Liberal MP: Canada's "obsolete" health care needs some privatization
- Thread starter Tonington
- Start date
There's a rationale if it can function as the same service but perhaps more efficiently. Dumb analogy coming up, but it would work if it was like adding 100 minutes to your day plan on your cell for an additional cost. The fundamental public service can still be received at no cost (well, except for the tax paid), and the private service would be more efficient or cut down on waiting times.
Then you're justifying two-tier health. I'm not sure if he's deliberate about it, but Martin is too.
Like I said. Economic Darwinism.
I thought we always had a two tier health care plan......?
While I was working and for a year or two afterwards my plan subsidised private hospital rooms (when available) over and above the provincial plan..also eye glass subsidy, high priced prescription drugs over generic....etc...
I opted out when the cost started climbing and finally reached $500 a month...It didn't make sense to me to pay that much for so little extra..
While I was working and for a year or two afterwards my plan subsidised private hospital rooms (when available) over and above the provincial plan..also eye glass subsidy, high priced prescription drugs over generic....etc...
I opted out when the cost started climbing and finally reached $500 a month...It didn't make sense to me to pay that much for so little extra..
It doesn't take rocket science to justify it. How many times do we need it demonstrated to know that one tier healthcare is very ineffective and inefficient? :smile:
Demographics would be another problem. If you're a twenty-something like myself and you're paying off student loans and looking at the situation objectively, the business as usual track doesn't look particularly rosey.
It really doesn't matter what they call it....that's not really a substantive criticism. And neither should we be looking for the best system. Reasonable minds will disagree. We should always be looking for a better system.
Couldn't answer the poll because it isn't broad enough.
Two tier health care fails in many ways in the US and I want no part of it.
So you want to allow doctors to opperate privately and expect shorter wait times?
Where do we get the extra doctors?
What will be the incentive for doctors to practice within the public system?
However, I have stated many times that private delivery under the umbrella of public health is a better option.
France is a good model of this.
I'll assume that was a joke.
Given the difference in costs with the system here in Canada which runs about 10% of GDP compared with the US two tier system which costs 15% of GDP and rising faster than ours.
Not sure what this means.
Does it mean because you are young and likely not to get sick you see no need to pay for healthcare while you pay off your loans for school?
Two tier health care fails in many ways in the US and I want no part of it.
So you want to allow doctors to opperate privately and expect shorter wait times?
Where do we get the extra doctors?
What will be the incentive for doctors to practice within the public system?
However, I have stated many times that private delivery under the umbrella of public health is a better option.
France is a good model of this.
I'll assume that was a joke.
Given the difference in costs with the system here in Canada which runs about 10% of GDP compared with the US two tier system which costs 15% of GDP and rising faster than ours.
Not sure what this means.
Does it mean because you are young and likely not to get sick you see no need to pay for healthcare while you pay off your loans for school?
[QUOTE
I'll assume that was a joke.
.[/QUOTE]
No it was no fricken joke - just a little common sense. Too much bureaucracy and Union involvement with public system. Who wants to pay for a layer of parasites? :smile:
I'll assume that was a joke.
.[/QUOTE]
No it was no fricken joke - just a little common sense. Too much bureaucracy and Union involvement with public system. Who wants to pay for a layer of parasites? :smile:
No it was no fricken joke - just a little common sense. Too much bureaucracy and Union involvement with public system. Who wants to pay for a layer of parasites? :smile:[/QUOTE]
Yet is it more cost effective than the two tier system to the south.
Plus, I'd sooner pay a unionized nurse than the shareholders of an insurance company.
Yet is it more cost effective than the two tier system to the south.
Plus, I'd sooner pay a unionized nurse than the shareholders of an insurance company.[/QUOTE]
No share holders, no insurance company. People invest their money where they get the best return- do you expect people to risk their money for free? As far as the nurse goes a good nurse who does a good job doesn't need a Union.
No share holders, no insurance company. People invest their money where they get the best return- do you expect people to risk their money for free? As far as the nurse goes a good nurse who does a good job doesn't need a Union.[/QUOTE]
Right, they get a good return on a company that denies a child insurance because they have a pre-exsisting condition.
If they don't need a union why don't they decertify. Are you suggesting our nurses aren't good?
....and, like I said, more cost effective than the private system to the south that sees money go to profit and adminstration.
No. I'm concerned that the system will fail miserably when the group who need health care the most are relying on a system funded by a workforce which is a much smaller fraction of the total healthcare users.
I think the system worked very well in the past, and I have no complaints about the health care I've received, but times change, and a system that isn't adapting will be less effective. As an example, the future looks like it will be far more expensive based on just two growing trends: dementia and related disorders/illness, and obesity.
I have no problems paying taxes for a public system, but I also pay for group insurance through my employer. If I worked for the same corporation, but in one of the American offices, my insurance would cover much of what my taxes pay for here. There's no reason that I couldn't be using those resources in a different and parallel system. That means that my tax resources that I'm contributing can be used to address other pressing concerns, like say those of my parents, uncles, aunts, etc.
Yet you expect your employer to pay instead for at least part of it if not all.
If you haven't noticed, one of the pressing problems in the US is employer insurance cut backs due to cost and the unemployed losing their insurance altogether.
I see public healthcare as incentive for employers to employ given the near paridy in corperate taxes with Canada and the US.
It still dosen't address the doctor shortage and that won't get better with an aging popultaion nor does it create incentive to remain in the public system.
I'm not sure what you see in American healthcare that you like but it must be something.
The health care service is not screwed up the politicians are. The system is often starved by
some political ideology to create the effect there is something wrong with the system, in
addition, we have gone to bigger and bigger bureaucratic methods to administer it and the
funds go to administration instead of the system. If you privatize it the same resource money
would then be poured into profit and dividends so the end result would be the same.
Canadians have already paid for the infrastructure. What really needs to happen is an overhaul
that would redirect funding to the most important areas. We already have private sectors of the
system some things are not covered. What really needs to happen is citizens must demand
politicians get control of government spending period. We have Cabinet Ministers that don't have
a clue as to what is happening in the areas they have been given to administer, that is where the
problem is. How can you control the cost if the boss doesn't even understand the system.
Some of these guys claim, after the fact they don't even know the election and accounting rules
that they signed off on when they ran for their public office. Do we really want these people
managing the health care or any other department.
Each department is a business, and we need mangers (Cabinet Ministers) and senior staff who
know how to manage and the nature of the business they are managing.
No I am not in favour of further privatization, I am in favour of efficiency and it is up to the people
to elect those who know what they are doing, and get beyond this left/right crap in society.
some political ideology to create the effect there is something wrong with the system, in
addition, we have gone to bigger and bigger bureaucratic methods to administer it and the
funds go to administration instead of the system. If you privatize it the same resource money
would then be poured into profit and dividends so the end result would be the same.
Canadians have already paid for the infrastructure. What really needs to happen is an overhaul
that would redirect funding to the most important areas. We already have private sectors of the
system some things are not covered. What really needs to happen is citizens must demand
politicians get control of government spending period. We have Cabinet Ministers that don't have
a clue as to what is happening in the areas they have been given to administer, that is where the
problem is. How can you control the cost if the boss doesn't even understand the system.
Some of these guys claim, after the fact they don't even know the election and accounting rules
that they signed off on when they ran for their public office. Do we really want these people
managing the health care or any other department.
Each department is a business, and we need mangers (Cabinet Ministers) and senior staff who
know how to manage and the nature of the business they are managing.
No I am not in favour of further privatization, I am in favour of efficiency and it is up to the people
to elect those who know what they are doing, and get beyond this left/right crap in society.
No, I pay for my own premium. It's group insurance...we all pay into the plan for a set amount if we want to use it. It ignores risk factors, but since the risk is spread out over such a large group, it's not really an issue.
Non-sequitur.
So a large group pays to reduce cost...where have I heard that before?
Still dosen't address the issues I raised.
Non-sequitur?
If you say so.....but dosen't explain what you see attractive about American style two tier healthcare.