In truth, most conservative or libertarians are not really opposed to the sentiment of free health-care, and most of us would like for every person in the world to have health-care coverage. What we do point out, is that in the long run a free health-care system isn't economically viable, but not because we are "evil" and wish to see humanity suffer. The problem is you want to have the U.S. match the sysem of other countries, which isn't a good comparison.
You can see the numbers. Lets talk population numbers: Canada has a population of 36 million people. Norway has a population of 5 million people. Finland has a population of 5 million people. Switzerland has 8 million, the Netherlands 17 million, New Zeland has 4 million, Denmark has 5 million, and Iceland 300 thousand.
The U.S. has a population of 325 million people (10 times more than Canada). All the countries combined have half of the population of the U.S. It is not the same to provide health-care to a lower amount of inviduals. It depends on the general economics of the country in question and how much you spend in each area of goverment. All of these miracle countries also spend their money in a different way the U.S. does. For example, when we look at how much foreign aid (something I dislike) they provide to poor nations we can see that:
The U.S. provides 31 billion. Canada provides 5 billion. All the countries you listed are much less. I'm sure if the U.S. decides to be as charitable as Canada is, they could spend those extr 26 million in their own citizens. Sure in GDP numbers they all spend more percentage than the U.S. But, the U.S. does still provide more money to the world than all of the countries you list combined.
I appreciate your looking up some population data, Dirius, but raw numbers aren't what is important here. Health care costs decline with economies of scale, assuming a system is well-managed. Single-payer systems cost less because all kinds of medications, medical devices, hospital supplies, and so on can be bought more cheaply through bulk purchases.
Further, health care is never "free" but is paid for through government revenues like taxes. However, once people don't pay high deductables for doctor visits for early detection of health problems, it is a lot cheaper to treat patients at an early stage, than it is to treat them in the hospital emergency room, once their problem has become truly serious. (Think about something like a simple blood test for diabetes, followed by insulin doses and dietary recommendations, vs. untreated diabetes leading to limb amputations.)
For that matter, Japanese women have the highest longevity of anyone on the planet. They have a single-payer system with a population of 127 million.
Then there is military spending. When Putin invaded Crimea, you didn't look to Finland or Norway or Canada to "put the russians in check" did you? Of course not, everyone in the world looks to the U.S. for protection. And how do they do that? by spending 610 billion on their military. How much do the other nations you listed spend?
It is very unwise for any country to depend on the US for military protection, especially now that Trump is trying to dismantle NATO. The US military did not contfront Russia over the Crimea, as you know, so there goes that theory. Although many Americans support a strong military, they would like to see a lot less waste and inefficiencies. The 16c of every tax dollar currently spend on the military is actually down from 25c during the Vietnam War.
Finally lets look at unemployment numbers: Canada has 6.98 percent unemployment (2016) a similar number to the U.S. percentage wise. But in actul numbers, for Canada is almost 2 million, but for the U.S. is around 20 million. So sure, keeping benefit for 2 million unemployed is easier than for 20 million.
I don't think it quite works this way. The US currently has 3.8% unemployment, which is basically full employment, as some of those people are switching jobs, returning to school, staying home with babies, &c. The problem is that the US education systems (and there are many, divided by state and school district) have not done enough to ensure that their graduates are job-ready.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf (The US Bureau of Labor Statistics puts out quarterly reports.)
Canada is the tail on the US economic kite, with slower recoveries. The unemployment rate is currently around 5.8%, with dramatic differences between provinces.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/04/06/unemployment-canada-march-2018_a_23404720/
So Yes I agree with you, if the U.S. spends as much as Canada does in everything, they may be able to cover a huge amount of people, but not all, because the U.S. still has many more people. The usual claim that the U.S. has the biggest economy and the largest GDP as the reason as to why they should spend more on social policy is meaningless when you understand that while they have a lower percentage number, they still spend more.
I'm glad we agree on something, but again, raw numbers do not tell the story. A large economy generally has more employment opportunities and more diversification than a small one. Part of Canada's problem is that it has been historically so driven by natural resources. We're practically a petro-state.
There is an unfilled demand for skilled workers in the US. Ironically, Donald Trump doesn't want any more immigration, which might help solve the labor shortage.
We can look at hundreds of numbers. We can sit all day discussing that. Again, we are not against free health-care. But the models you present are not viable, and its not as easy as the left seems to claim it would be. I would be more than happy for a model in which every citizen gets coverage and we all chip in. But the european myth is not a good answer.
Big
non sequitur here, Dirius. Try telling the rest of the developed world that single-payer health care is not viable. Or tell Cuba, for that matter. I'm sure you know that in Canada, we have provincial health care systems, not a national system. Why couldn't the US have state- or regionally run systems? The reason is because right wingers don't want it, apparently believing that they won't get sick or injured.
I don't see myself as "on the left" incidentally. Part of the problem is Trump's persistent efforts to polarize Americans, by such unhelpful divide and conquer tactics.