And my dad and grandfather both worked into their 70s.
Healthcare literally has no effect on the decision to decide to work or not.
It means if you need treatment, you get it, and you don’t worry about losing your house because of a bolt of lightning.
I, for one, would stop working sooner if I didn’t have to worry about healthcare. I’m healthy, can work, have some investments, but would seriously consider not working.
With healthcare costs, I estimate I need to work another 5-10 years. If I didn’t have healthcare costs I could stop working right now. I essentially would be transferring my costs of my healthcare to the collective.
Of course they should be able to.
That’s what public health care means.
I didn’t say anything about it reducing demand, I said people who could be treated may wind up long term sick or permanently disabled due to lack of treatment.
Hell, it could have happened to me a few years ago- I got surgery, because I live in the UK so I could see a specialist and get an MRI for free, despite having just lost my job due to what, at the time, was thought to be an annoying but not serious issue.
It wouldn’t have killed me if it wasn’t treated, but it could very well have left me paraplegic, and while that wouldn’t necessarily made me unemployable, it damn sure would have made it harder, and I wouldn’t have been able to do any of the jobs I’ve had since.
I don’t need to ‘spin’ universal health care to make it sound good, I have it.
There’s also no reason why universal health care would reduce access in remote areas- that’s a matter for how things are funded and might even go the other way, like universal postal cover, depending on how it’s managed.
I’d suspect a bigger cost difference is duplication; here, a big city may have many small hospitals and a few larger ones, but they’ll likely only have one specialist unit for many things- one heart unit, one neurosurgery unit- scaled up appropriately, which all the hospitals refer patients to. No need to keep multiple competing sets of staff and equipment going to try and be all things to everyone, or risk losing patients to bigger places. Likewise there’s one patient info database; I get a blood test while I’m sick on holiday at the other end of the country and my GP can access that when I get home. No need to repeat it.
Then I don’t understand what you mean when you say “As long as a young person doesn’t do drugs, drink, steal, or panhandle, but can make a go of a scanty work lifestyle by choice, why is that terrible? Let them loaf, or goof off, or live off the land”
If they DO abuse alcohol or drugs, or if they panhandle, then we shouldn’t let them loaf, or goof off, or live off the land?
That number itself isn’t so interesting due to demographic differences. I’m not going to go fishing worldbank for the “core age” numbers. But both Norway and Sweden have a higher percentage of their population above age 65, so that makes your point even stronger.
I suspect child care may a factor.
If people CAN and WANT TO live without working, then let them live without working. If they can live without drugs, drink, or panhandling without working, let them do so. Do not deny them health care.
Addictions and panhandling have their own penalties, either in health, legal, or relationship problems, or
in the case of panhandling, simple degradation of spirit. You can’t tell me anyone finds panhandling a satisfying living.
But do not deny health care to these people either.
I guess what I’m saying is deny health care to no one. If we have money for killer drones and spaceships, we can have money for health care for all.
I’m cool with that.
You live in Alberta with no provincial tax I believe. I fill out Quebec, Canadian, and US income tax every year and the first two always exceed the third. Usually either of the first two, but certainly the first, exceeds the third. I know that 47% of the Quebec budget goes toward medicare.
As for OP, sure it leads to unemployment. Medical coders (both the hospital teams and the insurance company teams–I use the word team on purpose since they are two sides of a competition) would become instantly unemployed and unemployed. Likewise most insurance company drones–a few would get jobs with the government. Any unemployment caused by people gaming the system would get lost in the noise.
It’s not really much of a debate, is it? Countries with UHC don’t have noticeably higher unemployment rates than the US. Some have higher rates and some have lower, just like some states in the US have higher or lower rather than the national average, all for reasons that are nothing to do with UHC.
Is that actually true, the bolded part? In the UK at least your doctor would not be very happy if you went there just for a cold unless it had been going on for much longer than usual so could be a sign of underlying issues. Flu and infections should be treated as a public health issue because they can be so dangerous to some people if passed on (though if it really is obviously a minor infection then people do tend not to go to the doctor), and broken toes seem to be treated far less invasively in the UK than in the US, where doctors seem to want to earn their money so will refer on for unnecessary extra x-rays and casts whereas here it’s more likely to be x-rayed to check it really is just a broken toe and then strapped up and the patient loaned a reusable crutch or possibly a boot.
Just because you can go to the doctor doesn’t mean you will. It still requires time out of your day and time spent talking about your health. Countries with UHC still have problems with people being too embarrassed to get gynae problems checked out, for example, because cost is not the only factor.
The people who are making vast profits from our current private health care system have good reason to point out the possible flaws with a public system.
The United States would have a major advantage in setting up a public health care system because we’d be one of the last countries to do it. So we wouldn’t have to invent a system. We can just look around at the systems that are already up and running in dozens of other countries and copy the things they’re doing that are working.
Northern Piper can of course speak for himself, but since I’m here ATM let me respond to multiple errors in that claim.
He lives in Saskatchewan, I believe, not Alberta. But it doesn’t matter, because every single province and territory in Canada has an income tax, which just happens to be collected by the federal government and rebated to the provinces. The exception is Quebec, which collects its own, because … reasons. See some of the later posts in this thread for some of those reasons. I believe your confusion arises from the fact that Alberta did not – and still does not – have a provincial sales tax.
Your perception that Canadian taxes are high is probably coloured by your payment of Quebec taxes, which are by a wide margin the highest anywhere in Canada. Mainly because so many major businesses fled Quebec during the period of increasing anti-anglophone agitation and then oppressive “language laws” that the Quebec economy has been shaky ever since.
That depends on how many voters you have who think like this.
Objectively and rationally, you’re right. The most recently established health care systems have tended to be, in my view at least, among the most efficient. But objectivity and rationality tend to be distant cousins to contemporary US politics.
But are you comparing like vs like or total vs federal? Because if it’s the second, Mr. Mathematician, please consider yourself hit with an arithmetic book (I’ll be nice and make it softcover).
Don’t you think that is literally an exaggeration?
Not in the Canadian context, no. Our health care doesn’t depend on any way on whether we’re working or not.
I’ve seen people retire while they were in good health because they wanted to do something more fun (travel, be with grandkids, community work, etc. ). I’ve also seen people retire because their health was giving out.
But I never saw someone continue working because they needed to be eligible for health care, and I’ve never heard anyone say “I’ll retire now because I’ve
Got enough money to pay for my health care for the rest of my life.”
The availablility of good health care isn’t a factor, any more than air to breathe. We take both as a given.
You’ve just explained how having government-provided healthcare should decrease workforce participation.
Again, that doesn’t make it a bad thing
I’d say almost certainly national health care increases the unemployment of the sick and elderly. Similarly, child labor laws caused the child unemployment rate to skyrocket. The 40-hour workweek caused weekend employment hours to plummet.
Metrics without context don’t tell us anything. Value judgments are everything for social issues.
Apart from the moral issue of not making people work when they’re sick or old… do you really want to be served by people who don’t give two shits about their job other than the health insurance?
I could even be convinced that people have to have a job, to be working in some capacity, to pay insurance premiums. But to have it tied to a specific employer, and to a specific level of income, is just ridiculous. Company-paid insurance is already socialism. Since we’ve already agreed we like that, let’s just have one payer with reliable continuous service.
But it can work the other way too. Somebody could have a health issue before the normal retirement date and yet the health care system keeps them going just fine, past their natural “Best before” date, so they keep working.
So overall, I’d say it’s a likely a wash.