Universal health care does not necessarily mean universal spectacles

Seeing as how health care seems to be a very relevant issue for the presidential primaries (and the upcoming election), I thought I'd write a quick little blog entry concerning what I know about universal health care.

Granted, my knowledge is quite limited, and based entirely off 7 months in England, and what my fiance and his family tell me about universal health care in their country. I was talking with Andy--my fiance--about an eye doctor appointment I went to. He was surprised to hear that I go every year, and I was equally surprised to learn that he hasn't been to an eye doctor in years. My response was, "Why not? You have universal health care." Logical, no?

Apparently, even with universal health care, English citizens have to pay for eye care because it is not covered. Appointments must be paid for, as well as any glasses that the patient needs. And for that reason, Andy hasn't been to an eye doctor in years, even though he suspects he needs some form of glasses--and wears none.

I am not taking any stance on health care here, universal or otherwise. I am merely providing an example from a country that functions under universal health care, because this seems to be something that Democrats are pushing for. If universal health care is something this country wants, then we should be prepared to ask questions, because universal does not necessarily mean that everything is covered... nor does it mean that everything is easy. Doctor appointments (I believe, specifically, dentists) in England need to be booked far in advance because of the large volumes of people eager to get their teeth cleaned.

If anyone knows more about this issue, or has examples from other countries, I'd love to hear them, because this is an issue that I am still learning about.