@
wardyb1 Did you read the source before you posted it? I think the Canadian system is a very good example of why government run or heavily subsidised systems fail. The following quotes are from the conclusion of the Canadian section:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3633404/
Goran Ridic, Suzanne Gleason, and Ognjen Ridic, Comparisons of Health Care Systems in the United States, Germany and Canada wrote:
Several lessons can be learned from the Canadian experience. When government provides a product “free” to consumers, inevitably demand escalates and spending increases. Products provided at zero price are treated as if they have zero resource cost. Resource allocation decisions become more inefficient over time and government is forced either to raise more revenue or curb services. A number of the provincial health plans are moving to reduce spending by dropping services from the approved list of the “medically necessary”. A second lesson from the Canadian experience is that everything has a cost. When care requires major diagnostic or surgical procedures, the “free” system must find some other mechanism to allocate scarce resources. The Canadian system delegates this authority to the government. Resource allocation is practiced, not through the price mechanism, but by setting limits on the investment in medical technology. Proponents will argue that using waiting lists as a rationing measure is reasonable and fair. Opponents find the lists unacceptable and an unwelcome encroachment on individual decision-making in the medical sector. Proponents of the single payer alternative must deal with the fact that Canadians face waiting lists for some medical services especially for high – tech specialty care. To avoid delays in treatment, many Canadians travel south to the United States for more advanced treatment. (emphasis added)
The source states the system becomes less efficient over time.
It drops services. This is similar to UK where you can't get certain procedures. For instance I probably can't get surgery on my rotator cuff (although I'm going to ask soon) since it's only affect is that I am less competitive playing cricket and over sports with overhead action.
The Canadian system does not lend itself to pioneering and development of new products.
The above are all classic features of government price controls.
Goran Ridic, Suzanne Gleason, and Ognjen Ridic, Comparisons of Health Care Systems in the United States, Germany and Canada wrote:
Critics of the Canadian system must deal with the fact that most Canadians support their version of Medicare. The single most important defense of medical care delivery in Canada is that it works relatively well. Regardless of the problems faced by the system, critics must face the reality that the medical care system provides its residents with access to all “medically necessary hospital and physician services” at a fraction of the per capita cost of the U.S system.
They are happy with their mediocre healthcare system. They spend less on healthcare. The first quote tells us that if the Canadian system were to provide the same services as those in the US (which is by no means perfect) they would be less efficient.
I don't know why you are pretending the other source (
https://www.thebalance.com/universal-he ... re-4156211)is a serious piece of work.
wardyb1 wrote:It [socialised healthcare] is most definitely cheaper both as a percentage of GDP and per capita.
This is a huge category error. The Canadian system is not providing the same level of healthcare that the US is, so you can't compare the total % of GDP or cost per person between the two systems. It's like saying that I can run 100 metres faster than Usain Bolt can run 200 metres. It's not comparing like for like.
wardyb1 wrote:You say you believe in other measures that would solve this [people being left behind], if so name them.
It’s called charity and the social safety net.
wardyb1 wrote:If the free market in regards to healthcare and education is the solution then explain how it works.
The free market incentivizes efficient, value for money services via the profit incentive. Those that can’t offer that kind of service go broke.
wardyb1 wrote: You act as if the market will drive prices to 0. Because for most poor people unless prices are 0 they will not be able to afford it. So if they can't afford it, how does it get them out of poverty. Quite clearly the best healthcare would go to those that pay the most, widening the gap between rich and poor as the poor would be in and out of care much more often. Driving the cycle further. Similiarly with education. The richest get the best education and are able to get the best jobs. Poor people either get shit education resulting in them being at the bottom of the totem pole, or they get no education because they can't afford it, so they don't even get on the totem pole.
The number of unsubstantiated assumptions in your argument is ridiculous. How do I act as is the market will drive prices to 0? You are clearly assuming something that forces you to read what I said in that way.
But they can afford flat screen tvs, air conditioning and 1 or even two cars? (based on America) Surely people “can afford” basic health care coverage, it’s a question of priorities. If they really can’t, that’s where charity and the social safety net step in.
Is government run education brilliant? Fantastic if you had a good experience with it, but I didn’t. I learnt far more in 2 years of homeschooling from age 12-13 than I did from 3 years of state school aged 14-16 (even though I was older at the state school.) In total I have learnt far more outside of school than I ever did inside of it. (except maybe how to deal with idiots and slanderers.)
You make lots of assertions. You also forget that you have to want to learn to learn stuff. I went to a school that was in the bottom 1/3rd of the bottom 1/3rd of counties in a country that is very average for education (dozens from the top but top 6 or something for GDP PPP.) The kids who were failing, apart from one or two exceptions, were failing because they didn’t try, not because the teacher was awful. Kids need parents who care enough about education to instill a good work ethic in them, teach them to think critically and to prize knowledge etc.
wardyb1 wrote: If your argument is that these people deserve to just cop this, then say it. Again, how many people live paycheck to paycheck, who possibly are already under the tax free threshold. So with the abolishment of income taxes they don't get anymore money. They now have to pay for healthcare and education which they can't afford as they have to put food on the table.
I’ve just shown why “this” is completely false. Have you read what I said? I’m not arguing for abolishment of income taxes. I think there are legitimate reasons for the government to tax people. As for not being able to afford to have food put on the table, when was the last time someone starved to death in UK, USA, Australia who was not able to get charitable help?
wardyb1 wrote: There is nothing wrong with being capitalist. Most people here are. But there is no need to praise it blindly without feeling empathy for those who it hurts the most…throwing them to the wolves and saying fend for yourself, drags us all down.
I’m glad you say that there is no need to praise capitalism blindly. I agree with you. I also think that there is no need to criticize it blindly too. Aha, the old I’m nice and you are mean argument. Nice ad hominem. I’m a bit concerned that you may be some kind of telepath; apparently you can see in my brain and tell that I don’t know the drawbacks of capitalism and that I don’t feel empathy. Thanks for informing me.
wardyb1 wrote: Nothing wrong with a social security net and some regulation here and there.
I agree with you. At least try and pretend to argue against what I have said.
wardyb1 wrote: When this happens you allow people to get better jobs, creating more wealth which is good for everyone.
How are jobs created? At least we seem to agree with the need for wealth to be created, rather than simply distributed.
wardby1 wrote: On the point of corporations are able to go bust and that public sectors can't. Do you think public sectors are going to intentionally run at a loss?
No. You aren’t addressing the point. You are asking questions that only someone with an absurd position would give a different answer to. Essentially you are fighting another straw man.
wardyb1 wrote: Most of them make money and if they aren't they are usually providing a service which is vital and that no one else would provide at an affordable price.
No. Would you like to substantiate this?
