0

People could contribute premiums the same as if it was income tax.

In other words, what says that universal health care in America needs to be provided by congress? Couldn't another country beat them to it, and save American lives at the same in the process?

closed as unclear what you're asking by JonathanReez, user9389, K Dog, bytebuster, Drunk Cynic May 24 '17 at 0:47

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • Do you mean while the person is within the country, or while they are within the US? – origimbo May 23 '17 at 22:05
  • 4
    If you're willing to pay Canadian insurance premiums on top of your US taxes and have the funds to travel to Canada for medical care, you can probably afford a private insurance plan in America. – JonathanReez May 23 '17 at 22:06
  • @origimbo see edits – BigDataLouie May 23 '17 at 22:09
  • 3
    I'm pretty sure all "why don't.." are a bad fit for this site. Also this is silly. – user9389 May 23 '17 at 22:36
  • 1
    Better and related question, why don't liberals just move to Canada? – K Dog May 24 '17 at 12:22
4

It wouldn't work because only people who would have negative contributions would join.

For universal health care to work the cost of the care must be spread out among everyone. According to a WHO paper on universal health care:

A key element of financing for universal health coverage is sharing resources to spread the financial risks of ill-health across the population.

Canada nor any other country can force Americans to join their universal health care so people would need to join voluntarily.

The Americans who earn enough to fund the universal health care system won't join. They can already afford health insurance in America and their premiums would only go up by switching because they are needed to fund those who can't afford it.

This would result in only Americans who can't afford insurance joining and Canadians paying more to cover them. It would be a great deal for the Americans but a terrible deal for Canada.

  • "The Americans who earn enough to fund the universal health care system won't join" = that's speculation. There are a lot of people that would be more than willing to pitch in for a universal system. Granted, it doesn't make any sense in the context of this question, but to say "only poor/sick people want a single payer system" is simply not true. – user1530 May 24 '17 at 2:59
  • 2
    @blip I didn't say only sick and poor people want a single payer system. I said many people who are needed​ to fund it won't voluntarily switch which puts additional pressure on either the Canadians, which makes it less popular, or on the Americans, which makes even fewer willing to switch. – JonK May 24 '17 at 3:05
  • @blip I'll add a source for that tomorrow. I thought it was a pretty uncontroversial statement that many Americans don't want a single payer system and thus wouldn't voluntarily switch to one. – JonK May 24 '17 at 3:06
  • 1
    You're not wrong...many don't want a single payer system. But at the same time, many do. – user1530 May 24 '17 at 4:16

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.