But then, instead of having your property seized, would you truly be better off if you simply got stuck on a waiting list waiting for health care? It does happen... I have a cousin who injured his shoulder playing hockey and it took months to arrange an MRI (despite the fact that such things could be done in a week in the U.S. That's months of unnecessary pain.)
Yes, I'd be better off. What kind of question is that? My mother would be alive and I'd be able to have a bank account!
Ummmm... I'm not sure you understand what the concept of a waiting list is.
When you have a waiting list for health care services,
you are not getting treatment. So, a person on a waiting list ends up in the same position as someone who simply can't afford treatment. And while people who have critical diseases do get faster service than those with minor ailments, people can still die as a result of waiting lists.
I've tried to explain the difference between a "Healthcare for all" plan and a "single payer" system to you but you seem to have ignored pretty much everything I wrote. But then, this is typical.... whenever I mention the problems in the Canadian "single payer" system I always seem to get accused of, I don't know, wanting to see all sick people rounded up and launched into the sun or something. My point is, and has always been: coverage for everyone (including poor people who can't afford it) is a good thing, but there is more than one way to accomplish that goal. The Canadian system of "government pays everything, nothing private" is probably the worst way to accomplish that goal.
While you and your mother may have been better off being in Canada than the United States when sick, you would have been even better off being in Britain, or Switzerland, or Finland... countries that are
not single payer (by definition), but still manage to have universal coverage, at a cost roughly equivalent to Canada's, but with less problems with wait times.
Here's a study from the Commonwealth fund, a group that wants to improve health care coverage. America is ranked last. Canada isn't much better (9th of 11, but then that's an improvement over previous studies that show us 10th of 11, ahead of only the United States.)
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/chart/2017/health-care-system-performance-rankings
If Bernie Sanders is proposing a true "single payer" system along the lines of what Canada, then he his short changing you. You can have a better system than Canada's.
Now, let me make a little prediction:
By the way... there's one other thing I should have brought up. You accused me (falsely I might add) of being callous over deaths or bankruptcies of people in the U.S. who can't afford health care. The thing is, the issue is not what I think health care should be... the issue is what the American electorate thinks health care should be. Even if I thought "Every American should have a personal doctor paid for by the government who follows them around and personally wipes their bottoms when they go to the bathroom", that opinion would be irrelevant if you can't convince the American voter that that plan is in their best interest.
And while yes, there are polls that show support for a "single payer" system, that support will vary according to the details of that plan. Given the fact the majority of people were against Obamacare (despite it was an improvement to what existed before) and that concerns over "death panels" were a thing, that the American public will automatically rush out and support a true "single payer" system.
By the way, here's a poll that shows that while Americans may want government involved in health care, the percentage that want "single payer" is only 31%. The majority of people either want a mixed private/public system, or they want everything privatized.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-care-coverage-is-governments-responsibility/
But we'll see.
