You seem to be pointing to problems with universal healthcare as though we are arguing about its merits.

I wasn't (although I do believe it is a far better system than my understanding of the the US' user-pays model). I was simply pointing out that universal healthcare is commonly supplemented by a user-pays model.

Your comment seems unduly heated.

ELI5 requests simple explanations but that doesn't mean the answers should be outright wrong like this comment you made:

>Everywhere else - the government is the ONLY provider of healthcare, and it covers EVERYONE.

It’s not that simple.

In Australia, for example, there are many private providers but we have a system called Medicare under which those private providers service the general public at agreed rates that will be paid by the government.

The private providers can also provide other services at private rates, but people have the choice whether to use “public” providers or private providers.

Universal healthcare is usually supplemented by a private health system.

If it will take too long to get the surgery you want, you have the option to pay for it with a private provider or to wait for a public provider to do it for free.

Australia also called them pickles.

>Now applied to our roulette scenario (a) would be betting multiple numbers on the table and (b) would be betting only one number at the time. So, it really doesn't matter how you approach that.

This isn't a sound analogy.

10 dice can (and probably will) return 6 different results).

One spin of the roulette wheel cannot return 6 different results.

You're probably right that betting multiple numbers doesn't change the odds (I haven't checked), but it's not for the reason you've expressed here.

Edit: I think I see what you mean. You are suggesting that placing a bet is like rolling a dice (not that spinning the wheel is like rolling a dice). In that context yes the analogy works.