> a consistent reliable efficient health care system
what makes you think that this is reasonable for government to provide? How do you know that the era 1950-20xx is not an anomaly? If you look at the broad scope of history, governments are not very good at doing the things that you suggest they should be doing.
Either way... I personally don't care much whether it's run by the government or not, but rather that the government does what's necessary to have free/super low cost health care for everyone (On the order of $20 for a doctor's visit). Maybe the government runs it itself; maybe it provides the funding for private organizations to provide the health care.
Know what's awesome? Knowing that I can break my arm and have it taken care of with virtually no out-of-pocket cost.
Tax-wise, I'm totally speculating here because I don't know the ins-and-outs of the American tax system, but here we go.
I'm going off of $85,000USD/$106571CAD (equivalent today according to Google), and using California.
California: total tax paid $25,252.56USD, you keep $59,747USD
Saskatchewan: total tax paid $30,465CAD ($24,308.33USD), you keep $76,106CAD ($60,702.91USD)
So on the same amount of income, we pay about the same as California residents, but all of our health care costs come out of the taxes we've paid. Seems like a pretty good deal, not having to pay any health insurance premiums on top of that.
Doing a conversion of USD to equivalent CAD is not reasonable. Salaries are generally higher, dollar for dollar in the USD.
You're also ignoring the multiple tax breaks available in the US that aren't an option in Canada: mortgage interest deduction, uncapped 401K contribution, etc.
Median family income in California: $70,187 USD
Median family income in Saskatchewan: $86,970 CAD ($69,516.86 USD)
The currency conversion seems pretty reasonable. And yes, I'm ignoring the various tax breaks available on both sides, as well as a number of other perks (e.g. 55% paid maternity/paternity leave for 35 weeks). We're in the same ballpark here though.
Every OECD country except the United States and, at one point, Mexico—though they may now, too—has universal healthcare largely driven by government mandates, though the systems may be either direct government programs, mandated private insurance, or a combination.
I see nothing that could end the general health care system. Unlike political opinions, science and technology progress (only).
European politicians prognose bad times because of the demography (too many old persons, too few young persons).
IMO politicians and many experts are very bad at predicting the future. Like many other people, they feel smart when they prognose problems and anounce austerity.
IMO technology and automation could and probably will solve any poverty problem soon enough for most Europeans. Even today, most poverty in the world is a political problem and not a natural or technical necessity.
If you look at the broad scope of history, health care is useless or worse. 1950 onwards is a major anomaly in nearly every area. We’re in that anomaly, so looking to earlier eras for lessons in things they didn’t have and wouldn’t have imagined is pointless.
Is medical care something people need? That's how you tell if the government needs to provide it or subsidize it -- the market like US politics has schizophrenia which doesn't lead to a terribly efficient mechanism for allocating certain resources - it's great at giving people what they want. The right will come around eventually and maybe it will a little harder since there is a larger population to draw from to form a critical mass of stupidity. You just need to wait for the entrenched living carcasses that have been in the game since the 70's & 80's to die out gradually before anything will really change -- I will bet anything this is why kings and emperors were convinced to drink mercury.
Life is not a need or a natural right. Nature can continue to grind on regardless of what you think. It seems you think that having other people enforce a system that offers you guarantees is something you are automatically entitled to having -- how much security you get is dependent upon the resources of the larger group, just like all other rights.
Saying people don't need healthcare is like saying people don't need food. Whether a country's government should let people starve or die of cardiac arrest on the streets is another question, but I would say from a moral standpoint that it shouldn't.
There's a mechanistic reason why it's a bad choice. Government is by necessity a hierarchical system, by its very nature its process of allocating resources requires a concentration of wealth and power. From first principles, there's no way around it. Any system that enforces 'good feels' top-down is unstable and has a half-life; systems of social support will eventually be redirected to benefit the wealthy. For example, if we go to single payer healthcare, it eventually will become a vector for lining the pockets of phamaceutical companies.
'Good feels' there you have it. You think empathic people are just virtue signalling, totally ignoring the benefits of a more social democracy. You believe in a system that's totally unfair to a lot of people, ignoring that I am from a country that proves that there's absolutely another way.
Doing what is right isn't the same as "good feels" -- does conceding your own personal self interests on behalf of a group feel good? Trying to empty the ocean with a bucket is "good feels". You present a theoretical reason against a system that works already in other jurisdictions -- this is not some far off space age shit with flying saucers, it can be done and if done and it functions well enough will improve the lives of A LOT of people.
what makes you think that this is reasonable for government to provide? How do you know that the era 1950-20xx is not an anomaly? If you look at the broad scope of history, governments are not very good at doing the things that you suggest they should be doing.