(04-23-2019, 01:21 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(04-23-2019, 12:38 PM)B2hibry Wrote: I read it. Which article debunks anything I said? Canadians have become more and more reliant on private insurance and private providers since its inception. What used to be nearly 100% fell to 80% and now is lower than 70% coverage by public healthcare. Oddly enough, providers are mainly self-employed private entities. If we look at England, there has always been some form of private care available alongside public but reserved for a rare few. Just like Canada, there is a trend towards private happening now. I'm not going to go through them all as you may get the point. Medicare for all is a pipe dream. Obamacare was a pipe dream. We have access to the best medical care in the world. It is the multi-layered red tape and lack of concurrent modality that hampers. The system needs to be on the same page across the system. Remove barriers and control pharmaceutical companies through anti-trust regulations. You know, the pesky bit called competition law. Fine adjustment is all that is necessary. Health care is an individual responsibility from preventative care to treatment. Don't tell me I owe higher taxes to pay into a system for Johnny fat [BLEEP] that eats nothing but fast food daily and now has a heart condition and other ailments that he can't pay for.

Why are you price shopping on your death bed?

Eliminate your arbitrary "completely" and "everything" (along with "always", those are terms of absolutes people use to escape rational discussion) you will have to look no further than Obamacare to see the narrative. If public healthcare is so desired, why must countries that implement socialized medicine rely on private care at all?

The narrative that a country with a democratically elected government can shift all of healthcare to the public sector overnight is false.  Instead, it happens incrementally over the course of decades, and never completely, and sometimes reverse course, as you note.

My comment about fearing death should not make you think of a literal death bed. Instead think of somebody who just entered the ER with chest pains. they're not going to haggle about going down the street, or getting a slightly different test, for a little less money.

Your second to last sentence accuses me of inappropriate use of absolute statements.  Then your last sentence is a question assuming an absolute.

Your question, rephrased, "if things don't work well when we use X to the full extent, why use X at all?"
For example,
"My car doesn't run on 100% fuel.  Why should I trust you that it needs a mixture of air and fuel? Nonsense.  It should just run on air. Sure, it runs on a combination of fuel and air now, but it could run on just air if all those features that the oil lobby got mandated in went away."