- Joined
- Aug 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,651
- Reaction score
- 5
Canada's version of single payer (socialist) healthcare is good (not great) but still better than the US.
The models to aspire to are Germany, France, Britain, who provide the base line to all citizens Canada's does but also allows the free market competition and options for those who want to access it.
Why is Canada's model better than the US's?
You have to step back from this particularly discussion and understand first that our gov'ts are going to take a ton of money from us regardless. Just because the US citizens do not pay for a bloated bureaucracy delivering health care (like Canada does) does not mean the US citizens are paying less or saving money. If the gov't does not have to return some of the dollars to you that they take in the form of healthcare then they will spend it somewhere else on their special interests. So any time you can get the gov't to spend some of the taken money on you (giving it back to you in terms of service) that is a good thing.
You could argue the gov't should not do roads and highways and education and all sorts of other things as the private sector would do them better (and that is likely true) but that would not save you one penny the gov't would take from you. You would still pay the same taxes and that money would go to further bloat military, etc.
So if instead the US had a German like system which was paid for with taxpayer dollars for the single payer part that is a net benefit to all US citizens and particularly to the competitiveness of your corporations who have to a carry a much bigger burden for Health Care than competitive companies in other countries do. Getting a full German type system would not cost the US a single dollar more if dollars were simply re-allocated from the bloated military budget such that maybe the US only spends as much as the top next 5 nations combined instead of the top 8 as it now is.
So the reason the US would benefit with a universal healthcare system is that the citizens are and will continue to pay enough to cover it currently and in the future and if they do not get that money back in some sort of direct benefit the gov't will spend it on pet projects and just waste it. so quite frankly any time you can get the gov't to give you back some of your money in the term of a direct benefit to you, that otherwise reduces your costs or risks, you are better off than the opposite.
The models to aspire to are Germany, France, Britain, who provide the base line to all citizens Canada's does but also allows the free market competition and options for those who want to access it.
Why is Canada's model better than the US's?
You have to step back from this particularly discussion and understand first that our gov'ts are going to take a ton of money from us regardless. Just because the US citizens do not pay for a bloated bureaucracy delivering health care (like Canada does) does not mean the US citizens are paying less or saving money. If the gov't does not have to return some of the dollars to you that they take in the form of healthcare then they will spend it somewhere else on their special interests. So any time you can get the gov't to spend some of the taken money on you (giving it back to you in terms of service) that is a good thing.
You could argue the gov't should not do roads and highways and education and all sorts of other things as the private sector would do them better (and that is likely true) but that would not save you one penny the gov't would take from you. You would still pay the same taxes and that money would go to further bloat military, etc.
So if instead the US had a German like system which was paid for with taxpayer dollars for the single payer part that is a net benefit to all US citizens and particularly to the competitiveness of your corporations who have to a carry a much bigger burden for Health Care than competitive companies in other countries do. Getting a full German type system would not cost the US a single dollar more if dollars were simply re-allocated from the bloated military budget such that maybe the US only spends as much as the top next 5 nations combined instead of the top 8 as it now is.
So the reason the US would benefit with a universal healthcare system is that the citizens are and will continue to pay enough to cover it currently and in the future and if they do not get that money back in some sort of direct benefit the gov't will spend it on pet projects and just waste it. so quite frankly any time you can get the gov't to give you back some of your money in the term of a direct benefit to you, that otherwise reduces your costs or risks, you are better off than the opposite.