Since I already pay for most of my health care expenses I have no problem with this. What I don't like is paying HST on those services as well as paying over $100/mo for our so called free medical care.
Liberal MP: Canada's "obsolete" health care needs some privatization
- Thread starter Tonington
- Start date
It addresses the fact that it's my money, and not someone elses.
Yes. Doesn't follow. Just because I have the opinion that more choice in healthcare is a good thing, and that it's served by allowing me to use my private insurance, does not mean that I favour the American style. I have mentioned nothing about regulations, which is probably the biggest determining factor in the "style" that a country will have, rather than a simple dichotomy between private and public pays. Switzerland is all private, with government subsidization of low income families who are required by law to purchase insurance from one of the 84 private insurance companies. Their health care is top shelf. The difference is how insurance companies bill. Pre-existing conditions don't matter, you're covered.
If you read the OP, I said it's a debate our country needs to have. There are many health care varieties in this world, and they all have pros and cons. It's intellectually lazy, and not very objective to continually compare us to the US. Though for some reason that is always where opponents of reform go...
The opponents go to the US model for two reasons.
(1) Short of no health care it is probably the worst in the world.
(2) Looking at any other models would go against the socialist mantra of the government should pay
I see, so it's the my money line then.
Okay, I no longer want to subsidise education on that premiss.
I never said we shouldn't have a debate about it.
It's about time we did but it's a hot political potato.
The Swiss system is similar in many ways to ours, forcing people to buy health insurance and allowing for suplementing of that.
The OP suggests a two tier system, the Swiss system isn't two tier. The US system is.
Have a look at France, WHO seems to like whats going on there and they are ethnically diverse like Canada...the Swiss, not so much and that matters.
Yet I have stated otherwise.
Canada has a unique system and one I believe is flawed but better than what they have south of us.
I guess you missed the part of my post where I pointed out that it has been tried. It has been tried in the US and failed badly. I was tried in Britain during the 1980s and had the results I pointed out in pulling skilled doctors away from the public system. Unless the problems of medical greater inequality and a loss of skilled medical personnel can be dealt with I see little point in adopting a two tier system.
It would actually make more sense to adopt systems that offer better health care than what is offered in Canada and at lower cost. There are a number of countries who beat Canada hands down when it comes to quality and per capita cost of health care. Why not take a good look at these instead of attempting to find more and more ways to line the pockets of the owners of medical corporations?
The Government should pay. In the end the government does pay. The fact is the Government
is not some abstract thing somewhere on a hill high above us all. The government like it or not
is all of us. That is true especially when the bills come due. If we reverted to the user pay and
managed health private companies you would still pay because those on welfare and low income
would receive health care and taxpayers would pay. This way all citizens, even those paying a
hundred dollars a month, for free health care. Yes at a 100 bucks a month it is damn near free.
Medicare is a public insurance company. If you are not sick you don't collect just like car insurance
without an accident. If you had to pay, your hundred dollars a month is a drop in the bucket
compared to the cost of an emergency or operation, and by spreading the cost over the population
it is cheaper. The problem is not the cost of health care it is the incompetence of those who are
administering it.
You would also see unemployment figures go up in Canada. There are many companies that come
here due to the fact they don't have to pay higher premiums for employee under the system here as
compared to the Excited States. The difference in cost to some large companies and branch divisions
is really quite large. There is a whole series of problems that would manifest themselves if we went
to that system also because under NAFTA it would open the door to all kinds of American companies
taking over existing facilities. Remember the health care is what we pay for now, we have already
paid all the billions for infrastructure costs, hospitals etc. which the medical insurance corporations
would buy up for a song and hold you to ransom for. Simply opening the door would be fraught with
all kinds of problems and would cost us billions in the long run. My wife has COPD and has had to
spend about 20 days in hospital this year, and it will likely get worse with time, without medicare, we
would be finished economically. So many people complain about the system, well i for one have never
had a problem, no we were not always first in line, but we were treated with respect and in a timely
fashion, and we have no complaints. I had to have an operation some time back and I was on a waiting
list, so what, it was inconvenient and it did bring a little pain for awhile I got over it people in worse shape
than i got help first so what. Also people in dire need do get looked after first.
is not some abstract thing somewhere on a hill high above us all. The government like it or not
is all of us. That is true especially when the bills come due. If we reverted to the user pay and
managed health private companies you would still pay because those on welfare and low income
would receive health care and taxpayers would pay. This way all citizens, even those paying a
hundred dollars a month, for free health care. Yes at a 100 bucks a month it is damn near free.
Medicare is a public insurance company. If you are not sick you don't collect just like car insurance
without an accident. If you had to pay, your hundred dollars a month is a drop in the bucket
compared to the cost of an emergency or operation, and by spreading the cost over the population
it is cheaper. The problem is not the cost of health care it is the incompetence of those who are
administering it.
You would also see unemployment figures go up in Canada. There are many companies that come
here due to the fact they don't have to pay higher premiums for employee under the system here as
compared to the Excited States. The difference in cost to some large companies and branch divisions
is really quite large. There is a whole series of problems that would manifest themselves if we went
to that system also because under NAFTA it would open the door to all kinds of American companies
taking over existing facilities. Remember the health care is what we pay for now, we have already
paid all the billions for infrastructure costs, hospitals etc. which the medical insurance corporations
would buy up for a song and hold you to ransom for. Simply opening the door would be fraught with
all kinds of problems and would cost us billions in the long run. My wife has COPD and has had to
spend about 20 days in hospital this year, and it will likely get worse with time, without medicare, we
would be finished economically. So many people complain about the system, well i for one have never
had a problem, no we were not always first in line, but we were treated with respect and in a timely
fashion, and we have no complaints. I had to have an operation some time back and I was on a waiting
list, so what, it was inconvenient and it did bring a little pain for awhile I got over it people in worse shape
than i got help first so what. Also people in dire need do get looked after first.
That’s an uneven comparison. The additional costs associated with the US system translate into more and better technology, lower wait times and more beds per capita.
How would you know what you’d prefer; Canada does not offer any choice. On that note, the costs, effectiveness and quality in Canada have no basis for comparison as it is essentially a monopoly.
… But you have no problem with that same child suffering because they can’t get timely access to the actual service.
Where’s the motivation? Why on Earth would any union give up a state mandated monopoly?
See above… You don’t know that.
In the real world… How many full-size provincial hospitals are being built in small towns with less than 5000 people?
Education isn’t a monopoly, is it? Society offers a choice to the consumer which in turn generates a measuring stick via cost, quality and effectiveness.
Canada is already losing Dr.'s everyday. You have identified this as a potential reaction, however, I think that's it's also fair to identify that this is the existing experience.
That makes perfect sense... The problem is that this has been a talking point for decades.. Trying to re-jig a broken system to make it a little less broken.
Yeah... That must be it.
Such benefits are utterly useless if they benefit only the wealthy or those with high-priced insurance plans. A national health care system is supposed to be just that, a national system that gives everyone access to medical services. The largely private medical sector in the US has manifestly failed to do this. You seem to be advocating that Canada do what it has done too often in the past; import a failed system. So far as can be determined only a very few benefit from US style private health care - the shareholders in medical corporations and health insurance firms, and highly paid medical professionals who run very lucrative private clinics. You have suggested that Canada look at other systems. Why not find one that actually seems to work and see what can be learned?
I personally agree that we need more privatization of the system, and so voted accordingly in the poll. Failing that, then we need to raise our taxes. But my first choice would be more privatization.
Yes she did and yes I've done many things for free when I worked 100% commission. 90% of things done in commission work is free.
As it turns out he decided to return the call and discuss by phone.
I disagree. The benefits come in many forms.
There is a number of demographic groups that will participate and support the private side. Wealthy people that are willing travel outside the country if necessary, corporate entities that already insure their admin and upper management (N.B. - this insurance is not so much identified as health insurance as much as it is business insurance) and a demographic within the middle class that have the capacity and interest to consume private services.
If a private group is willing to accommodate these patients, the local community benefits via having beds and technology made available (that would otherwise not have been placed) that is/was funded entirely through private sources. Add in, for each person dealt with in a private facility, the queue shortens in the public line-up.
Canada's system has been failing for years and when one component of any provincial budget is consuming in excess of 40% of an entire provincial budget, it threatens to cannibalize the entire system. In terms of the reference to importing the US system, I am a little confused. In the end, you have 3 specific options: Public, Private and a Hybrid. The American system is not terribly unique. But what is common in all systems is the cost. No matter what nation/system you support, you gotta pay to play whether it is through additional taxes, out of pocket or a combination.
With that in mind, Canada is among a handful of systems that restrict/prevent the participation of the private sector... If you want to import an effective system, you had better be prepared to embrace the private sector
I have no idea why the private sector is necessary in health care in any way shape or form. However, if you can give me one example of a case where the private sector provides a cheaper service than a competing public health care service I might be inclined to change my mind. So far in spite of your insistence of the necessity of the private sector in health care you have failed to do that. In fact in Alberta continual expansion of the private sector in health care has failed to reduce health expenditures and is more than likely to be one of the reasons for the continual increase in costs.
You have also failed to give a single real example of how two tier medicine benefits anyone except the medical corporations and insurance companies who offer such services and the wealthy clientele who can afford them. Your claim that shorter line-ups result from the wealthy using private clinics has not been borne out in reality due to the number of medical personnel who leave the public sector in search of higher incomes. In fact the opposite is true with waiting lists becoming longer due to a loss of skilled personnel to the private sector.
You might want the read the following article reviewing private health care in Britain before advocating that Canada adopt a system that has not worked elsewhere. The evidence from the U.K. is clear: privatization is more costly < Health care, Privatization | CUPE
As I stated before. I am not opposed the health care reform; far from it; I would like to see major changes, but I have no interest in instituting changes that have little chance of improving health care.
Liberals show they're the control freaks
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/Liberals+show+they+control+freaks/3737800/story.html The new control freaks on Parliament Hill are a Liberal party where freedoms of expression, dissension and individual legislation have been stripped away in a series of bizarre moves by the party leadership.
Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/don-martin.html#ixzz13gP1Wwom
