HEALTH CARE - User fees

[Machjo]

So who said anything about a user fee for each service a doc performs?
A simple user fee for each visit should be enough.

So if you're looking for more moderate reform, I could go with that too as a step in the right direction, but again, instead of exempting those on social assistance from user fees,why not just give them more money but still not exempt them from user fees? That way they won't unduly burden the system either.

 

[L Gilbert]

You didn’t state it JLM, I did. And it is a fact it is not hard to find, Google for it.

I will, and it isn't the US by a long shot, it's Swaziland. Canada is 30th and the US is 39th and there isn't a huge difference between 30th and 39th.
Oh, and BTW, in the happy planet index, Canada is way down yonder at 89th of the 143 countries assessed. So your job of whitewashing all Canuckville's ailments is pretty pitiful so far. Maybe you should start handing out rose-colored glasses, too.

There may be other reasons for it, I think but health care is the primary reason why life expectancy in USA is so low and why infant mortality is so high.

Yeah, population, poverty, food quality, etc. have little to do with it.:roll:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

So if you're looking for more moderate reform, I could go with that too as a step in the right direction, but again, instead of exempting those on social assistance from user fees,why not just give them more money but still not exempt them from user fees? That way they won't unduly burden the system either.

User fee is not happening Machjo, get over it. Not even Conservatives are advocating a user fee, and rightly too. It is only the rabid right (like Fraser Institute) which are pushing for user fees, and their ultimate aim is clear, to convert Canadian system into a carbon copy of American system. To them, it is indeed a step in the right direction, a step towards Americanization.

But user fees are not coming, because of all the problems I outlined associated with it. The cure here is worse than the disease.

 

[Machjo]

User fee is not happening Machjo, get over it. Not even Conservatives are advocating a user fee, and rightly too. It is only the rabid right (like Fraser Institute) which are pushing for user fees, and their ultimate aim is clear, to convert Canadian system into a carbon copy of American system. To them, it is indeed a step in the right direction, a step towards Americanization.

But user fees are not coming, because of all the problems I outlined associated with it. The cure here is worse than the disease.

What does the US have to do with this. Whether the US system is totally private, totally public, two-tier or whatever should have no bearing on what kind of system Canada has. Let's say one day the US adopts the Canadian system, will we then demand that we go to the current US system just to be different?

If you want to argue against user fees (and you did present an argument worth considering earlier about people then choosing not to get the help they need), then come up with rational arguments instead of just 'we have to be different at all costs'. Our policies should be based on rational decision making and not just on trying to be different or to conform to or avoid a right wing, left wing, or whatever other label there might be. Labels are just labels. And as for trying to be different as a goal in its own right is just ludicrous.

 

[L Gilbert]

I have no problem with a two tier system in theory; many countries do have that and are doing quite well. It depends upon what kind of system, what kind of involvement there will be by private sector etc. But principally I am not opposed to it.

User fees however, are nonsense. The cure here is much worse than the disease. Institute the user fees for a few years and our statistics will begin to resemble American statistics, low life expectancy (on account of people not going for preventive treatment), high infant mortality (on account of women not going for post natal care, saving the 20$), etc.

Happily ignoring any benefits that a user fee might bring? Typical. You love ignoring things that contradict your "facts". Try being objective instead of partisan for a change. You might not look so much like a fool then.

 

[L Gilbert]

What does the US have to do with this. Whether the US system is totally private, totally public, two-tier or whatever should have no bearing on what kind of system Canada has. Let's say one day the US adopts the Canadian system, will we then demand that we go to the current US system just to be different?......

A lot of people cannot break out of the rut they are in concerning comparing Canada with the US. Sir Portly is only one of them. Not his fault.
Maybe he's right, though, and Canada doesn't have any merits of its own unless compared to the US, but I doubt it.
Maybe Canada wouldn't exist if there was nothing but ocean south of the border.8O

 

[Machjo]

Also, I think we need to be careful about trying to be number one. If I remember correctly, I think France was number one last time, but as it turned out its system only slightly better than number two but much more expensive.

Whether we come in first or last, we should simply aim at having a good and efficient system. If we're last but still have a good system, who cares. After all, would you rather be last among all good candidates, or first among trash? It's all relative, and certainly we should not set our goals in comparison with any other nation, but simply be satisfied with having a good and efficient system in place.

 

[Machjo]

A lot of people cannot break out of the rut they are in concerning comparing Canada with the US. Sir Portly is only one of them. Not his fault.
Maybe he's right, though, and Canada doesn't have any merits of its own unless compared to the US, but I doubt it.

Agreed. Same with the right-left dichotomy. Both sides will sometimes come up with good ideas and the other will reject it just because of the side it comes from. And then later when the source of the idea is forgotten, the other side then tries to claim it for itself. Grown-up kindergarten games I suppose.

 

[Machjo]

Also, this comparison is extremely harmful to Canada, simply because if the US comes up with a good idea, we then feel we must reject it on no other grounds than that it's a US idea, and we will never touch it until either we have no more choice in the matter or many other nations adopt it so that it's not viewed as too American anymore.

 

[Machjo]

User fees should be paid by EVERYONE. Even by people on social assistance. (Is that euphamism for welfare??). Smaller amount, of course, but no visit to a doctor should be totally free.

$5.00 for people working and $2.00 for those on welfare and pension would be about right.

That could be a good idea.

 

[Machjo]

Also, we need to match taxes to health care too. For example alcohol and tobacco taxes with money going towards lung cancer or liver disease, or gas taxes going towards asthma, etc. Maybe we're doing enough on that front, I don't know. But just something to consider. Should we increase taxes on that front if health care will remain public? Or should we make registration to fitness centres, martial arts classes, etc. tax deductible?

 

[L Gilbert]

User fee is not happening Machjo, get over it. Not even Conservatives are advocating a user fee, and rightly too. It is only the rabid right (like Fraser Institute) which are pushing for user fees, and their ultimate aim is clear, to convert Canadian system into a carbon copy of American system. To them, it is indeed a step in the right direction, a step towards Americanization.

But user fees are not coming, because of all the problems I outlined associated with it. The cure here is worse than the disease.

And it's only the syphilitic left that deplore the idea because the nanny state should do it all. But the nanny state is failing to keep everyone fit and well, isn't it?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

If you want to argue against user fees (and you did present an argument worth considering earlier about people then choosing not to get the help they need), then come up with rational arguments instead of just 'we have to be different at all costs'. Our policies should be based on rational decision making and not just on trying to be different or to conform to or avoid a right wing, left wing, or whatever other label there might be. Labels are just labels. And as for trying to be different as a goal in its own right is just ludicrous.

I have presented plenty of arguments against user fees, Machjo. But in addition, an important argument is to look at the countries where they already have a user fee and see how they are functioning.

Since in USA they have user fee (and copay) in many places, it is not at all out of place to see how American system is functioning. Since we would be going the American way if we adopt user fee, I think it is very important to see what user fee has done to that country (lower life expectancy, higher infant morality etc.). It would be absurd to do what they are doing and then to expect a different result from them.

I think it is a very legitimate argument.

 

[Machjo]

I have presented plenty of arguments against user fees, Machjo. But in addition, an important argument is to look at the countries where they already have a user fee and see how they are functioning.

Since in USA they have user fee (and copay) in many places, it is not at all out of place to see how American system is functioning. Since we would be going the American way if we adopt user fee, I think it is very important to see what user fee has done to that country (lower life expectancy, higher infant morality etc.). It would be absurd to do what they are doing and then to expect a different result form them.

I think it is a very legitimate argument.

Singapore has user-fees too, yet it also have universal health care. So while I agree that the US system is a shambles and certainly not to be emulated, we can't say it's all because of user-fees otherwise the Singaporean system wouldn't be so great either. I think the problem in the US has to do with a combination of user-fees and other things.

 

[L Gilbert]

Also, this comparison is extremely harmful to Canada, simply because if the US comes up with a good idea, we then feel we must reject it on no other grounds than that it's a US idea, and we will never touch it until either we have no more choice in the matter or many other nations adopt it so that it's not viewed as too American anymore.

Right. The merits of a system are not as important as the name of it or who has it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Whether we come in first or last, we should simply aim at having a good and efficient system. If we're last but still have a good system, who cares. After all, would you rather be last among all good candidates, or first among trash? It's all relative, and certainly we should not set our goals in comparison with any other nation, but simply be satisfied with having a good and efficient system in place.

And how is user fee going to improve our system? Nobody here has presented any argument as to how it will benefit us, except perhaps that it looks attractive because Americans are doing it. There is no way it can help our system, and plenty of ways in which it can hurt our system.

 

[Machjo]

And it's only the syphilitic left that deplore the idea because the nanny state should do it all. But the nanny state is failing to keep everyone fit and well, isn't it?

I think it's a matter of balance in the end. If we have no public sector, there is always the risk of the private sector exploiting the system unfairly. But to do what the Canadian left has done an shift so far towards a nearly completely public system is showing its cracks. That's probably why the Swedish and Singaporean systems, both of which used to be ore like Canada's, have rejected that system, though granted they've rejected the US one too (though the Singaporean model had freely borrowed from the US system nonetheless while still having a system all its own, and superior, essentially combing the best of both worlds. This is perhaps what Canada could do, learn from the US system and incorporate its good points into ours.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Also, this comparison is extremely harmful to Canada, simply because if the US comes up with a good idea, we then feel we must reject it on no other grounds than that it's a US idea, and we will never touch it until either we have no more choice in the matter or many other nations adopt it so that it's not viewed as too American anymore.

USA has come up with very few good ideas of late, Machjo. It did in the 70s (civil rights, women’s’ rights, gay rights, environmentalism etc.). Of late, its ideas have been tax cuts resulting in huge deficits, Iraq invasion, its insane health care system.

If US comes up with a good idea, I have no problem adopting it. The problem is, it has come up with very few good ideas lately.

 

[L Gilbert]

I think it's a matter of balance in the end. If we have no public sector, there is always the risk of the private sector exploiting the system unfairly. But to do what the Canadian left has done an shift so far towards a nearly completely public system is showing its cracks. That's probably why the Swedish and Singaporean systems, both of which used to be ore like Canada's, have rejected that system, though granted they've rejected the US one too (though the Singaporean model had freely borrowed from the US system nonetheless while still having a system all its own, and superior, essentially combing the best of both worlds. This is perhaps what Canada could do, learn from the US system and incorporate its good points into ours.

I'd prefer Canada to adopt the good points from a variety of countries with better systems rather than just the US, myself.
BTW, I only retorted with the comment about the syphilitic left because a certain partisan nutjob keeps using adjectives like "rabid" right. lol Anyone he disagrees with is a right extremist and everything is either black or white. No greys or colors.
I think Durka's right; he must be one of the most boring persons on the planet. lol

 

[Machjo]

And how is user fee going to improve our system? Nobody here has presented any argument as to how it will benefit us, except perhaps that it looks attractive because Americans are doing it. There is no way it can help our system, and plenty of ways in which it can hurt our system.

When I'd presented it, I didn't even have Americans in mind.

In the post you were responding to here, I wasn't actually referring to user fees specifically, but was simply talking in general terms.

Now going on to user fees, they have both advantages and disadvantages. As for advantages, they make people think twice about going to the doctor's for a cold. As for the disadvantages, you have brought up legitimate argument yourself earlier on so I needn't lecture you on that. As far as I know, Sweden has no user fees, yet its system works well too. I can see legitimate arguments on both sides, but the 'it's too American' or 'too socialist' or too 'right wing' or 'too left wing' arguments have no bearing in a legitimate comparison.