As someone who broadly prefers the Canadian healthcare system to the American one, and would prefer to see American healthcare move in a Canadian direction, I find a lot of arguments based on the superiority of the Canadian system pretty ignorant, particularly the assertion that unlike Americans, Canadians never have to go without healthcare. Canadians go without healthcare all the time. It's just that the mix of people going without healthcare (mostly people with chronic conditions and painful but non-life threatening issues) is different than America.
There are some very serious trade offs and issues with single payer systems like Canada and the UK, but I find the pro-single payer side doesn't seem interested in addressing them, or in many cases, even aware of them at all.
Is there a reason people with chronic conditions tend to have to go without healthcare in Canada?
I assume he's talking about rationing for things like hips and knees, MRIs, insane (by American standards) wait times for specialists, etc., which is necessary to keep even a semblance of fiscal control over healthcare expenditures in a single-payer system. The government isn't Santa Claus. Things have to be paid for with real (tax) money, and you can never make everyone completely happy, unlike what Bernie Sanders would like people to believe.
