> Also private patients can usually skip some waiting time (e.g. days instead of a few weeks).

See, now, that just really doesn't sound like a good idea to my ears. Why should someone be forced to sit through weeks of suffering while a handful of others don't, for the sole reason that they have more money to throw at the problem? I can understand buying better or more thorough treatment, or buying treatment from more expensive providers I guess, but line jumping via money just seems immoral when it comes to health care.

Why do you think line-jumping is more immoral than getting worse treatment? In one case you just have to wait in non life-threatening and non-urgent cases (you only have to wait if you actually can wait). In the other case you are actually in a worse physical or mental position.

This is like if the whole town is on fire, but you have enough money to pay the fireman to save your house first. Priority access to universal needs shouldn't be given based on personal wealth. I wonder if the people who wrote this line jumping into law qualified for the public or private insurance.

No, it's not. This analogy would only apply for shorter wait times in emergency cases. And that's not true and I explicitly said that. Everyone gets the same wait time in emergencies and urgent cases. But a significant amount of cases can actually wait.

It's more like your car broke down and you have to wait longer than the guys who pay extra to get a same-day repair. But if you are a taxi driver and depend on it, they repair it anyway on the first day.

The private insured patients also sponsor better treatment for the government insured patients.

It's a good compromise (and I'm saying that as someone who is government insured) and there is law in place like a maximum of 3 weeks wait time for a specialist appointment.

There actually are private firefighting companies which homeowners or insurers can pay to save their houses first.

https://www.businessinsider.com/california-wildfires-private...

> universal needs

Not everyone agrees Person A's needs should be paid for by other people. The system described (that pays for everyone, but treats people that can afford it better) may be a reasonable compromise to those people.

That sounds like the UK system, where everyone gets NHS, but those that want to spend £1k a year extra or whatever get private healthcare (BUPA etc)

Yet everyone uses the roads, schools, and safety paid for by everyone to ultimately get to their advantaged economic position. Healthcare is a public effort just like any of the above, and no one should suffer unequally due to class favoritism being built into public efforts. We shouldn't compromise with people who lack the humanity to see this.

To be clear, I'm in favor of everyone having healthcare. To some extent, I'm playing the devil's advocate here. Also to some extent, I think getting from where the US is to everyone having healthcare is a very difficult trip to make. That being said...

- There is no way to support roads without everyone supporting them for everyone. It's not possible to pay for "just the roads I use". - Educating the next generation helps everyone. - Keeping someone else healthy does not help me in any real way (I disagree with this, but it is a viewpoint that can be had).

It does help you in a real way just as existentially as educating the next generation helps everyone. A healthy population is an economically productive population, and ensuring people get preventative care on time prevents strain on emergency services and saves the whole system money. In fact, this is how private insurance works too, your regular bill pays for other customers services, yet private insurance is somehow not viewed with the same contempt by conservatives.

It is already illegal, yet practiced widely because the burden of proof is on the patient that cannot look into the doctor's records because of privacy.