How will a Conservative government be better?

[Scape]

No, what we end up with is a privately funded system competing with the public system. The private system will end up will all the highest paid doctor's (and thus highest trained) and no one but the rich have access. Everyone else begs for help from the public system that has the worst trained doctors who couldn't get a private clinic and they will be over work, under paid and the hospitals will be under equipped.

This isn't a business model, this is the nations health. Do you want plagues and pestilence across the land? Then cram massive amounts of poor in collapsing pubic hospitals. The only way to stop that is if the rich and poor have to wait in the same line. It may be long but the burden will be worse if we allow the rich to have their own system that will cater to their every whim and a leave the public system a clogged death trap.

 

[p106_peppy]

France, which is considered to have the best health care system in the world, is two tier.

And as it is, although we don’t officially have private health care, our close proximity to the United States makes it impossible for the government of Canada to keep a true monopoly.

The best and the brightest of our doctors and nurses are already heading south. And rich Canadian citizens go to mayo clinics in the states. Allowing private health care in Canada would just mean keeping workers and money within our own economy.

 

[Scape]

No, instead of a brain drain we will have a route. That's not helping that's pouring more gas on the fire.

Look, if privatization is the solution, and I am not even saying total just 50-50, then why did Nero fail as a fire chief? I am not saying we are going to revert to Roman times but think about a privately run for profit entity entrusted for the safety of the public. You can't serve two masters. Profit, that pays the bills, will drive the command decisions of the captains of industry who are in command of the fire stations. So why would they not start their own fires to increase profits? Nero did. So if we trust the doctors with the same power, even just half, we will have similar results. We are courting disaster here. Sure we have rules and regulations but they are meant for an industry that is publicly run. One only has to look at the energy lobby in the US to see what effect privatization will have to regulation... kiss it goodbye.

You want to stop the brain drain, control the flow. You got your education here? Fine, you don't get certified until you have at least 5 years as an intern in a Canadian hospital. They can still go to the US but CANADA subsided their tuition and deserve a share of the wealth for the heath of the people who paid taxes for it. Don't like it? China is hiring, but if you want to enjoy the standard of living in this country you pay for it.

 

[Chake99]

Chake: No, you missed my point. I think that a mix of public and private health care is the answer to the marjority of our problems and concerns about Canadian Health Care. A lot of our health care system now is a mix, so what is wrong with at least exploring this a little further. What frustrates me and a lot of others is that we as Canadians point to our health care system as the be all of being a Canadian, but then turn around and says that Health Care is our biggest priority and it has to be fixed. If it is so good, why do we continually have to be told it has to be fixed? Simply putting more money into the system will not work. The last time the nurses in Alta went on strike, they supposedly wanted more beds. Once the strike was over, all the increases went to wages, not to actual hospitals. We simply must look at other options if we are to get value for the money we pay into this system. Again I ask, if the system is so great, why are people waiting so long for hip replacement surgery in this country? I work with a gentleman who is on this list, and is a local Union Rep, which pretty much means he is not right wing. Even he is starting to question this, and this questioning by someone of his political leaning is very telling. Do you think we get value for our money now?

No in fact I did not miss you're point, I was simply making my own.

However I do not believe we are getting all the value of our money right now.

And Scape wasn't it Crassus (the rich guy who was once part of the triumvirate with Ceasar) that had the private fire service? Then again mutliple Romans could have done it...

 

[Chake99]

Re: RE: How will a Conservati

So I guess we should go for non-for-profit companies paid for through taxes if what you are saying is conclusive, which I don't believe it is.

If the reader digest published such a study btw it would HAVE to be right-wing biased

Non-for-profits are paid for through taxes? :?

No they aren't, but in certain cases they could be, have companies competing for customers and have the people able to rebate their receipts with the government.

But not something that easy to take advantage of but that is the general idea

 

[Chake99]

Re: RE: How will a Conservati

So I guess we should go for non-for-profit companies paid for through taxes if what you are saying is conclusive, which I don't believe it is.

If the reader digest published such a study btw it would HAVE to be right-wing biased

Why?

Everything is biased. Facts themselves are not biased though they can be presented by someone who is in a manner to sway your opinion.

Even if the study was done with no bias, the person doing it would afterwards be inclined to make people agree with him.

1530, from M.Fr. biasis "slant, oblique," from O.Prov. biais, possibly from V.L. *(e)bigassius, from Gk. epikarsios "slanting, oblique," from epi- "upon" + karsios "oblique." Transferred sense of "predisposition, prejudice" is from 1572.
(www.etymonline.com)
No one can help but slant stuff to their point of view.

If in fact the Reader's Digest is not biased at all and didn't think of including the article or discluding the article at all based on its political philosophy, the article itseld would still be biased as it tries to convey a point.

BTW is anyone here good at html and uses FIre-fox? if so could you PLEASE make a search function for that site for the searchbar. I really want one and have already tried and failed.

 

[MMMike]

I am not saying we are going to revert to Roman times but think about a privately run for profit entity entrusted for the safety of the public. You can't serve two masters. Profit, that pays the bills, will drive the command decisions of the captains of industry who are in command of the fire stations. So why would they not start their own fires to increase profits? Nero did. So if we trust the doctors with the same power, even just half, we will have similar results.

We trust private companies all the time when it comes to issues of public safety. Do you drive a car - they were all made by private companies, and your life depends on its performance. ARe they safe? Do you work or live in a highrise building? They were all designed and constructed by private companies, for profit. Presumably the same 'incentive' for cutting corners exists there as well, but we haven't seen a building collapse in this country do to faulty work, have we? That's because if there are short term gains to be made by cutting corners, there are HUGE liabilities to be concerned with and it doesn't make sense for a company planning to be around for the long term.

Doctors are not public servants, they are essentially PRIVATE contractors. Look at the healthcare systems in France, Germany, almost any other country in the world. What do you see - health care delivery by PRIVATE companies. You don't see them taking shortcuts putting patients lives at risk, do you?

 

[Scape]

History of the firefighter

Rome suffered a number of serious fires, most notably the fire that started near the Circus Maximus on 19 July AD 64 and eventually destroyed two thirds of Rome. The Emperor Nero was blamed for the conflagration, and may in fact have allowed the fire to burn. At least one Roman may have become very rich from this fire, buying properties in advance of the flames and using teams of slaves in attempts to defend his recent acquisitions from being consumed.

Market forces dictate a response based upon supply and demand. Epidemics do not work upon the same protocol. Our most recent example was the S.A.R.S epidemic.

China's plight is a fine example of what happens when market forces are inadequate to the tasks of safeguarding the public trust. S.A.R.S. was created in conditions where no regulation in food production (a free market utopia) allowed the disease to grow unchecked and it was only until the government quarantined vast sections of the country, virtually banned travel and exterminated the source. Then, overnight, military hospitals were created to tend to the infected and sick. China admits to reacting too slowly and being far to secretive during the crisis and fires the pubic officials in charge at the time and complies with the W.H.O. This was a crisis created by filthy conditions that could have easily been avoided. There is speculation that it was man made and that this was an act of bio-terrorism vs China but it is impossible to confirm.

Let's take the auto industry example. Let's say a auto maker has a defective model the it will recall the model, why? Because it would rather recall it than have the government enforce a recall that would be far more expensive. They are just being proactive to cost overruns and cutting their losses. If the government was not there to enforce regulation the car maker would never bother with a recall and let the market 'run it's course'. In the medical industry if we let the market 'run it's course' we will be dying by the millions. Is that sane?

 

[MMMike]

Let's take the auto industry example. Let's say a auto maker has a defective model the it will recall the model, why? Because it would rather recall it than have the government enforce a recall that would be far more expensive. They are just being proactive to cost overruns and cutting their losses. If the government was not there to enforce regulation the car maker would never bother with a recall and let the market 'run it's course'. In the medical industry if we let the market 'run it's course' we will be dying by the millions. Is that sane?

They don't recall the model because they're afraid of the government - they do it because they're afraid of a lawsuit. You are underestimating the power of civil suits to keep businesses honest.

Are you suggesting that in France or Sweden, or other places where they have private delivery of health care people are dying by the millions? :roll:

 

[Scape]

Yes

Tombstone leadership is not leadership. Class action lawsuits happen after the fact not before and will not create any safeguards until many have died needlessly when simple prevention that is much cheaper would have sufficed.

Lawsuits are being attacked and seen as frivolous south of the border and are driving up health care costs. Do you really think there is a future in such legal wrangling as a safeguard of the people?

 

[Chake99]

RE: How will a Conservati

Scape you said the auto industry is more or less safe as it has government regulations, not class action suits. Give hospitals very strict regulations.

 

[Scape]

And I also said that one only has to look at the energy lobby in the US to see what effect privatization will have to regulation... kiss it goodbye. We must consider the possibility that privatization of an industry so necessary for the day to day existence of our very society may very well have harmful effects to the society at large if the industries values it's own worth above that of the society that it was intended to serve. Just like Nero.

 

[bluealberta]

You want to stop the brain drain, control the flow. You got your education here? Fine, you don't get certified until you have at least 5 years as an intern in a Canadian hospital. They can still go to the US but CANADA subsided their tuition and deserve a share of the wealth for the heath of the people who paid taxes for it. Don't like it? China is hiring, but if you want to enjoy the standard of living in this country you pay for it.

Seems to me that this is may be viewed as forcing someone to do something in exchange for something else. This would simply drive the best students out of the country, probably never to return, and could possibly mean that we would lose instructors if the student base decreased. What we need to decrease waiting times is quite simple: more doctors, nurses, and buildings for these people to work in. If I owned a building that was made into a surgical suite, and I determined I could make a profit by having doctors work there and still be paid the same amount by the public purse, why cannot this be done? Or how about this: If our hospitals are funded by the public, why do we not demand that they are open 24/7? Why are they only open certain hours? If a hospital has an MRI machine, why does this not operate at a full capacity instead of half or two/thirds of the time? We pay for it, we should demand it!

 

[I think not]

There is never enough money to sustain what you suggest, bluealberta. The complaints you have are the same complaints I experienced when living in Greece, they too have a national health care system similar to your own. They've had it since 1974 if my memory serves me correctly. Recently WHO ranked Greece 14 in national health care, which is LAUGHABLE. I have been to Canada many times, your health care system FAR outranks the same system they have in Greece and yet you ranked far below that. Private funding and private services are different, I think a mix of both would work better, but in your case, the national health care system is a matter of national pride (correct me if I'm wrong), and any "hint" of any type of privatization is seen as copying the American model, and that is simply unacceptable in Canadian society.

 

[Jo Canadian]

If our hospitals are funded by the public, why do we not demand that they are open 24/7? Why are they only open certain hours? If a hospital has an MRI machine, why does this not operate at a full capacity instead of half or two/thirds of the time? We pay for it, we should demand it!

That's a good point, unfortunately the gov't usually spends the money on other things. Cutting and slashing funding just lays off more practitioners, and those that stay work longer which makes the quality of the care suck. We'd need a gov't that may help throw some more $$$ the hospitals way and relieve the current staff of their burdenss

any "hint" of any type of privatization is seen as copying the American model, and that is simply unacceptable in Canadian society.

I agree, we already know that doesn't work too well. Back to the drawing board.

 

[Numure]

Re: RE: How will a Conservative government be better?

France, which is considered to have the best health care system in the world, is two tier.

And as it is, although we don’t officially have private health care, our close proximity to the United States makes it impossible for the government of Canada to keep a true monopoly.

The best and the brightest of our doctors and nurses are already heading south. And rich Canadian citizens go to mayo clinics in the states. Allowing private health care in Canada would just mean keeping workers and money within our own economy.

Cuba has the best health care system in the world, mon ami.

 

[Scape]

Seems to me that this is may be viewed as forcing someone to do something in exchange for something else. This would simply drive the best students out of the country, probably never to return, and could possibly mean that we would lose instructors if the student base decreased. What we need to decrease waiting times is quite simple: more doctors, nurses, and buildings for these people to work in. If I owned a building that was made into a surgical suite, and I determined I could make a profit by having doctors work there and still be paid the same amount by the public purse, why cannot this be done? Or how about this: If our hospitals are funded by the public, why do we not demand that they are open 24/7? Why are they only open certain hours? If a hospital has an MRI machine, why does this not operate at a full capacity instead of half or two/thirds of the time? We pay for it, we should demand it!

They choose to use the education system and then go to the US to for higher pay? Sounds like we are being forced to fix a problem of a manpower shortage. Before we even look at punitive measures like Canadian based practicums we could look to reform our education system so that foreign skilled labour will not have to start from scratch to be qualified in Canada and are able to take a universal upgrade program to get them working as fast as possible. This would do a great deal to alleviate a lot of the manpower shortage. Also within the domestic education system itself it must be more user friendly to LPN wanting to upgrade to an RN. We have a lot of 30-50 year old nurses who have spent years of practical experience but are unable to upgrade their skills to higher paying and badly needed skilled positions like an RN simply because our education system requires far to much academia and put hardly any weight on practical hands on experience.

 

[I think not]

I agree, we already know that doesn't work too well. Back to the drawing board.

Not exactly the point I was trying to make.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

We trust private companies all the time when it comes to issues of public safety. Do you drive a car - they were all made by private companies, and your life depends on its performance. ARe they safe? Do you work or live in a highrise building? They were all designed and constructed by private companies, for profit. Presumably the same 'incentive' for cutting corners exists there as well, but we haven't seen a building collapse in this country do to faulty work, have we? That's because if there are short term gains to be made by cutting corners, there are HUGE liabilities to be concerned with and it doesn't make sense for a company planning to be around for the long term.

Private industry does not ensure the safety of vehicles or buildings, government does...

Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standards -- A function of Transport Canada

National Building Code of Canada -- A function of The National Research Council of Canada

 

[bluealberta]

There is never enough money to sustain what you suggest, bluealberta. The complaints you have are the same complaints I experienced when living in Greece, they too have a national health care system similar to your own. They've had it since 1974 if my memory serves me correctly. Recently WHO ranked Greece 14 in national health care, which is LAUGHABLE. I have been to Canada many times, your health care system FAR outranks the same system they have in Greece and yet you ranked far below that. Private funding and private services are different, I think a mix of both would work better, but in your case, the national health care system is a matter of national pride (correct me if I'm wrong), and any "hint" of any type of privatization is seen as copying the American model, and that is simply unacceptable in Canadian society.

As far as I am concerned, it is not a matter of national pride. Our system is broken, but any time there is any discussion at all about using any kind of private system to help correct it, these suggestions as simply met with derision. I too strongly agree that a mis is the only solution to the health care problem. Just as the left does not want to see privatization, those of us on the right don't believe that the public system is the only answer. A mix has to happen. What I really don't understand is why there is opposition to this when our eye doctors, dentists, physiotherapists, to name some, are private operating within a public system. Believe it or not, instead of trying to expand on this model, some on the left think that these type of medical people should be put totally under the public purse as well. Until we get a real discussion on this with all options on the table, nothing will change other than simply pouring money into a never ending hole. Obviously that has not helped anything.