I have to say that I am NOT in favour of a hybrid system for several reasons
- Political support for an expensive system is always tricky. It’s very easy for hybrid systems to start leaking users at the high end as wealthier users seek better health care (often with only marginal better results, but simply more pleasant or timely).
This means that the people who are primarily paying for health-care aren’t the one’s using the service. What incentives does someone earning lets say $100K whose taxes are paying for 2 other people’s care have to vote to keep increasing their tax load if they don’t even use the service? - One of the ways that a universal healthcare system benefits people is that they aren’t guilted (by themselves) into massive end-of-life costs that have almost no chance of success. They simply aren’t available.
When you are told “I’m sorry, there’s nothing that can be done,” for a loved one that’s both a tragedy, but also, the end of your responsibility.
I consider a system without meaningful alternatives more merciful than a hybrid system where you are always aware that there’s something that could have been done, and you chose not to make the sacrifice. - I think the sense of social solidarity is much stronger when one feels that our lives are all equally valuable from richest to poorest as is evidenced by the effort that will be made to preserve them. Of course, reality doesn’t match the sentiment - but the sentiment is there and it is important.
So no, I don’t favour a hybrid. The cost of amelioration of tragedies like above is, in my opinion, way above the benefits. The happiness with Canada’s system is what it is in large part because meaningful alternatives aren’t easily found. (Despite stories, going to the US for treatment is very rare and certainly not front most in most Canadians minds.)
