But it's also crazy that your access to healthcare is based on how the government prioritizes your need of it.
I agree with the idea of public healthcare, but not as a legislated monopoly. And that's true for government services generally. Monopolies don't benefit anyone except the monopolist, and competition makes everyone stronger. If the government wants to use it's buying and borrowing power (and maybe even taxation to the extent voters tolerate it) to provide a universal healthcare option, that's a big win. But if they want to push out other market participants in the name of some kind of fairness - well instead of having two-tier healthcare, everyone is on the bottom tier
> But it's also crazy that your access to healthcare is based on how the government prioritizes your need of it.
So does every private insurer under the sun. You've never had insurance deny access to care? No insurer can afford to give an MRI to everyone a doctor wants.
> But it's also crazy that your access to healthcare is based on how the government prioritizes your need of it.
Doctor's prioritize need. More sicker, more quicker 'service' / treatment.
> I agree with the idea of public healthcare, but not as a legislated monopoly.
There is no monopoly on health care in Canada: if you want to cut a cheque you can get private care. What is legislated is that if you take provincial funding you cannot also take private funds. It's either-or.
I agree with the idea of public healthcare, but not as a legislated monopoly. And that's true for government services generally. Monopolies don't benefit anyone except the monopolist, and competition makes everyone stronger. If the government wants to use it's buying and borrowing power (and maybe even taxation to the extent voters tolerate it) to provide a universal healthcare option, that's a big win. But if they want to push out other market participants in the name of some kind of fairness - well instead of having two-tier healthcare, everyone is on the bottom tier