and start to drain faster than resources are replaced

and that assumes those who are constantly having their resources taken by force, don't just leave

Whether it would be affordable is an empirical matter, I think

So long as we're steelmanning: what if it turns out to be?

IMO the real question there is : what are we giving up?

The way it's posed makes it seem like it'd be "free", but it's anything but

It's mostly stuff that Bastiat would've called "the unseen"

So, let's say it costs us comfort and prosperity in the future

But hey, people aren't dying for health stuff, right?

I can see how that would persuade someone who holds a simple "Life > material goods/comfort" value

However

What about...the lives that would've been saved from new medical procedures that didn't come about because there's not enough left over to pursue them?

Or the technological innovations that would otherwise do this (e.g. in-home heating helps save lots of elderly lives in the winter)?

So ultimately you're trading some kinds of lives for others

And the question is: why are some more important than others?

why are others more important than yourself?

That _is_ e decision that sometimes has to be made

Do you want to make it now, for all time, for everyone?

anyone who proposes force, should assume that force would be used on them unwillingly at some point

If you're talking about single payer, people still die for "health stuff"

yes, but do less people die?

fewer* /troll

more? unchanged? can we even compare?

Hard to tell. I know only a right wing org has done any sort of study here

But our rates in Canada in that study were pretty close to the same as the US', per capita

but we send more per person don;t we?

Because our hospitals are poorly funded and overpopulated basically

I think you spend more per person but have way more advanced shit overall

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IsAa7kNhUg

And AFAIK, doctors from the US and Canada operating in unlicensed practices just across the Mexican border charge less and make more for about the same quality of care

i really think to get costs down, having the option to be unlicensed so long as the fact you are unlicensed is disclosed, might be an option to help get costs down, as well as other such regulations.

make those regulations something less "pay stupid amounts of time and money because we say so" and instead say you have more protections from things like lawsuits and the like

but anyone caught not disclosing will be treated like those current doing the same thing now

where they claim to be licensed but are nt

The bureaucracy is pretty staggering

They also change what counts for what on an at-least-annual basis

And I _think_ some of that comes from federal regulation, but am not sure

Also America has better payouts and success rates for malpractice

By a pretty alarming margine

pretty sure most doctors have to "charge" and amount so they can give insurance companies a discount too

well of course, you can't sue the government for something and win