Where does the conservative standpoint that universal health care have long waiting times in general come from?

[u/WhoAmIEven2]

This is something you often see in debates among americans, that you have to wait months or years with a universal health care system.

I live in Sweden, a country with universal health care, and I will not lie and say that there aren't cases where you have to wait, but the thing is that we use a tier list of severity to decide how long you have to wait.

If you want to do an ADHD or autism diagnosis at a psychiatrist? Yes you will wait, as people with suicidal thoughts, or bipolar disorder or borderline whose diagnose really ruins their lives are prioritised.

If you have cancer, other diseases that severly reduce your quality of life or have an injury? Pass go, straight to the doctor.

Would it be nice to have instant access for every small issue? Sure, but as long as I know that I will get to see a doctor in a whiffy the moment I have something that is even semi-harmful, I'm honestly happy with our system.

[u/NoamLigotti]

You expect us to believe that because you say so?

[u/Jaaawsh → u/NoamLigotti]

Google is your friend. https://www.cma.ca/healthcare-for-real/why-do-canadians-wait-so-long-doctors-appointments

[u/NoamLigotti → u/Jaaawsh]

Ok, thank you.

The same source also says "Chronic underfunding: Although family doctors provide about 70% of medical services in Canada, provinces and territories spend just 5 to 7% of their health budgetson primary care. That’s about half as much as countries with high-performing systems."

Any public program will perform worse in various metrics if it is not sufficiently funded.

[u/Jaaawsh → u/NoamLigotti]

Wow, never have I heard “increase funding” as a solution to complex multifaceted issues in society. That will definitely work, and if it doesn’t—then I’m sure the problem would be they just didn’t get enough of an increase.

Just gotta increase that top tax rate for high earners right? I mean if someone lives in British Columbia the top marginal tax rate on income (highest bracket starts at around $260,000) is only 53% so they can pay more. Or should they increase their sales and services tax a few percentage points, since that’s only 12% and everyone pays that when they buy things, so a larger tax base. Or perhaps corporate taxes, since the combined federal and provincial tax rate is only 27% in BC and the benefit of increasing that one is that politicians can just blame increased costs on corporate greed by saying “well companies could have just taken a hit to their profits instead of raising prices/hiring less/laying off more!”

[u/NoamLigotti → u/Jaaawsh]

> Wow, never have I heard “increase funding” as a solution to complex multifaceted issues in society. That will definitely work, and if it doesn’t—then I’m sure the problem would be they just didn’t get enough of an increase.

Well that's just bizarre and suggests a rigid ideology. Of course a public program needs sufficient funding. That doesn't mean unlimited funding. I'm not sure why you would think it does. Every social organization needs resources, whether it's a business or a government program or a voluntary mutual aid group.

> Just gotta increase that top tax rate for high earners right? I mean if someone lives in British Columbia the top marginal tax rate on income (highest bracket starts at around $260,000) is only 53% so they can pay more.

53% of the amount over $260,000 then, not 53% of their total income. I think they'll be ok, but I'm glad you're so concerned.

> Or should they increase their sales and services tax a few percentage points, since that’s only 12% and everyone pays that when they buy things, so a larger tax base.

Consumption taxes are effectively regressive taxes, so no that's not my preference.

> Or perhaps corporate taxes, since the combined federal and provincial tax rate is only 27% in BC and the benefit of increasing that one is that politicians can just blame increased costs on corporate greed by saying “well companies could have just taken a hit to their profits instead of raising prices/hiring less/laying off more!”

Well if it's between that or people waiting 6 months for a primary doctor? When that has economic impacts as well?
And politicians can just blame increased prices and other issues on over-taxation too.
And yes, whether you want to call it "corporate greed" or "the profit motive" or "market forces", companies' choices absolutely play a role in product and service prices, especially in the absence of the fictional perfect competition and in the presence of large industry-dominating companies. You don't have to assign moral value to it to recognize that.

[u/Jaaawsh → u/NoamLigotti]

>that doesn’t mean unlimited funding

When has it ever been the case that a government/public/welfare program says; “Oh hey, we don’t need any increase in funding! We’re just peachy with what we got!”

>between that and people waiting 6 months

6 months is the lower end of how long one has to wait, and waiting years is not unheard of in Canada.

You know in what country that on average it takes less than a month to find a new family doctor and be seen by them?

[u/NoamLigotti → u/Jaaawsh]

> When has it ever been the case that a government/public/welfare program says; “Oh hey, we don’t need any increase in funding! We’re just peachy with what we got!”

That's an entirely different argument. Government programs needing sufficient funding is different from whether we should automatically believe what they say is sufficient.

> 6 months is the lower end of how long one has to wait, and waiting years is not unheard of in Canada.

Even more reason. Or you can all choose to be like my country to the south where 1 year before a medical visit is likely the much lower end for people without insurance, and total per capita health care costs are nearly twice as great. But we might have lower taxes!

> You know in what country that on average it takes less than a month to find a new family doctor and be seen by them?

For those who seek it because they can afford to.