@acadian I'm okay with higher taxes for this reason. Are you? The system is far from perfect, any ideas how it could be better?

@Danny705 In Nova Scotia we pay 15% taxes on everything we buy except food and children's clothing. I think that's high enough especially when we buy a car. I'm all for higher "sin taxes" since I don't participate in any of the "sins", drinking, smoking and now toking.

As for improving the system, at the far end of NS what we need are more doctors and specialists but I think that's the case for all the rural communities of Canada.

@Incajackson I love this, you made a claim then refuted your own argument. That's bad ass!

@Danny705 I'm always open to think more, learn and change my mind!

@ttfm When I made the thread I expected some Canadians to chime in but not a fellow Saultite. I am proud to live in a society which would have its 80 year old men spend their money at the golf course not the Dr's office. I wish you good health and happy golfing, thank you for your thoughts.

@CautiousDreamer Thank you for your thoughts they were reasonable and succinct. We Canadian's got together on en masse and pushed our government to use our money to keep our communities safe and healthy.
I've noticed a trend where people assume the government forced us into this position. That is simply not the case, the people of this nation fought for this. No Canadian will lose their home to keep their family member healthy. I am very proud of that.

I appreciate your perspective. Of the arguments I've researched which refute my position the free market stance is the strongest.

And I just had a "debate" with my wife (Canadian, Naturalized US Citizen). LOL!

She's changed my mind a "little" about the division of private sector / public sector, but definitely some sort of tiered system where those with the means would more than those with less of a means.

But still not a human right because of the government control that would be required.

Excellent and succinct description.

That simply isn't true. rights are inherently contingent upon responsibilities. As Jordan Peterson says "your rights are my responsibility, that's what they are technically". If you have a right to free speech you have a responsibility to protect the right of other people. If that right is not respected by the society at large it will disappear.

Also, you're like the sixth person who made reference to Canadian Dr's not being paid, they make between 10 and 20 times the mean income. I'm deeply confused, can you please explain where that's coming from?

@Danny705 then jordan is wrong. At an individual level anyway. We all have the obligation to fight tyranny or except living under it. That is the preservation the basic principle that rights exist at all. Yes, we all must fight for that. The actual "rights" were spelled out for us perfectly. We have the right to speak our minds...period. ? drop mic. Everyone also has the right not to listen. Regulating speach is a violation of the constitution. There is nothing required by anybody else for you to use your right. Other than the acknowledgement of the right. The second amendment is the same. At it's core it acknowledges the most fundamental right of humanity...the right to defend your only life by any means necessary. We have the right to exist. But nothing is required of anyone else. Other than the acknowledgement of that right. No one is required to provide a knife, or gun, or lead pipe.

@Danny705 also...I didn't mention Drs at all

@Freeken1 I am a Canadian citizen, I love my home with the same vigor you do. I do not accept the validity of your source material.

What source material? I own land in Canada and have been going there for 50 years btw

@Freeken1 My last comment sounded harsher than I intended, sorry. I would like to understand your perspective. What I mean to say, is that I don’t share your view, that the rights laid out by the American constitution are the theoretical basis on which to conduct my behaviour or worldview.

You refute my claim that health care is a human “right” based on your constitution. Do you also disagree with the idea that universal health care is a good thing?

Really? Where? Do you fish?

@Danny705 Wood Island NB. As far as healthcare goes...as with any service there are 3 possible parameters with which to judge. Efficiency, quality, and cost. The problem is you can only pick your service based on two of them. If it is high quality and efficient it's not going to be cheap. If it's cheap and efficient it's not going to be high quality. Etc. We currently have the worst of both worlds...because we are heavily regulated so the free market can't correct...yet not controlled either. We have efficient quality healthcare...if you can pay for it. If we removed most of the regulations prices would drop...it the government took control prices would drop as well...but in that case efficiently would suffer...as well as quality in that the incentive to develop new products and procedures would be removed

@Freeken1 This is a perfectly legitimate criticism, I won't even pretend to deny it. In my province (I don’t know the other provincial systems well so I can’t speak to them) this is a major issue. We do lack efficiency in our system, to underscore the point you are making, inefficiencies are actually super expensive it’s a big problem. For me the issue is the part where you said “if you can pay for it”.
From my perspective no Canadian will lose their home due to medical bills (not a single family). I am very proud of that, I am proud to live in a society which believes not only in our rights to conduct our affairs unmolested by the government but also in our responsibilities to protect one another. This is a conceptual difference based on a cultural presupposition, I don’t mean to suggest you are wrong, I’m just trying to express how it is seen in Canada (or at least how I see it).

California has a larger population than Canada. And I have no problem with California having "Stateiversal" healthcare. I don't have to live there. We are a group of independent but united self governing states. The central government was designed to unify the states under the constitution. Provide a national defense. Be our voice with other countries and regulate trade with foreign powers, between states, and the Indian nations. Coin money and settle disputes...that is it. The central government was not granted the power to regulate trade within a state. That's how states are legalizing weed when it is a federal crime. They can't import or export but you technically you could legally smoke your Tennessee meth in Tennessee...if Tennessee was cool with it that is. The federal government doesn't have any power over it. At least until you try to bring that Tennessee meth into Kentucky anyway. The idea of freedom mean people choice how they...for themselves. Again if California wants to go full socialist. Put in the "Green dream"...have at it. But if there is life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness...then you can't force that on me. That is piracy. If I go fish all day and catch 10 fish...when I get back those are my 10 fish. I don't owe any of them to anyone. Everyone could have gone fishing...if you were making beer instead, maybe we can work something out. If you were contemplating lesbian dance theory...I'll keep my fish...you aren't offering me anything of value...to me

@Freeken1 ya fair enough, Canadian health care is provincial (our federal government doesn't do ours either) . Why don't the states want it?

@Danny705 does it matter why? California has 40 million people. Florida has 22ish. California is 1.3 trillion in debt...Florida is 22 bilion...Our country is 22 trilion in debt. Just the interest is 363 billion this year. When I was born 50 years ago "mandatory spending" was 6% of total spending...iit is now over 70%. That is medicare...which has never come close to covering itself. And SS which is a pyramid scheme...that is on it's final tier. It covered itself for a while...this year contributions only covered 77% of pay outs. It's only going to get worse. We don't need to tax more we've got to spend less. Blanket policies always turn into wet blankets. The ones that want it want to force everyone else to participate...because they don't want to pay for what they want...

@Freeken1 This forum exists to explore ideas, of course it matters why. You took the position that the federal government has no place in health care. I explained that health care is provincial in Canada so your point was irrelevant. You responded with a list of populations and debts before claiming that social security was a pyramid scheme. I’m not sure I follow you. Are you saying the debt was caused by social security and medicare? If so how?

@Danny705 Medicare taxes only cover between 30-40% of the costs...it is about a half trillion a year more than we pay in. Medicaid isn't self funded at all and is another half trillion. SS was 1.4 trillion this year... Our "bills" mandatory spending was about 2.7 trillion, 2t of which is those 3. Our total net revenue about 3.2 trillion...which only leaves 500 billion to educate our kids, run our government, fund science, parks, housing...and a national defense. Not possible. Can your house function if your housing bills are most of your income? If you have to start using credit for transportation and food etc...your future is not sustainable.

@Freeken1 Everything you have said to this point has been based on false assumptions, bad logic or utter falsehoods. You used the American constitution to prove your point to a Canadian, that document is not relevant beyond American borders. You thought Canadian health care was federal, it isn’t. Now you are saying that the health care in America is an enormous disaster, causing Americans harm. None of these things even vaguely represent a cohesive argument for why private health care is the superior model. I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

@Danny705 No...I used the American constitution to show that the Canadian system is completely irrelevant to American ideals. The leftist freaks are constantly trying to make their ideas federal laws here. I never said anywhere that I could find anything about the Canadian system being federal or provincial...It is irrelevant to me. I don't care what Canada or any other country does...it doesn't apply to our situation. My point is that healthcare is not a right...it is a service. You don't have right to services

@Danny705 We don’t want universal healthcare because our healthcare was (mostly) fine in the US until they screwed it up with ACA.

@Brriker fair enough. So in your opinion is that situation unique to the USA or is there a conceptual problem with universal healthcare in general?

@Danny705 I was speaking primarily from experience. ACA of course wasn’t universal healthcare, but it was a step in that direction. Healthcare worked a hell of a lot better before government started getting more involved. I personally do not trust government enough to place my health in their care. I prefer to take as much control as possible over my life.

I think that we have not given privatization and free market systems a chance to work, and they hold the greatest potential for optimization while government controlled systems are prone to corruption and waste.

Incidentally, many doctors in the US are getting out of the ACA/insurance system altogether and moving to cash only consierge practices. I currently have a membership in one of these where I get basic health care and day to day maintenance for a mere $75 dollars per month that includes same day appointments available with a wonderful doctor. I do currently lack catastrophic/hospital coverage, but will be signing up for a private cost-sharing program soon.

With respect, my country is less violent than your's by every metric. A Canadian is less likely than an American to die a violent death at the hands of a fellow citizen, a police officer or in war. The claim that Canada is a police state is absurd.
You made the claim that every industrialized nation in the world aside from yours is now, or will soon become a police state. That's a bold thing to say, any evidence to back it up?

@Danny705 Your country is not yet close to the end stage of socialism. It is, in fact, still mainly a capitalist society. However, it does not take long for countries to get to that end stage---Venezuela and Cuba did it in about a decade.

@Danny705 give it time...Canada has a tiny population...and until recently not a very "diverse" one. You are getting close to seeing the results of recent decisions. Taking in more foreign immigrants will start causing tensions. Look at England. The violent crime rate in London is higher than NY city. We are about 330 million people...11× the population of Canada and yes, it is generally very safe. You just have "pockets" of gang violence that are getting worse. That's how it starts..and they network and spread. Most of our murder is gang related as well. If you remove suicide and gangs from gun deaths per year...you wind up with about 2k...out of 70+ million legal gun owners and 330 million people.

@MarPep Canada is not a police state. Neither are Australia, Germany, France, the UK, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland or a host of other countries. You made a blanketed statement which was not well supported by evidence. Until you prove otherwise, I will assume that the claim you made is false.

Cuba is a communist country who also has health care. There is no rational reason to believe that the health care caused the political system. Cuban politics were caused by the Cuban revolution, not health care.

@Danny705 You are using a "strawman" type argument--pretending I've said things I did not say. Suggest you re-read. If you want discussion, you need to not put words in the other persons mouth.

@MarPep My apologies, I do want the discussion and I appreciate you calling me out. I do not believe that Canada is becoming a police state. In the event that it was to take that trajectory I do not believe that there is a causal link between public health care and socialist tyranny.

Seriously, sorry for being a jerk.

Neither is "Life saving care" denied to the indigent in the US. But it is still not a god given right. If the State deems it a necessity, then the state needs to pay for it.

@MarPep How it went in Canada was the premier of Manitoba ran on a platform of health care and won. He was true to his word and brought public health care to his province. Once Manitoba got it the rest of the country wanted it too. Would your opinion change if the people (not the government) pushed for it?
The citizens of my rich, industrialized, nation wanted this for each other. My question is why don’t yours?

@Danny705 Government controlled healthcare eventually ends up like other government controlled operations that were better performed by civilians. When Canadians have needed urgent surgeries in the past 20 or so years, they come to the US. The relatively recent worsening of governmental control (via Obamacare, Electronic Medical Record, and collusion between Big Pharma, Big Insurance, and Big Hospital corps) has slowed down provision of care in the States. Some of the States' worst healthcare situations are in Veterans Administration---totally controlled by Feds.

@MarPep It is true that wealthy Canadians will sometimes travel (usually to avoid wait time on elective surgeries) to get health care. It is also true that Americans have been caught forging documents to access Canadian services. In both cases this is the exception not the rule.
I am sympathetic to the idea that governments tend to fuck things up (our system is very far from perfect).
I want to understand your perspective, you disagree with the supposition that health care is a right (fair enough) and you disagree that any government is capable of offering competent public health care? Is that basically what you mean?

@Danny705 When government removes the incentives of self-governed behavior (versus dictated options of DX and RX by a bureaucrat) and when government becomes the third party payer--rather than patient paying or patient being reimbursed by his insurance coverage--then Government becomes the one who "calls the tune." The US started down the road to control decades ago with the formation of Medicare--and it gets worse year by year. The patient and their Doctor should be making most all decisions, and each should consider cost/benefits---but that is not the goal of government controlled healthcare. The unacknowledged goal of bureaucrats is always to benefit themselves or their employer--not the peons over which they wield control.

@MarPep This basically speaks to the American Medicare system being poorly designed. Do you believe all governments are incompetent to implement health care or just the American government? Is the problem public health care or your government?

@Danny705 A main difference between the US and Canada that explains the difficulty in establishing universal healthcare is the sheer volume of the US population. So many people leads to an unwieldy system.

Add to that the American way of life which emphasizes self-reliance. Many Americans simply don’t trust government to do the right thing in regards to their healthcare. So long as you have a significant percent (50% or more) of the population that do not want government control of healthcare any system you attempt to impose (as the Democrats did) will simply fail.

@Brriker I’ve found this to be a common misconception of the Canadian system, it isn’t Federal. Health care is controlled by the provinces. Though we certainly do not have the complications of a huge population we do have substantial geographical challenges.
I understand the culture that mistrusts governments that’s totally reasonable. Perhaps some states have different cultures than others. Might that not be a viable solution? Can states not take control individually?

@Danny705 That is exactly what is both Constitutional and intended by our founders. Each state is supposed to decide for themselves these issues. I have no objection if Michigan chooses to have universal healthcare, but do not impose on Texas a system that we don’t want. And this is exactly what was attempted by the Democrats, and is still their agenda today.

@Brriker I appreciate your perspective thank you for your thoughts. I think (correct me if I am wrong) that in your view, the issue is not “is universal health care the best thing for society” rather the issue is “the federal Government does not have jurisdictional control”. Is this an issue of what the Democrats do or is it an issue of what the federal government does?
I don’t mean to make light of a complex issue but the solution seems obvious, why doesn’t the government of Texas simply say “no, we don’t accept your jurisdiction and we aren’t adhering to federal regulation”. Why don’t they just ignore the feds and put health care on the free market unregulated (or regulated according to the laws of Texas).
As a side note I’m curious about something else, there is a stereotype (it could be wrong) that many Texans are pro-military. If there is a cultural mistrust toward the Federal government why do you think so many people have faith that the Federal government will act appropriately on their behalf when they are abroad?

That's a misunderstanding of how the Canadian health care system works. The idea that the members in the highest standing within this culture are working against their will is frankly speaking, rather silly.