One of the loudest complaints I hear in the United States about universal healthcare is the wait times. People imagine this bleak picture: no matter how serious your condition is, you’re just stuck in line because someone else got there first.

That’s not how it works.

Like in the U.S., patients are triaged. The person with the heart attack is not waiting behind the person with a sprained ankle. The priority always goes to those most in need.

So what part of the wait-time complaint is true? If you need a specialized, involved procedure and there are lots of other people who need the same thing—yes, you wait. But that’s true everywhere. Even in the U.S. If a surgeon has five scheduled knee replacements, you can’t skip the list.

Here’s the key difference:

• In universal health systems, you’re on the list no matter your income.
• In the U.S., if you can’t afford it or are uninsured, you’re not even on the list. There’s no waiting because you’ve already been excluded.

Think about that.

If your complaint is that universal healthcare makes you wait, then what you’re really saying is: people with fewer resources should be pushed to the back, or cut out entirely, so you can move forward. You may not have thought about it that way, but that’s the underlying logic.

Universal healthcare means everyone is treated, not just those who can pay. Waiting isn’t a failure of the system—it’s a reflection of fairness. It means your neighbor with less money has just as much right to healing as you do.

And honestly, what does it say about us if we think that’s a problem?