I held off commenting in this thread after it came back to life, because it just seems to go in circles, with no minds being changed. I expect that the circular arguments will continue until everybody gets tired of repeating himself. However, I will address a few comments, but I won't directly quote anyone.
It was suggested that little medical innovation is occurring in Canada - presumably because of our universal healthcare system. There is no question that most medical research happens in the US. But, if you look at it from a population perspective, the US doesn't really stand out.
Answer (1 of 6): Of course everyone can see that the US pumps out a lot of medical research. We are all grateful for that. The US also has a large and rather wealthy population as well. We cannot expect a small country like Sweden or Australia to be able to complete on the basis of sheer volume ...
www.quora.com
On a related note, apparently the US subsidizes drug prices in the rest of the world.
Why does an arthritis drug that costs $2,669 here cost $822 in Switzerland? It all boils down to one policy decision.
www.vox.com
While this may be true, it's only because the US government can't/won't step in to exercise any control over prices. It's entirely likely that if drug prices were regulated, investment in research would drop. So, it could comes down to a choice between research to bring new drugs to market and access to existing drugs for all who need them.
Health care - is it a service or a right? This is a philosophical question. All rights within any particular country are those granted to its citizenry and there's nothing to impede the creation of any particular right, if a nation chooses to make it so. One could say that health care shouldn't be a right, because it means one has to pay for somebody else's ability to exercise it. All rights have costs in one form or another. I'm not saying whether it should, or shouldn't be a right, but we can't just dismiss it as being ridiculous.
Some people who are against a universal public system don't want to subsidize the costs incurred by people with unhealthy lifestyles. What makes this issue any different than subsidizing sugar and lumber companies as a consequence of restricting imports? You're already subsidizing people who end up in ERs because they can't afford primary care - and certainly not emergency care. If they had publically funded care that could address health issues up front, the overall costs could be lower.
Would delivery of health care
really be more inefficient in the hands of government? If we drill down into the details, we can certainly find examples - wait times for certain diagnostics and surgeries are longer in Canada than in the US, absolutely. But, for the 44,000,000 people in the US with no health insurance and another 38,000,000 with inadequate coverage, how long do they wait? Until they end up in ERs?
I'm not trying to trigger more argument, just offering food for thought.
I hope everyone had a grand Christmas and New Year. All the best to all you audioholics for 2020!
