[wat0n]

Because treating medical care as a commodity is inherently set up to exclude people from accessing necessary medical care, which then results in people dying of easily treatable diseases and injuries.

What would happen if everyone refused to contribute, expecting everyone else to foot the bill?

Not only that, preventing infectious people from getting treatment is a medical risk for the entire community.

You can make an exception for contagious diseases.

[Pants-of-dog]

What would happen if everyone refused to contribute, expecting everyone else to foot the bill?

Market failure.

Gee, that happens a lot when you treat medical care as a commodity.

You can make an exception for contagious diseases.

In single payer systems, there is no need.

[wat0n]

Market failure.

Gee, that happens a lot when you treat medical care as a commodity.

What would happen if they also refused to be taxed for providing a NHS-like system? If they don't want to contribute to fund their own healthcare, it is reasonable to believe they refuse to be taxed to do the same.

In single payer systems, there is no need.

But you do have all sorts of other problems that are much harder to address than introducing exceptions.

[Pants-of-dog]

What would happen if they also refused to be taxed for providing a NHS-like system? If they don't want to contribute to fund their own healthcare, it is reasonable to believe they refuse to be taxed to do the same.

It still does not matter.

People who do not pay their taxes can still access medical care in a single payer system.

If everyone refused to pay taxes, Alberta would have much bigger problems than funding healthcare.

But you do have all sorts of other problems that are much harder to address than introducing exceptions.

No, not really.

[wat0n]

It still does not matter.

People who do not pay their taxes can still access medical care in a single payer system.

If everyone refused to pay taxes, Alberta would have much bigger problems than funding healthcare.

Then why wouldn't insurance made compulsory again? If Alberta or some other government can force everyone to pay taxes, then it can force everyone to take insurance amounting to a fixed percentage of income (subsidizing the rest for low earners).

No, not really.

That's not what research says.

[Pants-of-dog]

Then why wouldn't insurance made compulsory again? If Alberta or some other government can force everyone to pay taxes, then it can force everyone to take insurance amounting to a fixed percentage of income (subsidizing the rest for low earners).

Alberta does not need to.

Single payer system, remember?

That's not what research says.

Quote the research then.

[wat0n]

Alberta does not need to.

Single payer system, remember?

It needs to force people to pay taxes. What makes you think that taxes used for funding Alberta's healthcare insurance can't be renamed as "health insurance contribution"?

Quote the research then.

I already did.

Can you post yours at last?

[Skynet]

The USA spends more of its GDP % on healthcare then Germany, and Germany has healthcare for all.

Germany is spending about 12.8 %

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistic ... 11.1%20%25).


The USA nearly 20% (17.3%)

https://www.cms.gov/data-research/stati ... %20percent.

[Pants-of-dog]

It needs to force people to pay taxes. What makes you think that taxes used for funding Alberta's healthcare insurance can't be renamed as "health insurance contribution"?

Because funding healthcare is not just from a single fund raised by specific earmarked taxes.

I already did.

No, you did not.

[wat0n]

Because funding healthcare is not just from a single fund raised by specific earmarked taxes.

So?

Albertans can demand to pay less taxes.

No, you did not.

Provided you with a healthcare services index. You have provided nothing.

[Unthinking Majority]

Canada has 2-tier healthcare now. The rich take their money and buy treatment in the USA. Everyone else has to wait months for cancer tests and MRI's etc in Canada. Bring a book if you head to a Canadian ER, you'll be waiting there for the entire afternoon. I can get my license renewed in 1/8 the time.

[Unthinking Majority]

Look, just nationalise the healthcare system. That will solve the problem of private companies profiteering from people’s misery. The problem with Obamacare is that it wasn’t radical enough. When it comes to public health, socialism is the only humane answer.

Universal healthcare only works when the government funds and managed is it adequately. When it doesn't wait times rise, you can't find a family doctor, you're waiting 6 months to see a psychiatrist, you can't get into see a specialist, you're sitting in the ER waiting room for 8 hours, you're waiting months for an MRI or CT scan or surgery etc, you're sleeping in a stretcher in the hallway of a hospital because they won't fund the construction of hospital expansion to provide more beds and rooms.

When the government has a monopoly on healthcare if they don't fund it then there is no other option but to literally leave the country and find help elsewhere with your own money, which isn't cheap. I live in Canada so I know what i'm talking about. Quite a few of our doctors and nurses have fled to the US over the decades for more pay. Quite a few have quit their jobs and ER's have closed across the country since COVID started because the government didn't raise their pay enough to make it worth working through those tough conditions. Many small town ER's have closed because healthcare professionals don't want to move there and they don't raise rates of pay enough in those places to convince them to do so. When the next ER is an hour's drive away people are going to die.

Note I'm not arguing the US is a good system because it's not, due to the inequality in care and costs. Universal only works when managed and funded properly. Otherwise people are suffering or dying needlessly and it becomes a human rights issue. If anyone would like evidence of my claims I can provide a vast array of new articles and medical journal sources, but Google is your friend:

https://www.cmaj.ca/content/195/24/E851

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2023/09/15/ ... surgeries/

https://london.ctvnews.ca/1-199-emergen ... -1.6674204

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal ... -1.7049741

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/it-was-th ... -1.6515414

[Potemkin]

Universal healthcare only works when the government funds and managed is it adequately. When it doesn't wait times rise, you can't find a family doctor, you're waiting 6 months to see a psychiatrist, you can't get into see a specialist, you're sitting in the ER waiting room for 8 hours, you're waiting months for an MRI or CT scan or surgery etc, you're sleeping in a stretcher in the hallway of a hospital because they won't fund the construction of hospital expansion to provide more beds and rooms.

When the government has a monopoly on healthcare if they don't fund it then there is no other option but to literally leave the country and find help elsewhere with your own money, which isn't cheap. I live in Canada so I know what i'm talking about. Quite a few of our doctors and nurses have fled to the US over the decades for more pay. Quite a few have quit their jobs and ER's have closed across the country since COVID started because the government didn't raise their pay enough to make it worth working through those tough conditions. Many small town ER's have closed because healthcare professionals don't want to move there and they don't raise rates of pay enough in those places to convince them to do so. When the next ER is an hour's drive away people are going to die.

Note I'm not arguing the US is a good system because it's not, due to the inequality in care and costs. Universal only works when managed and funded properly. Otherwise people are suffering or dying needlessly and it becomes a human rights issue. If anyone would like evidence of my claims I can provide a vast array of new articles and medical journal sources, but Google is your friend:

https://www.cmaj.ca/content/195/24/E851

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2023/09/15/ ... surgeries/

https://london.ctvnews.ca/1-199-emergen ... -1.6674204

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal ... -1.7049741

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/it-was-th ... -1.6515414

In the UK, there is both a nationalised health service and private medicine. You can beat the NHS queues and waiting lists just by paying. That option always exists. And as for a shortage of healthcare professionals in small towns, that problem exists under a private system too - the money and the high salaries are in the major cities, not the boondocks. At least the option would exist under a socialised system to artificially boost the salaries of medical staff willing to work in the boonies, coz the free market sure as fuck ain’t gonna do it. Socialising the health service doesn’t close off options, it opens them up. And, if it’s properly funded, it’s a more efficient system. How much does the USA spend on health services per capita, and how much does the UK spend? And what are the relative outcomes, for an average person?

[wat0n]

Why don't we hear about any of these problems in countries like Switzerland or the Netherlands? At least not to the same extent.

[late]

Why don't we hear about any of these problems in countries like Switzerland or the Netherlands? At least not to the same extent.

People are valued there.

[wat0n]

People are valued there.

But not in Canada or the UK?

Could it be that, maybe, their healthcare systems are designed to be more efficient?

[late]

But not in Canada or the UK?

Could it be that, maybe, their healthcare systems are designed to be more efficient?

That's a bad question. Time to lose the goofy perspective, and wade into it..

Canada has a provincial system, the poorer provinces lose out. Britain has similar stats to us, but spend half the money. Unfortunately, the Brits are almost as good at screwing up as we are, and are busy screwing up their health care.

I think there are 4 types of health care systems, most countries have 1 or 2, we have all 4. It's nightmarishly inefficient.

[wat0n]

That's a bad question. Time to lose the goofy perspective, and wade into it..

Canada has a provincial system, the poorer provinces lose out. Britain has similar stats to us, but spend half the money. Unfortunately, the Brits are almost as good at screwing up as we are, and are busy screwing up their health care.

I think there are 4 types of health care systems, most countries have 1 or 2, we have all 4. It's nightmarishly inefficient.

It is extremely inefficient indeed, but both Canada and the UK are also facing high wait times (American wait times aren't even low, at all, by the way). Yet Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands are doing a lot better.

The US has the worst of both worlds, but it seems the best systems aren't like the NHS. The best systems are more like Germany's or Switzerland's.

[late]

It is extremely inefficient indeed, but both Canada and the UK are also facing high wait times (American wait times aren't even low, at all, by the way). Yet Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands are doing a lot better.

The US has the worst of both worlds, but it seems the best systems aren't like the NHS. The best systems are more like Germany's or Switzerland's.

There is no best. You build what suits your needs and resources.

According to health care system experts, the old Clinton plan was quite good.

[wat0n]

Given how high the spending is in the US, it seems like cost control measures are essential in any reform.

Clinton's 1993 plan was very similar to what Germany, the Netherlands or Switzerland do.