It isn’t that weird. There are substantial numbers of folks who will defend one model over another to the nth degree. It is weird.

Additionally, it is not “objectively false” that every model has pros and cons. As the old saying goes, “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” There is always a cost associated with what we do and what we do not do. Opportunity costs, economic, fixed, variable, environmental costs. Always a cost.

When it comes to healthcare there are costs. One model could be that 100% of everything is always covered, in full. And that the government funds and hires enough docs, nurses, specialists, etc. to ensure that there are no wait times, that there are enough everything for every eventuality. That simply is not realistic.

For example, I worked for a government run entity where basically everything was covered. We had a patient who was gone. Never ever going to wake up, the only “movement” was the result of nerve death causing spasming. But the machines kept oxygen in the blood, kept blood circulating, took over from the kidneys, etc. All machines. The wife knew what needed to be done but one of the kids was convinced his dad was going to come back hale and hearty. It costs millions and millions to prolong this agony. It was traumatic for everyone involved including our staff.

I used to live in Europe and dealt with socialized medicine. Certain things were great. In other instances, it was mystifying how certain kinds of imaging (MRIs for example) which are routine in the US are exceptional over there. Or how imaging is offered only certain days of the week; good luck if you have a broken leg, the X-ray tech will be here Tuesday (that’s a real thing that happened too).

Likewise, a model dependent upon employer provided insurance (or really employer subsidized/cost sharing) isn’t particularly perfect either.

Another example; my son was born with a particularly serious heart condition. His mom was hospitalized prior to the birth because she was likewise “circling the drain.” Altogether it cost ~$2 million in the first six months for our son and hundreds of thousands for her. Insurance covered most of it but I was still having to figure out how to pay the deductible and “out of pocket maximums” and premiums. Half of my income before taxes was going towards some healthcare related thing. And I made good money. Half of every dollar. Before rent, food, taxes, gas, everything.

Even after that first year junior has continued with his medical checkups. While he had his surgical repair and is otherwise healthy, just the observational checkups rack up the dollars. It is also worth noting that his particular heart condition would not have been covered in most parts of the world including Europe or Canada. He would have been either euthanized or simply made comfortable and allowed to die. He is fine now and smart as a whip.

And when I was responsible for her (she ended up developing an uncommon illness that required ~$100k in treatment every month in perpetuity) I was still shelling out vast sums. It was untenable. I have a couple advanced degrees, made a good wage, paid my taxes, lived right and couldn’t afford rent or food on my own.

The point is, no system is perfect. There are always pros and cons. There are benefits and costs. I am fortunate enough that I have personal experience with several of the most financially flush healthcare models on the planet. I cannot say that one is better than the other, just that both can be maddeningly frustrating, limiting, and difficult to use. And also incredibly helpful in their own ways.

canada pays less in tax then the states do. look it up. you just have an over inflated defence budget.

[deleted]