OK, I’m glad that we agree that any healthcare system will deny care to some people. That’s my point: this is necessarily the case, so it cannot be automatically “violence” when that happens. It is extremely naive to believe that whenever that happens, the cause must be necessarily nefarious.
> It's just that in practice, in general any public system works more towards the benefit of society than for some shareholders.
I think that this is simply empirically false. You cannot just assert something like this, you need to provide evidence for it.
> To be blunt: if the government individuals take decisions that degrade the public healthcare system, for their own benefit, whatever that is, then those individuals should maybe be shot in public too.
And here is the critical question: is there any evidence whatsoever that Bryan Thompson made any decision like that? As far as I can tell, there is absolutely zero. Many just decided he must be guilty of something, but nobody actually points to anything in particular.
> It's not a matter of awareness, the public knows how perverse the incentives of private health insurance are, and how a public system can do much better.
Again, you are asserting something that’s far from being universally agreed on. Public healthcare systems have their troubles too, and if you ask anyone with experience with both, you will not find people universally preferring their public experience. Ask Canadians or Brits how long it takes to get a visit at a specialist, for example.
> That’s my point: this is necessarily the case, so it cannot be automatically “violence” when that happens.
You're going in circles around an argument that you made up yourself. Do you want a pat on the back?
> I think that this is simply empirically false. You cannot just assert something like this, you need to provide evidence for it.
Now read that out back again loud.
> Again, you are asserting something that’s far from being universally agreed on.
I said: "It's not a matter of awareness, the public knows". That cannot be read as "universally agreed on" in good faith.
> Public healthcare systems have their troubles too, and if you ask anyone with experience with both, you will not find people universally preferring their public experience.
I never claimed public healthcare is perfect, on the contrary.
You will find rich people preferring private healthcare, which are a vocal minority.
> Ask Canadians or Brits how long it takes to get a visit at a specialist, for example.
I don't have to ask nobody because I live in a country with fully public healthcare. I am glad that poor people have the same access as rich people, and that triage by urgency, not money, works well (again not claiming that it's perfect, since you give everything your own meaning).
The USA on the other hand are infamous for the healthcare bankruptcy and literal horror stories. I think you don't realize how non-existant your safety net is. It only works well for you when you don't have a major health problem, and while you have a relatively very good paying job.
> It's just that in practice, in general any public system works more towards the benefit of society than for some shareholders.
I think that this is simply empirically false. You cannot just assert something like this, you need to provide evidence for it.
> To be blunt: if the government individuals take decisions that degrade the public healthcare system, for their own benefit, whatever that is, then those individuals should maybe be shot in public too.
And here is the critical question: is there any evidence whatsoever that Bryan Thompson made any decision like that? As far as I can tell, there is absolutely zero. Many just decided he must be guilty of something, but nobody actually points to anything in particular.
> It's not a matter of awareness, the public knows how perverse the incentives of private health insurance are, and how a public system can do much better.
Again, you are asserting something that’s far from being universally agreed on. Public healthcare systems have their troubles too, and if you ask anyone with experience with both, you will not find people universally preferring their public experience. Ask Canadians or Brits how long it takes to get a visit at a specialist, for example.