In The Netherlands you can get cancer treatment even if you're homeless. And I don't mind paying extra insurance costs if it means I'm not running into inhumane and desperate go fund me campaigns everywhere I go.
I wouldn't mind paying into it if there was some kind of balance.
If we broke healthcare spending down by person a small percentage of the population is probably consuming a huge percentage of healthcare. The average person just goes to the doctor once or twice a year and has a few large surgeries during their lifetime.
I would be ok with that if there was some kind of guarantee for those of us who didn't abuse the system and did our best to manage our own health. If I haven't gone to the doctor for 2 years and I need to wait 3 months to get an appointment that doesn't feel right.
At the risk of sounding sarcastic: the small percentage of the population consuming a huge percentage of healthcare is the older segment, and those with several comorbidities.
Live healthy, live long, die fast.
Live unhealthy, live short, die slow.
Throw in accidents and unexpected life events and boom, you can transistion from health to unhealthy quickly.
But our public health system has to use a variety of techniques to limit the total healthcare expenses - such as waiting lists. Drug budgets are restricted which means that many expensive anti-cancer drugs are not available to the public.
Would you be happy to pay 100% of your income in taxes? That is the logical outcome of ever-increasing healthcare and nursing costs. Some wealth tax suggestions here in NZ approach 100% taxation over a lifetime (2% of wealth per year certainly crimps a 4% drawdown on retirement savings).
