3 ms·

I'm not so sure about "have their priorities straight there". Using the state to manage healthcare brings up strange priorities: "Should we cover kidney transpl

I'm not so sure about "have their priorities straight there". Using the state to manage healthcare brings up strange priorities: "Should we cover kidney transplants or should our soldiers have real bullets in their guns this year?", "Should we build the new transit line or increase coverage to include penile transplants?", etc. I don't want people voting based on their appendix, their bad knee surgery, or a skin rash. Involving government in healthcare inevitably leads to possible futures wherein a country is brought to it's knees by colonoscopies. One's enemies can only laugh.

GavinMcG 10y ago
You say it's inevitable. Surely, then, you have some evidence of this trend actively weakening countries? It's easy to sketch convincing strawmen. But if you could actually point to somewhere that is choosing between kidney transplants and bullets, I'd eat my hat.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  No single payer system spend all the money they could on their healthcare system. I think this is what most people are missing. You could tax people 100% and you still wouldn't have enough to make your system as good as it can be. Plenty of single payer systems decides how long they are going to keep someone on treatment, what kind of products they allow them to be treated with etc. A single payer system is based on a budget which means that budgets size is based on how it's prioritized.