KingCondanomation
New member
But the doctors are already unavailable, you are describing a hypothetical worrying scenario with the involvement of private clinics, when that exact scenario happens right now with ONLY the public system. Look at the case I wrote with the surgery needed and the man waiting a year.Here's the problem. In Canada, one chooses their own doctor and the government pays a set price for treatments. Should private clinics arise a doctor may work for one and charge whatever they feel like charging. When things are slow, lack of paying patients, the doctor will once again treat patients under the government pay guidelines.
When the situation changes, paying patients increase, the doctor will no longer want to work under the government guidelines so that doctor will no longer be available for people under the universal plan.
Obviously, the universal plan will fail because the time when doctors are needed they will not be available.
Your theory falls apart with private clinics because allowing them means a chance for doctors to make profit and thus an enticement for more to enter the practice. You are banking on their being a static amount of doctors while healthcare demands dynamically change, in reality they will both dynamically change - and in a largely corollary fashion.
One could make the same argument against Medicaid right now and it's a valid one. The object is not to save universal healthcare anyway, it is to allow people the freedom to NOT pay for it or pay for it if they wish.There has been talk of restricting doctors to either the universal plan or private practice. (Actually, all doctors have a private practice. It's just that most agree to work under the government guidelines.)
Also, if one purchases their own insurance or pays a doctor directly naturally they are going to complain about their tax dollars going to the universal plan as they won't be using it. Thus, another hit to the universal plan.
I don't need to imagine it, I lived it being in high tech years ago when employees did exactly that. That phenomenon is really only going to happen under 2 circumstances - when demand is not instant (ie: the product or service you are delivering is not needed right away) and with a very favorable labor market (where companies need to offer very flexible hours because they need the work force that badly).It's not a clear cut case of someone having the right to pay for medical services. The doctors will abuse the system by claiming they have the right to work under the universal plan when times are slow resulting in what I previously mentioned.
Imagine a company trying to operate where employees would work at times convenient to them.
In any case this again does not fit with the real world because more would enter the health profession.
If this theory were true, why have we never heard of a shortage of public school teachers with the existance of private schools?
This is a bit like saying that someone who is serving you in a restaurant will stop serving you the moment a better tipper or bigger customer comes in. In reality they will finish up what they have before they move on to the preferred customer. They still don't want to lose you and making a bigger customer wait a little is preferably to pissing off a smaller customer by forgetting them after already starting serving them.Also, what happens to the patient under the universal plan? Half way through treatment or having scheduled an operation they find out the doctor isn't available because he's attending to someone who is paying him more.
A universal plan can't operate that way.
Some who are successful may want to pay for healthcare directly rather than bother with insurance, they should not be forced to pay for insurance that they don't want - either in the form of taxes or by legislation forced to buy privately.If push comes to shove the government can invoke the "Notwithstanding Clause" meaning they can override the courts. That clause requires renewal every five years.
As I mentioned on other occasions many boomers have become financially successful so medical expenses are not a major concern to them. They have money and want service.
That's their free choice isn't it? I disagree, the next generation are still doing much better in terms of actual lifestyle and what they can afford compared to their parents. I would argue that by far the biggest influence on why each succeeding generation doesn't feel the need to save for either healthcare or retirement is because the left has created programs that make people feel that it is the state's responsbility rather than their own or their family to take care of themselves when they get older.The following generations have not been so successful. In fact, it's been noted the children of boomers may be the first generation to not surpass the previous generation, financially speaking. That means the healthy, young people of today are going to run into problems when they reach an age requiring medical attention. Simply put, they will not have the money for medical care and we'll be right back to square one.
If there was no SS or Medicare, younger people would save a lot more because they really would realize that no system will 100% be there to help them. And in the long term that makes for a much stronger and more self-satisfied people.