> I think that would start to create some social nudging functions (i.e. payment for Healthcare) while being a bit more fair (i.e. service quality sometimes proportional to money put in).
An interesting definition of “fair” - in Sweden the principle is equal health care prioritized according to who needs or benefits most from the care, not how much you pay. If you see it from that point of view, tax is not a transaction where you pay for the services you receive. You pay for the society you receive, which includes people in general being more healthy, not just yourself.
Most people would reject the idea that someone works hard all of their life gets the same healthcare that someone who does nothing.
Most people are somewhere in the middle, but there absolutely are people do nothing and people who are always being constructive, some in powerful ways.
A society in which 100% of resources would be allocated in that manner (basically communist) would completely fall apart.
I think 'same treatment Healthcare' is actually a bit of a hard-socialist idea that happened to make it's way through society historically (because it needed to have some socialization) but that will ultimately fail, it's on the edge in Canada right now as they are discussion private options.
In much the same way I think fully-private healthcare is a failure.
For the later (fully private) we have to understand the mechanisms are not the same as for regular products or even food etc. - there are existential issues which create gigantic asymmetries. So there must be heavy regulation and likely socialization in certain aspects.
But the converse is still true: 'everyone the same' is a disaster for most of the economy, it's also maybe not such a good idea for healthcare.
FYI - in Sweden the are Private Clinics.
In Canada, where I am from, we have pretty crazy laws, some of those most limiting in the world.
It's illegal to provide private services for all but a minority of issues.
Just consider that: a mechanic can fix your Mazerati, but it's illegal for them to fix your arm.
In practice - there is filtering. 'Important People' somehow manage to get good access, like Sports Stars, politicians. Actual Doctors/Hospitals are not owned by the government (as they are in UK) so they are selective, but the billing rates are theoretically the same.
On the other end, you may or may not get the surgery depending on if you're an alcoholic/smoker etc..
Due to all of this there are very, very weird asymmetries in Healthcare all over the place, notably Doctor's guilds controlling access to their domain, pricing insanity in the US for actual services, insane drug prices due to IP laws and lobbying, inability of governments to innovate effectively. One weird artifact of the later is how much we have to depend on the advancements of other nations.
The NGO style they have in the US is an interesting model as well.
An interesting definition of “fair” - in Sweden the principle is equal health care prioritized according to who needs or benefits most from the care, not how much you pay. If you see it from that point of view, tax is not a transaction where you pay for the services you receive. You pay for the society you receive, which includes people in general being more healthy, not just yourself.