[bruce511]

It's a solved problem in the sense that it exists, and works[1] and it is available in a lot more places than Canada.

[1] "works" is an interesting point because it isn't clearly defined, and usually means different things to different people.

Ever experience of the system is "unique" - there is this mix of human patient with human provider with finite resources with medical knowledge with time. So there are plenty of examples of long waits, bad service, unfavorable outcomes, even death. It's not hard to cherry pick bad experiences here.

No health system will make everyone live forever. Death comes to us all sooner or late. But universal healthcare works in many places in raising the overall standard of public health, without bankrupting people in the process.

Given that its always spending limited money, and only scales at human rates, its far from perfect. But, at least for some, its better than a "health care level based on your wealth" system.

[refurb]

But the US isn't "healthcare based on your wealth".

You have Medicaid for the poor, heavily subsidized Obamacare for the people who don't get it through their employer (hello $100/month plan!) and Medicare for the retired.

I mean my cousin in the US whose kid has cystic fibrosis get better care through Medicaid than our other cousin in Canada who can't even get access to the latest drugs.

[Sohcahtoa82]

> heavily subsidized Obamacare for the people who don't get it through their employer (hello $100/month plan!)

That $100/month plan will include high deductibles and copays. A weekend visit to an urgent care for a kidney stone will still cost a couple hundred dollars out of pocket.

[wyre]

I don't think anyone that says this has actually been poor and needed medical care.

[lotsofpulp]

You just have to stay very poor. If you do anything to move up a little bit in life, the benefits stop and you are on your own.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/your-assets-magi-and-medicaid...