[suture]

The naivety is in thinking that if it doesn’t work in Canada then it must not be a solved problem. The naivety is in thinking that if you can find anecdotal evidence that in a particular instance Canada’s system worked worse than the U.S. system then it must be the case that Canada’s system is worse.

The U.S. per capita spends far more on healthcare than any other OECD country. We don’t get correspondingly better outcomes or coverage. Universal healthcare is a solved problem within the context that every system necessarily involves some sort of rationing since there aren’t enough medical resources in any country to do otherwise.

If you don’t want to use the phrase “solved system” then don’t but don’t pretend the U.S. is any way better other than in anecdotal instances. Below is a source for information on per capita spending for OECD nations. You can easily find information on health our outcomes, life expectancy, teen pregnancies, infant mortality, etc.

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/876d99c3-en/index.html?i...

[refurb]

Sir, this is a Wendy’s.

I’m not sure how your reply has anything to do with what I said.

“Better than the US” is not some hurdle that makes a problem “solved”.

Canada is likely better at snow removal but that doesn’t make it a “solved problem”.

[suture]

It’s a solved problem as far as one can get given the constraints involved. As I said, if you don’t want to use that phrase then don’t. I’m not going to quibble over semantics. Human societies are far more complex than programming and the notion of “solved” means something different in the former than in the latter. Use whatever phrase you want. Just don’t think the U.S. system is in any way better. You are the one who brought up an anecdotal experience in favor of the U.S. system over Canada’s system.

[refurb]

You keep talking about the US, but as a former resident of Canada I know that’s the country’s favorite measuring stick. “We’re not as bad as the US so stop complaining” is the favorite ring of politicians.

Doesn’t do much for the people disabled from pain on a 3 year wait list for a hip transplant or my buddy’s cousin’s kid who doesn’t get access to the standard of care of CF.

It’s not solved in the least, every country struggles, so using the word “solved” is, as I said, naive.

[suture]

Perhaps you don’t understand how words work. Words can have different meanings/connotations depending on situation and context. As I said repeatedly, for me it is correct to say “solved” given the constraints involved. Human societies are complex and one can nitpick the world “solved” and say nothing is solved when it come policies of complex societies. So don’t use that word when it comes to societal issues. I and many others do use that word for certain issues. It’s naive of you to have your pedantic nitpicking on the word and not reflect on what it says about you. Obviously I keep bringing up the U.S. because that’s the context of my starting comment way above. And you yourself have brought up the U.S.

What goal do you wish to accomplish your pedantic nitpicking? You want to get others to believe that my views on national health policies are naive? You want me to realize that in a strict, mathematical sense of the word saying “solved” is incorrect? These are rhetorical questions because I’m not going to read your response. You clearly don’t know much about policy issues and what it means for a society have essentially “solved” an issue (or have found a decent enough solution that it isn’t a dire problem anymore so that some non pedantic people will say it is solved).

Carry forth Don Quixote on your quest to eradicate incorrect usage of what you think “solved” means.

[refurb]

Words have meaning and we should encourage people to use the right ones.

You claim I don’t know policy without knowing healthcare policy is my day job.

Even given the benefit of the doubt that as an outsider looking in you think it’s solved, but as someone who is elbow deep in it everyday “solved” just sounds naive.