You do realize that this is a recipe for inordinate amounts of public debt that you and I will never have to pay but our children and grandchildren will. Much like Social Security, Cananda's unfunded liabilities are long term too great:
Really, we have two separate problems that unfortunately get lumped together. First, is how to provide healthcare for the working age population and children. Nearly all the evidence points to public healthcare being better for this problem. Insurance discourages people from getting preventative care and ultimately costs more in the long run. Second, is how to provide healthcare for the boomer generation. I don't think there is a solution to this problem, that we can stomach, that doesn't ultimately involve working age people paying out the nose either in insurance premiums or taxes.
>Second, is how to provide healthcare for the boomer generation.
There absolutely has to be a dollar cap on how much the government will spend on health care on an individual. Then, we must absolutely stick to it. If the limit is reached, then no more money for that person.
I'd support such a limit on baby boomers only since those idiots are the ones who got us into this mess but I can't think of a way to implement that without a big discrimination lawsuit.
The boomers are not the ones who got us into this mess. It was actually their parents. They paid for their parents and then expected their children (us) to likewise pay for them. In that time, the average life expectancy and cost to prolong life grew enormously.
I do not have hate for the baby boomers. What I have hate for is solutions which foist upon OTHER generations costs and expenses associated with THIS generation.
I see that public care is perfect in a perfect world. We are not living in such a dream. Policiticians are elected today. Tomorrow they retire. As such there is very little long term planning because the incentive structure is not there to promote long term thinking. Hence, the ability to actually have a limit or cap would never last. Just look at copyright to see the types of things that could happen.
They paid for their parents and then expected their children (us) to likewise pay for them.
The first generation essentially got something for nothing. That does not sound right to me. If we follow the logic that we've been following, those who didn't pay into the system should not be able to extract back from it.
Perhaps, we the current generation ought to bite the bullet and double tax so we can pay for our parents and ourselves so we don't saddle the next generation with (what some people call) a ticking time bomb.
It is sad that we don't have anyone in the government call out what seems to me the perfect solution: both decreased spending and increased taxes. I guess we just have ourselves to blame for electing people who tell us what we want to hear.
Canada is indeed undergoing a debate on how to fund and deliver health care, but what is not under debate is whether it should it be kept public. It is also worth noting that the current government slashed taxes upon taking power and is now trying to cover the deficit by reducing social services. In this way it is a classic right-wing "starve the beast" tactic, wherein you take in less money and then say "Hey we can't afford these things anymore so we have to cut them" even though you could have paid for them without the tax cuts.
Most of the things the article talks about amount to adding efficiency to the public system, something that no one would protest. Nowhere in the article does it talk about the public system collapsing and serious discussion over switching to a private system. As far as public debt goes, Canada's debt is not great, but it is certainly nowhere near most other Western nations, so the whole "public health care is a recipe for inordinate amounts of public debt" doesn't seem to be true either.
This actually may not be true. Not sure if you're familiar with Modern Monetary Theory, but I highly recommend checking out this video: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/309410-1
I wouldn't say that I'm a full blown MMT'er but over time the arguments make more and more sense, and I haven't been presented with many credible counter-arguments yet.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/31/us-health-idUSTRE6...