Universal health care in a universe created by God

[phyllo]

I would expect the Canadian system to be more expensive and with longer wait times because it's a big country with a small population.

[Immanuel Can]

I would expect the Canadian system to be more expensive and with longer wait times because it's a big country with a small population.

A big country means big money. It also means a bigger population to serve. So that's a wash.

[phyllo]

A dense population improves economy of scale.

Doctors don't want to be in remote areas. Technology is going to be unvailable or underused in remote areas.

[Impenitent]

no, a dense population leads to slightly less than half the voters being happy with the elected officials...

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

A dense population improves economy of scale.

A larger population takes more money to serve, and has more health problems. Cities, especially, have much higher rate of disease, violence, addiction and social dysfunction, resulting in massively higher per capita demand. Demand per capita is lower in rural communities and remote areas.

Doctors don't want to be in remote areas. Technology is going to be unvailable or underused in remote areas.

Doctors, nurses, researchers, they all want to earn a good living. They don't want to be limited by government fiat, and they don't want to have to live in undesirable areas or communities. So they move to where they can score more money, and they avoid all the places that are undesirable for them...just as you would do, if you were in their place.

[Will Bouwman]

What are those numbers?

Already cited. But here's some more stuff: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/comment ... -many-ways.

The health care system is eating up more government money than any other single cause -- one quarter of every family's total tax bill from every source already goes to that one program.

Decent start. A quick fact checks suggests, while the Fraser Institute has a right wing bias, they are about right with their figure of 24%.

Yet healthcare has still turned into a bottomless pit...especially with things like immigration and the mental health and fentanyl crises, which aren't actually even being addressed right now, and will explode the costs if they ever are.

What is your evidence that the things you list are not being addressed?

So the system is quietly shutting down arms, closing departments, firing needed staff and announcing none of it loudly.

Well, where are they doing it quietly? What is your source?

But wait times are lengthening...

True in Canada https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12595564/ , not the UK. https://www.england.nhs.uk/2026/05/heal ... list-drop/

...procedures are being 'postponed,'...

True, and getting worse in Canada. https://www.cma.ca/healthcare-for-real/ ... -surgeries

...and the government strategy is leaning heavily on assisted suicide to hold off the crisis.

I couldn't find any evidence to support this. What is your assessment based on?

[Immanuel Can]

What are those numbers?

Already cited. But here's some more stuff: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/comment ... -many-ways.

The health care system is eating up more government money than any other single cause -- one quarter of every family's total tax bill from every source already goes to that one program.

Decent start. A quick fact checks suggests, while the Fraser Institute has a right wing bias, they are about right with their figure of 24%.

Yet healthcare has still turned into a bottomless pit...especially with things like immigration and the mental health and fentanyl crises, which aren't actually even being addressed right now, and will explode the costs if they ever are.

What is your evidence that the things you list are not being addressed?

Go to any city. Wander through the downtown. It will be full of the mentally ill, the homeless, drug abusers...it's so obvious you can't possibly miss it.

So the system is quietly shutting down arms, closing departments, firing needed staff and announcing none of it loudly.

Well, where are they doing it quietly? What is your source?

Again, you can see it. Everybody is finding their wait times too long for important procedures. Family doctors are not available for many people. Referrals are hard to get. People now avoid even emergency rooms, because they'll just sit and suffer there until somebody is able to get to them. And doctors and nurses trained there go to the US for better positions.

...and the government strategy is leaning heavily on assisted suicide to hold off the crisis.

I couldn't find any evidence to support this. What is your assessment based on?

Don't be surprised. The government doesn't want you to know about it. So they tilt the statistics by doing things like listing deaths by whatever other cause is associated with the choice to die. So, for example, if they killed you using the "MAiD" program, which you applied for because you had cancer, or an injury, or old age, or even depression, your death will not be listed as medical suicide, but by the cause "cancer," or "injury," or "depression," or "COVID," or whatever. The system is now the world leader in killing people who did not need to die; but real statistics are continuously kept soto voce, so that the public alarm does not become an impediment to the program.

Still...even by the admitted statistics, deaths are around 16,000 a year, by the euthanasia program. It's the fifth highest (admitted) cause of fatality in Canada...voluntary suicide. By raw volume, the Netherlands and Belgium are the only higher countries: but per capita (per population), Canada is #1 in the world. And it's not over yet.

This takes a burden off the healthcare system. If somebody opts to die, they don't need chemotherapy, or addiction treatment, or psychotherapy, or a bed, or meals, or anything else anymore. And their organs are very, very useful and lucrative, too. So there are huge incentives to kill people -- the provisions for which can be readily accessed, often within 24 hours.

[Gary Childress]

I couldn't find any evidence to support this. What is your assessment based on?

Don't be surprised. The government doesn't want you to know about it. So they tilt the statistics by doing things like listing deaths by whatever other cause is associated with the choice to die. So, for example, if they killed you using the "MAiD" program, which you applied for because you had cancer, or an injury, or old age, or even depression, your death will not be listed as medical suicide, but by the cause "cancer," or "injury," or "depression," or "COVID," or whatever. The system is now the world leader in killing people who did not need to die; but real statistics are continuously kept soto voce, so that the public alarm does not become an impediment to the program.

Still...even by the admitted statistics, deaths are around 16,000 a year, by the euthanasia program. It's the fifth highest (admitted) cause of fatality in Canada...voluntary suicide. By raw volume, the Netherlands and Belgium are the only higher countries: but per capita (per population), Canada is #1 in the world. And it's not over yet.

This takes a burden off the healthcare system. If somebody opts to die, they don't need chemotherapy, or addiction treatment, or psychotherapy, or a bed, or meals, or anything else anymore. And their organs are very, very useful and lucrative, too. So there are huge incentives to kill people -- the provisions for which can be readily accessed, often within 24 hours.

I agree with you, that sounds ridiculous at first glance. But maybe I'm missing some key argument somewhere. If someone with terminal cancer (for example) dies using the MAID Program, then somehow the fact that they died by the MAID Program needs to be included on the death certificate. To say that the "cause of death" was "cancer" definitely sounds misleading and like a blatant public relations stunt on the part of advocates for physician-assisted suicide. I'm not opposed to physician-assisted suicide under specific circumstances that make it justified, but it needs to be reported honestly and accurately for the purpose of public and official scrutiny. It needs to be visibly on the record.

What are your thoughts on the MAID program? Should physician-assisted suicide be an option under justified circumstances?

[Immanuel Can]

I couldn't find any evidence to support this. What is your assessment based on?

Don't be surprised. The government doesn't want you to know about it. So they tilt the statistics by doing things like listing deaths by whatever other cause is associated with the choice to die. So, for example, if they killed you using the "MAiD" program, which you applied for because you had cancer, or an injury, or old age, or even depression, your death will not be listed as medical suicide, but by the cause "cancer," or "injury," or "depression," or "COVID," or whatever. The system is now the world leader in killing people who did not need to die; but real statistics are continuously kept soto voce, so that the public alarm does not become an impediment to the program.

Still...even by the admitted statistics, deaths are around 16,000 a year, by the euthanasia program. It's the fifth highest (admitted) cause of fatality in Canada...voluntary suicide. By raw volume, the Netherlands and Belgium are the only higher countries: but per capita (per population), Canada is #1 in the world. And it's not over yet.

This takes a burden off the healthcare system. If somebody opts to die, they don't need chemotherapy, or addiction treatment, or psychotherapy, or a bed, or meals, or anything else anymore. And their organs are very, very useful and lucrative, too. So there are huge incentives to kill people -- the provisions for which can be readily accessed, often within 24 hours.

I agree with you, that sounds ridiculous at first glance. But maybe I'm missing some key argument somewhere. If someone with terminal cancer (for example) dies using the MAID Program, then somehow the fact that they died by the MAID Program needs to be included on the death certificate.

Well, that's the problem: it can be listed two ways. You can either say, "Cancer killed him," or "We killed him, because he asked us to, because he didn't want to face cancer treatment." The latter has more information and is more honest.

But what's the incentive to be honest? Does the government want to say to the public, "We're killing people for everything from cancer to anxiety"? Do they want the confessed numbers to stand at 16000/year, or do they want to admit more? Which one is going to make people likely to say, "Everything's okay," and which number is going to make them say, "Gee, why are people in one of the wealthiest, most secure and most stable countries in the world being killed voluntarily in massive numbers?"

You can see the missing part of the argument: politics.

What are your thoughts on the MAID program? Should physician-assisted suicide be an option under justified circumstances?

Well, death is one-way. We know how to kill people: we have no way to bring them back. So any taking of a human life is a deed of immense consequence, even in cases in which we might feel it could potentially be warranted.

On the one hand, pain is real and serious. Having had some experience with it personally, I can say it's no joke. And I can well understand how a person could reach a point where he/she longs for relief, even for death. Nevertheless, before we agree that MAID is the only compassionate option, maybe we should consider carefully what might be being overlooked in the rush to dispatch sufferers within 24 hours and on their own say so.

Here are some things proponents of the MAID program are assuming:

1. That the government has a legitimate role in saying who gets to live, and who dies.

2. That all people who want to die are in a fit state to be able to make that determination -- they never have temporary fits of depression or fear that they might overcome, if given more time.

3. That the life belongs exclusively to each person to keep or destroy at his/her will. Families and friends and other consequences don't count in deciding the matter -- but strangely, that the government does.

4. That they know how to dispatch people without pain, and that the MAID procedures are that way.

5. That nobody has a pecuniary or practical incentive for encouraging or arranging for another person to die by medical suicide. It will always be done for the right reasons.

And

6. That the place and situation to which the MAID client is being ushered is better than the place and situation in which he/she is.

If the government actually knows all that, plus, of course, that killing people is okay with God, then maybe they have a case for MAID. But if any of the above remain in doubt, then there are serious problems with looking to killing people to deliver them from the vicissitudes and pains of living. But the last one, in particular, is of concern to Theists in a way that secularists will tend to ignore.

However, the fact remains that the secularist's blithe confidence that he/she is not sending a soul to Hell is certainly something that, ethically, no Christian could possibly fail to find concerning.

Which one is actually right? Well, the people who have undergone MAID could certainly tell you that...if it had not been such an irreversible decision.

[phyllo]

I couldn't find any evidence to support this. What is your assessment based on?

Don't be surprised. The government doesn't want you to know about it. So they tilt the statistics by doing things like listing deaths by whatever other cause is associated with the choice to die. So, for example, if they killed you using the "MAiD" program, which you applied for because you had cancer, or an injury, or old age, or even depression, your death will not be listed as medical suicide, but by the cause "cancer," or "injury," or "depression," or "COVID," or whatever. The system is now the world leader in killing people who did not need to die; but real statistics are continuously kept soto voce, so that the public alarm does not become an impediment to the program.

Still...even by the admitted statistics, deaths are around 16,000 a year, by the euthanasia program. It's the fifth highest (admitted) cause of fatality in Canada...voluntary suicide. By raw volume, the Netherlands and Belgium are the only higher countries: but per capita (per population), Canada is #1 in the world. And it's not over yet.

This takes a burden off the healthcare system. If somebody opts to die, they don't need chemotherapy, or addiction treatment, or psychotherapy, or a bed, or meals, or anything else anymore. And their organs are very, very useful and lucrative, too. So there are huge incentives to kill people -- the provisions for which can be readily accessed, often within 24 hours.

I agree with you, that sounds ridiculous at first glance. But maybe I'm missing some key argument somewhere. If someone with terminal cancer (for example) dies using the MAID Program, then somehow the fact that they died by the MAID Program needs to be included on the death certificate. To say that the "cause of death" was "cancer" definitely sounds misleading and like a blatant public relations stunt on the part of advocates for physician-assisted suicide. I'm not opposed to physician-assisted suicide under specific circumstances that make it justified, but it needs to be reported honestly and accurately for the purpose of public and official scrutiny. It needs to be visibly on the record.

What are your thoughts on the MAID program? Should physician-assisted suicide be an option under justified circumstances?

If a dog is suffering, you will put it out of its misery.

But if a human is suffering, they are not to be allowed to choose to end their suffering with assisted suicide.

The religious are so kind and humane.

[Immanuel Can]

If a dog is suffering, you will put it out of its misery.

Very true.

But if a human is suffering, they are not to be allowed to choose to end their suffering with assisted suicide.

Here they are not only allowed...they're encouraged...invited...wanted to make the choice, and if they are incapacitated and can't speak for themselves...somebody else will make that decision for them. And consequences? What are those?

"The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." So says The Good Book.

[FlashDangerpants]

What are those numbers?

Already cited. But here's some more stuff: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/comment ... -many-ways.

The health care system is eating up more government money than any other single cause -- one quarter of every family's total tax bill from every source already goes to that one program.

Decent start. A quick fact checks suggests, while the Fraser Institute has a right wing bias, they are about right with their figure of 24%.

It's worth noting that the countries that they compare favourably to Canada don't include the USA nor any other country that lacks universal healthcare which *checks thread title* seems to be odd... This is of course because the USA spends 50% more than Canada does on healthcare which would totally f*** their report up.

Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Australia all have universal healthcare, they just organise it differently to the UK or Canada. Healthcare at point of service is provided by many healthcare providers in all those places, and all adults are required by law in most of them to buy insurance with a public option always available. It's a lot like Obamacare in other words. I think the Aussie version is a bit more like the NHS in regards to how the money is collected though. The end result is that absolutely everyone can get healthcare because absolutely everyone has insurance. The rest is organisational detail.

[MikeNovack]

However, the fact remains that the secularist's blithe confidence that he/she is not sending a soul to Hell is certainly something that, ethically, no Christian could possibly fail to find concerning.

Which one is actually right? Well, the people who have undergone MAID could certainly tell you that...if it had not been such an irreversible decision.

But be honest, IC, your go to Hell isn't just with MAID. It's with any suicide.
And it isn't just secularists. Consider On the Wire by Robert Service.

Nor is your argument an honest religion vs secularism. It is one religion vs secularism plus all the other religions that do not have a deity that punishes suicides with Hell. It is OK for you to believe "religion means Christianity" but you can't assume others would agree.

[Gary Childress]

If a dog is suffering, you will put it out of its misery.

Very true.

But if a human is suffering, they are not to be allowed to choose to end their suffering with assisted suicide.

Here they are not only allowed...they're encouraged...invited...wanted to make the choice, and if they are incapacitated and can't speak for themselves...somebody else will make that decision for them. And consequences? What are those?

"The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." So says The Good Book.

Assuming I'm understanding you correctly, what evidence suggests to you that people are being "encouraged" to choose suicide, and who is encouraging them to do so, doctors, public servants in the Canadian government, or both?

[Gary Childress]

Don't be surprised. The government doesn't want you to know about it. So they tilt the statistics by doing things like listing deaths by whatever other cause is associated with the choice to die. So, for example, if they killed you using the "MAiD" program, which you applied for because you had cancer, or an injury, or old age, or even depression, your death will not be listed as medical suicide, but by the cause "cancer," or "injury," or "depression," or "COVID," or whatever. The system is now the world leader in killing people who did not need to die; but real statistics are continuously kept soto voce, so that the public alarm does not become an impediment to the program.

Still...even by the admitted statistics, deaths are around 16,000 a year, by the euthanasia program. It's the fifth highest (admitted) cause of fatality in Canada...voluntary suicide. By raw volume, the Netherlands and Belgium are the only higher countries: but per capita (per population), Canada is #1 in the world. And it's not over yet.

This takes a burden off the healthcare system. If somebody opts to die, they don't need chemotherapy, or addiction treatment, or psychotherapy, or a bed, or meals, or anything else anymore. And their organs are very, very useful and lucrative, too. So there are huge incentives to kill people -- the provisions for which can be readily accessed, often within 24 hours.

I agree with you, that sounds ridiculous at first glance. But maybe I'm missing some key argument somewhere. If someone with terminal cancer (for example) dies using the MAID Program, then somehow the fact that they died by the MAID Program needs to be included on the death certificate.

Well, that's the problem: it can be listed two ways. You can either say, "Cancer killed him," or "We killed him, because he asked us to, because he didn't want to face cancer treatment." The latter has more information and is more honest.

But what's the incentive to be honest? Does the government want to say to the public, "We're killing people for everything from cancer to anxiety"? Do they want the confessed numbers to stand at 16000/year, or do they want to admit more? Which one is going to make people likely to say, "Everything's okay," and which number is going to make them say, "Gee, why are people in one of the wealthiest, most secure and most stable countries in the world being killed voluntarily in massive numbers?"

You can see the missing part of the argument: politics.

What are your thoughts on the MAID program? Should physician-assisted suicide be an option under justified circumstances?

Well, death is one-way. We know how to kill people: we have no way to bring them back. So any taking of a human life is a deed of immense consequence, even in cases in which we might feel it could potentially be warranted.

On the one hand, pain is real and serious. Having had some experience with it personally, I can say it's no joke. And I can well understand how a person could reach a point where he/she longs for relief, even for death. Nevertheless, before we agree that MAID is the only compassionate option, maybe we should consider carefully what might be being overlooked in the rush to dispatch sufferers within 24 hours and on their own say so.

Here are some things proponents of the MAID program are assuming:

1. That the government has a legitimate role in saying who gets to live, and who dies.

2. That all people who want to die are in a fit state to be able to make that determination -- they never have temporary fits of depression or fear that they might overcome, if given more time.

3. That the life belongs exclusively to each person to keep or destroy at his/her will. Families and friends and other consequences don't count in deciding the matter -- but strangely, that the government does.

4. That they know how to dispatch people without pain, and that the MAID procedures are that way.

5. That nobody has a pecuniary or practical incentive for encouraging or arranging for another person to die by medical suicide. It will always be done for the right reasons.

And

6. That the place and situation to which the MAID client is being ushered is better than the place and situation in which he/she is.

If the government actually knows all that, plus, of course, that killing people is okay with God, then maybe they have a case for MAID. But if any of the above remain in doubt, then there are serious problems with looking to killing people to deliver them from the vicissitudes and pains of living. But the last one, in particular, is of concern to Theists in a way that secularists will tend to ignore.

However, the fact remains that the secularist's blithe confidence that he/she is not sending a soul to Hell is certainly something that, ethically, no Christian could possibly fail to find concerning.

Which one is actually right? Well, the people who have undergone MAID could certainly tell you that...if it had not been such an irreversible decision.

I agree that caution is the operative word for health care professionals when confronted with someone requesting assisted suicide.

As far as Hell, since we do NOT know for a fact that allowing a person to choose medical suicide will NOT result in them going to Hell (assuming Hell exists), should we deny physician-assisted suicide to someone who is in extreme agony with no hope of improving their situation? Is it not possible to determine that someone has freely and rationally chosen physician-assisted suicide? If someone appears to have made that choice freely and voluntarily, should they not be granted their wish? Does it say anywhere in the Bible that a person who commits suicide will go to Hell for the reason of ending their own life willfully?

Or to put it succinctly, is it the case that under no circumstances should a physician help someone commit suicide?