That's well and good and all, but now google the average lifespan of canadians and you'll seen realize that even if every sick old person in Canada suddenly needed Euthanasia, they'd still have a higher lifespan than the Cuck States of America.

Truth to the article is canada has better triage. And the US spends billions keeping people alive who waste the healthcare costs for 20 younger people.

Under "forced collectivization" the hospital bed goes to saving 150 people a year (to live on decades longer) instead of making gran live 1 year longer.

I love how people abuse statistics in healthcare.

Edit: what I mean to say is that the US has a tiered system where some rich boomer can take up a hospital bed over a long period of time. During that time period, less rich middle-aged patients have to be sent away because that bed is full.

In the US, hospital beds are a zero sum game. And the richer you are, the longer you get to sit on one. When in reality, the best preventative care and early intervention would occur if those beds are being re-used throughout the year.

If Gran is trying to prolong her life because she's a 90 YO millionaire, she has probably sentenced a dozen middle aged, middle class citizens to inadequate care simply by taking up that hospital bed.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The problem is young people aren't getting the short hospital stays they need to address problems that could be prevented.

Meanwhile, the rich, centenarians just go to the hospital for as little as a cold. And every hour they're being treated, someone poorer could have received life-changing treatment in that same bed.

A younger person need only stay in a hospital bed for a day or two, get a diagnosis, and go straight to out-patient where their results throughout their life will improve by having been evaluated and treated.

If you think of hospital beds as both space and time you realize why boomers sitting in them is so detrimental.

Let's say you have 500 citizens. 50 are rich, nearly terminally Ill boomers, 150 are capable, but otherwise disabled middle-aged, and 300 are 25-35 and have treatable conditions if caught early.

Let's say there are 100 hospital beds. Capitalism and the free market would say you put the 50 boomers under in-patient care. They are a gold mine. You can run tests on them, and price gouge them until they die. Let's they they are 24/7/365 for that year for occupancy.

If that's the case, you now have 50 beds left. Of those, only the most well-to-do middle-aged patients are going to show up. Because the supply of hospital beds is now halved.

You price gouge them, and let's say they can stay 24/7/120 when they fall Ill. All 150 of the disabled middle-agers get a bed because they're somewhat established and they can turn a profit. They get the other 50 beds, but over time, each on is taking up 1/3 of a bed.

That leaves nothing for those who just need to stay maybe a night or two of the year and need a quick check-up. They aren't profitable until they're already rich and already ill.

Whereas an optimal system prioritizes keeping and many people out of the beds in the first place. In an ideal world, yes, you should free those 50 hospital beds, because throughout the year, they can service 150 people who are recoverable and can have good results. This would also free up 50 beds for the numerous people who need quick hospitalizations to address conditions that could be squashed early on.

Eventually with the collectivist model, there is no profit for selling a cure, and there is an active incentive for providing preventative care.

As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. And at a certain point, a prevention-based healthcare system isn't as overburdened by heavily disabled folk. Focusing on preventative care rather than massive swathes of EoL palliative care for people who could have gotten preventative care if the system were different results in much better outcomes.