who have a hankering for a nice plate of gooey "cheesy" Kraft Macaroni and Cheese.
Our health care is some of the most expensive in the world because we, as a society, are pretty damn rich, and we spend money to buy ever better quality of care. Our home sizes are larger now than they used to be in the past and the quality of fixtures in our homes (granite countertops in mid-range homes) are also better because we are richer today than our parents and grandparents were back in the day and the homes are larger than those in other countries because we have more money to spend on housing than citizens of other countries.
It could save us money by implementing rationing. That's how it works. If we implemented Canada's standards on the use of MRI machines, we'd have to get rid of something on the order of 8,400 of our 10,000+ machines in order to match Canada's per capita level of MRI machines. Sending fewer people for diagnostic testing will cut our expenses on MRI screening, so too will rationing the care such that every machine is utilized to full capacity, which means more people having to go for a screening at 11:30 at night after waiting 4 months for an appointment.People object to universal health care for philosophical reasons. It could have the potential to actually save us money.
These are the trade-offs - if you like getting your MRI test done with a day or two so that your physician can act on that information in a timely manner then you have to pay for that convenience and if you don't mind a physician declaring that your symptoms don't meet the new conditions that are imposed to limit MRI screenings, then you'll save money.
Explain how this system of universal healthcare will be paid for, who get's the services (because there will always be limited resources) and where will be the economic incentives for reduction of cost and improvement of health care?
If you believe in "universal anything" you obviously don't understand economics.
Excellent now as an individual you can determine for yourself whether the cost of insurance outweighs the increased probability of death. BTW everyone is 100% likely to die just depends when and how.