Not sure if this is money, or just a popularity contest, but it frustrates me more if it is popularity rather than just paying a lot.
All of the professions you mentioned (except, perhaps, “god knows what”) involve interacting with other people as part of their primary function.
I’m sure you can see the wisdom of allocating the initial tranche of vaccines to “people who do valuable work and are at higher risk of causing community spread while doing so” over “people who do valuable work but can do that valuable work while isolated, thus reducing the risk of community spread”?
The teachers continue to be the ones "taking care of our beloved children, the next generation"; The nurses continue to be "healthcare heroes"; the firefighters continue to be "brave and courageous"; all this continues to be true when I'm getting in line to have pancreatic cancer treated. I don't want to die because some pretty primary school teacher showed up at the last moment for that kidney transplant and society has decided that it wants her more than it wants me.
And obviously I have no objection to vaccinating high-degree nodes before low-degree nodes subject to the usual arguments.
The reason is because physicians are banned from treating patients in the public system and private system. If they choose to treat private patients, they can't work in the public system. With such a small private system, that's not sustainable.
In addition, private hospitals/clinics can't offer certain procedures. MRIs are allowed in some provinces, but the list isn't very long.
Basically Canada is not interested in having any private healthcare system because then it would be "2 tier". They prefer everyone go to the same system.
The reason was a wave of “extra billing” that had swept Canadian healthcare in the 1970s. Canadian patients were increasingly being hit with user fees and copays that were gradually chipping away at the supposed universality of Canadian healthcare."
Basically, private doctors wanted to be able to also bill the public system and any additional cost the patient is required to pay. That went against the idea that "healthcare should not be purchased".
[1]https://www.capitaldaily.ca/news/private-two-tier-healthcare...
* They can stay righteous knowing that the mob that they are the vanguard of will apply suppressive pressure on their behalf
* They can disclaim responsibility of knowledge of the mob
* The fellow members of the mob will post answers "on behalf of" the side they oppose which will strawman those positions
Interestingly, many HNers will disingenuously ask "for feedback" or "an honest discussion" knowing full well about this phenomenon.
Therefore, I'm not upset by their reaction because I was braced for it. My position is logically sound. Objections come from different moral foundations and different circumstances, not from logical failure. And I can accept that you can also have an opposing logically sound conclusion rising from different axioms since our axioms are beyond our Aumann Agreement Horizon.
* I want to be able to be an informed participant in my healthcare. When the US Gov lied about mask efficacy so that there would be enough masks for healthcare professionals and when many Americans considered this acceptable, I lost faith in the government's ability to meet this need of mine. Either they were incompetent or malicious and neither trait is one I desire in someone treating me.
* My life involves a wide variety of risk taking: I use drugs, motorcycle, bicycle, jump off bridges, etc. During the COVID crisis, many Americans stated a desire to allocate healthcare according to behaviour. I would prefer to pay to offset my risk rather than alter my behaviour. I fear the puritan streak in American politics will push me to the back of the line in healthcare despite my ability to offset any risk with money.
* I am a software engineer. I am high income, relatively wealthy, and overall fairly comfortable. I am also in a profession that does not provide me a social cachet. During the COVID crisis, many Americans stated a desire to allocate healthcare according to a notion of value to society that elevates those with high social cachet. These are generally people who can be argued for: teachers ("they are taking care of our next generation"), medical professionals ("you don't think we should treat our healthcare heroes first?"), soldiers, firefighters, police, god knows what. I fear that people's dislike of my profession will push me to the back of the line.
So now, no universal healthcare, thank you. And yes, I am quite familiar with the NHS. I've paid enough into it and have many family members who work for it. The existence of other successful systems does not mean that the US can replicate them. There is a path problem, a second system effect, and differing social norms.
Well, there you have it, an actual statement of reasons from someone who actually opposes UHC.