| You’re missing the point, I said it’s not a panacea. I doubt adequately insured in the US (69%) would tolerate lower quality care and being prohibited from paying for better care like in a single payer system, both socially and legally although I am not a lawyer. There is a growing movement towards privatization and two tiered systems in Canada. It’s already available in Quebec, British Columbia (illegally as recently determined by the Supreme Court) and Saskatchewan. It’s starting to happen in Ontario. > They pay about half as much per-capita with similar health outcomes. Health outcomes is very misleading as it’s confounded by baseline population characteristics, lifestyle, and non healthcare related morbidity. It isn’t very useful as a single measure to determine system efficiency. The simplest example is Americans have more chronic conditions than Canadians. Paying more is only a problem if you get the same level of care, which you don’t. As compared to the US more Canadians use the ER for primary care, are unable to get same-day or next-day appointments and wait longer for procedures. https://www.cihi.ca/sites/default/files/document/how-canada-... > Well, yes. Homelessness isn't a problem for people who own houses, either. Uninsured rate is 9% acknowledging underinsured is 23%. The main point here is in the Canadian single payer system quality of care for adequately insured declines relative to what the US has now. Whether that sacrifice in single-payer (as opposed to two-tier or privatized) is worth it is a complicated political question depending on social values and the legal system. Using your analogy, people don't want to and aren't giving up their luxury homes to fix homelessness. > This is not unique to Canada. No but it’s significantly worse in Canada than the US (see reference in point 1). |