You're viewing a single thread.
Sadly, you are very mistaken if you believe that anyone in America, including large portions of its populace, are concerned with actual health outcomes or costs. I once had a coworker use the fact that his mother currently could not afford the costs of her broken hip as a reason that we should NOT have universal healthcare access. Literally told me ‘where is her help’ while also asking why he should pay for others healthcare.
This argument is so shitty because you're not paying for others' healthcare. You're paying for your own, and the money goes into a pool with a bunch of other people's, where it goes a lot farther because it turns out that negotiating inventory/prices on a large scale, like the whole state/country, gets you a better deal.
No, you're paying for others Healthcare, but taxes are supposed to go towards helping the whole population, so that's kinda the point.
Like the other guy said, it's exactly the same as insurance, but without a middleman with a vested interest in making it inaccessible.
Its like insurance... but instead of paying for some board members' yacht, you actuallly pay for someone's healthcare.
It’s not sufficiently cruel to satisfy the ethos of a large block of our voters.
And overcharging cancer patients even more is probably not going to be popular.
I’m saying that won’t be a factor in their decision. In a sane world, you would want to avoid that. Over here in the Land of the Free, y’all can raise our costs by 25% and the people at the top will pander about how unfair the 35% increase is while pocketing the extra money the whole time. When all news sources a person gets parrot that same information repeatedly, the populace buys in.
Do you think he's doing this because he thinks it's a popular decision?
I'm saying you probably want to make sure you hit corporations and the wealthy where it hurts, not cancer patients. Otherwise you risk turning the popular sentiment that is generally in favour of Canada against them.