The Philosophy Discussion Forum

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2026 4:15 pm Ah, you admit it. You don't even necessarily believe that Canada's health care worse than US health care.

If you were to google healthcare spending as a share of GDP and compare the USA to Canada on that measure, it seems to me that all of IC's remaining issues go away if Canada spends the additional 6% of GDP on healthcare and related services (rehab clinics for instance).

It should amount to something in the region of $150 billion USD per annum extra. Easily enough to cover all those missing services and provide GP access for all.

Gotta try to compare apples to apples where you can.

Not really so easy to fix with just money. You could pour any amount of money you like into training more doctors and nurses but that would not increase the number of doctors and nurses "tomorrow". Immigration policy maybe. At our local hospital, especially night shift, most of the nurses are Filipino*. There are a LOT of Filipino nurses in the US. Without them US hospitals could scarcely function.

<< there is fear that insane immigration policies might push them out. >>

* PS --- this is NOT new, and goes back to the Spanish-American War! The US controlled the Philippines from 1898 to 1946. Needing nurses for the military hospitals there, the US created some excellent nurse-education facilities, which remain to this day. Nurses trained in the Philippines have no trouble passing the US licensing exams (about 30,000/year get licensed for the US)

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2026 7:17 pm "tomorrow"

I didn't detail a timeline, I don't know why you are adding one. The situation that pertains today didn't arise overnight, demands to fix it overnight are unreasonable.

I gave you true information that Canada spends around 11% of GDP on healthcare and the USA spends around 17% and that the net difference there is sufficient to fund any percieved shortfall in healthcare availability north of the border.

Anguish south of that border about brown people is beside the point, and wildly so. I can't possibly consider giving a flying f*** about that.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2026 4:15 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2026 3:14 pm

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2026 4:32 am You are being ridiculous.

No, I'm being truthful. And if you lived there, you'd know. But you don't, so perhaps you imagine Canada to be some sort of medical Disneyland it has never been, and certainly isn't now. Government "health care" turns out to be very problematic; perhaps not quite as problematic as pay healthcare, but seriously problematic, nonetheless.

Ah, you admit it. You don't even necessarily believe that Canada's health care worse than US health care.

You're not paying attention.

There's no question that the US has better doctors, better research institutions, more modern technology, more innovation in medicine going on, and -- if one can pay for it -- much better service in health care, as well as much more possible access. The only thing Canada has going for it is that the health care is paid for by others, through high taxes, such as it is: but it's in shorter supply, lower tech, and generally lower in overall quality. So it's a trade-off, and one has to decide what's more important.

I'll say again: there is no easy solution to the problem of health care. That's something on which any sane person can surely agree.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2026 1:56 am But I do know that simplistic, one-dimensional approaches … aren't workable either.

Manny believes he knows something. But he can’t explain why he believes it. Might it be the result of right wing misinformation? There’s a lot of profits being made on the backs of sick people living without social medicine.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2026 10:03 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2026 1:56 am But I do know that simplistic, one-dimensional approaches … aren't workable either.

Manny believes he knows something. But he can’t explain why he believes it.

I sure can.

Been there. Done that. Seen it.

How's that for you?

Socialists who imagine that taxed health care is going to solve your problems...welcome to reality. It does not.

Manny says he can, but doesn’t. I think he hopes you will just take him at his word.

Who here is ready to take Manny at his word?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2026 10:12 pm

mickthinks wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2026 10:03 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2026 1:56 am But I do know that simplistic, one-dimensional approaches … aren't workable either.

Manny believes he knows something. But he can’t explain why he believes it.

I sure can.

Been there. Done that. Seen it.
How's that for you?
Socialists who imagine that taxed health care is going to solve your problems...welcome to reality. It does not.

DATA, IC, DATA ----- there are a LOT of entities publishing rankings of healthcare by country. As I said, not exactly the same rankings in each because different criteria used. Earlier I listed a sample of sites, ranging all over the "political" spectrum. But there were none that I saw where either Canada nor the US was near the top or where the US ranked above Canada.

FIND US ONE, IC. That's your claim, better in the US than in Canada. Find us a site where the health care ranking of countries agrees with that.

And get off your socialism bug. If you had bothered LOOKING AT THE DATA you would noticed that many countries appearing at or near the top are "mixed" systems (New Zealand was once "socialized" in the 30's but for many decades has been mixed, Australia the GPs mainly private (single payer is not the same as socialized -- that's a matter of who the INSURER is).

AGAIN, produce your data << not a list of deficiencies of the Canadian system -- that is NOT a comparison >>

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2026 3:37 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2026 10:12 pm

mickthinks wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2026 10:03 pm

Manny believes he knows something. But he can’t explain why he believes it.

I sure can.

Been there. Done that. Seen it.
How's that for you?
Socialists who imagine that taxed health care is going to solve your problems...welcome to reality. It does not.

DATA, IC, DATA

I give you the stats and experts...you claim they're wrong. I give you first hand reporting...you say it's not "data." There's no convincing an ideologue, so...carry on as you are.

If the US ever tries it, you will find out.

That's your claim, better in the US than in Canada.

This is obviously false on your part. My claim, repeated now, is that there is no apparent solution, and definitely not an easy one...not that the US is better in all ways than Canada. And I've been very specific about those ways in which each has an edge. So you've either not been paying attention, or you're being deliberately mendacious.

Carry on as you are. Apparently, you deserve to find out. But Americans don't deserve what you're wishing upon them.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2026 3:58 am Carry on as you are. Apparently, you deserve to find out. But Americans don't deserve what you're wishing upon them.

THAT is why I keep referring to published lists. WHAT do you imagine I am wishing upon myself and fellow countrymen/countrywomen?

What YOU think of as "socialized medicine"? WHY do you think that? You should be able to identify my "politics" as "left libertarian", and that while I consider that within the term "socialism" you do not (you consider only authoritarian state socialism to be socialism --- no idea how you classify the "left libertarians").

I am am in favor of a SINGLE PAYER system. That eliminates the "costs" of adverse selection. The single payer does NOT have to be "part of the government" (a governmental agency).

I will refer you to Australia and New Zealand (both of which rank above Canada and the US on every published ranking system I have seen). BOTH of these are mixed public-private systems. Australia is more single payer, but while New Zealand allows "private" insurance/multiple payer one non-profit alone covers more than 60% of that total "business".

So yes, there are plenty of better models other than "socialized" like Canada.

I will repeat, WHY (for what rational reason) do you conclude that because I agree with the published rankings that show the US system lower than the Canadian system this means I believe the US system should be replaced with one like the Canadian system. Would that be rational on my part when I can clearly see systems ranked higher than the Canadian? Would you expect me to consider a system like one of those ranked near the top?

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2026 8:01 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2026 3:58 am Carry on as you are. Apparently, you deserve to find out. But Americans don't deserve what you're wishing upon them.

WHAT do you imagine I am wishing upon myself and fellow countrymen/countrywomen?

Let's find out.

Where do you think medical access is being appropriately delivered today?

I am am in favor of a SINGLE PAYER system.

Tease that out. How are funds channelled into the system, and how is research rewarded within it? How is expertise rewarded? How is access guaranteed? How are costs managed? Let's see if you've got something.

BOTH of these are mixed public-private systems.

Well, my suggestion has been that some hybrid plan might have more promise than the US or Canadian approaches.

But it's a thorny problem, and I doubt the success of any such scheme. Still, if you can flesh it out, I'm interested.