I have learnt quite a bit reading your and Jim's posts. I was not aware of quite a few things. I see your point about a dual system of healthcare - public and private and how it might negatively impact the human resources in that field. However, isn't that the system in place in England right now? don't they have public healthcare and optional private healthcare? How does that manage to work?



>>Hi Alan,
>>
>>No, it makes no sense to me. I was abrupt with my original answer and perhaps I should elucidate.
>>
>>I believe that society has an obligation to take care of those who lack the ability to take care of themselves. I have absolutely no problem with universal catastrophic healthcare for folks, for example, and no problem with schools being paid for by uniform property taxes.
>>
>>However, when folks who would be able to pay for their own insurance are overtaxed and forced into a system where they have far fewer rights and options - I have a problem. When old folks are forced to sell their family home because of the continuously rising property taxes - I have a problem.
>
>Unfortunately, until we have a society of altruistic citizenry, private health care causes real problems for public health care. If you assume that those who can afford private health care should be able to buy it, then you should also assume that doctors and nurses have a right to decide to work in one system rather than the other. Guess which system the vast majority will decide to work in. When you rob the public system of it's resources because the money is in the private system, then who is left to help the old and the poor. Doctors are people too, and given the choice between getting a good salary in the public system and getting rich in the private system, they would choose as most of us would. It leaves a real dearth of talent in the public system.
>
>I am also opposed to the idea the someone with money is more important than someone without, and is therefore given the right to buy their way to the front of the line.
>
>>
>>
>>>>Depends.
>>>>
>>>>What about the healthy couple with no kids? Why are they paying for what they don't use?
>>>
>>>Are you suggesting that the education system benefits only those who have children? Does that mean that since you [probably] didn't have any part in raising Grace Hopper or Alan Turing that you get no benefit from their work?
>>>
>>>Everybody benefits from a good education system whether you have children or not.
>>>
>>>Ok then, let's introduce a system whereby those with no children do not pay for the education system. Then it's only fair that when someone with a good education invents something of great benefit to society, those who didn't pay for the education system should be barred from those benefits.
>>>
>>>This makes sense to you?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I think I'd be pretty embarrassed as a Canadian liberal by what the gov't hasn't done with that amount of funds. What the heck are they doing with that money?
>>>>>
>>>>>Quality education and healthcare aren't cheap, but I think they are worth it.