The only way to get ‘full coverage for all’ would be to give it away*, but even if you did that many people would ask, “medical coverage is nice, but can I cash it in and use it to pay my rent?”

I contend that ‘full coverage for all’ means covering those for whom medical coverage is a priority as well as those for whom it is not. Rationally, if medical coverage is not a priority for an individual, then why are we attempting to force it on them?

—
*when I say ‘give it away’, I mean steal from the working class and give to the poor.

You also do not comment on how the U.S. rations health care. I suspect that our massive numbers of uninsured, huge deductibles, ever increasing consumer health insurance costs, refusal to cover those with preexisting conditions and fewer and fewer companies participating in health insurance coverage for employees or lowering their levels of contribution are also forms of rationing that do not lead to positive outcomes for tens of millions of Americans.

Perhaps Canada’s model would not work for America. Our for profit system of health care is providing marvelous specialty care for some, but continually less and less overall care for fewer and fewer people. These trajectories cannot continue indefinitely without intersecting at a point of system collapse. If universal health care coverage is not the solution, what is?