R. Star wrote:
The problem with everyone paying into a communal fund to provide for everyone is that not everyone pays into it yet still reap the benefits of everyone else's work.
For people living in a country with UHC, it's not a problem
. It's the reason
for having it.
(Also, it costs way
less than the "private only" system. Look it up.)
I don't see how you could think it's a socialized system.
The top few influential people's elective treatments taking precedence over the peons' life-saving needs? Socialism is about preventing that exact scenario, not creating it!
Yet, every time it's been attempted, it's created that exact scenario. Replacing a system that gives an unfair advantage based on money with a system that gives unfair advantage based on personal connections.
Right now in America, if you're rich, you can make a special donation to the hospital and move your son to the front of the line.
Under a socialist system, if you've got a buddy in the health ministry, you make a few phone calls and move your son to the front of the line. Which I believe is similar to what happens in Critical Care, you think TC isn't really based on who you know and who your friends are?
Sorry, had to laugh. I bet you have zero first-hand experience with a "socialist system" (which is, I suppose, one where health care is provided by the state), and only work from what you've heard from American political pundits.
Why are people having this conversation again? Wasn't it discussed to death
a couple of years ago?