New Bush Health plan same as Harpers Mentor/Advisor...

[the caracal kid]

yes, but what is wrong with a private service for issues also covered by public when they are non-emergency?

there are techniques available privately that are not available publicly for conditions covered publicly. I say let people choose what services they want rather than being dictacted to. Public services has to offer everything or open the door to private service "competition" (but everybody would still have to pay into the public core system).

 

[Jay]

How will allowing some people to pay for their own health care make any real significant impact on government healthcare spending, unless you force some people to pay for it?

You lost me....please rephrase.

You have several post about the 40% cost of health care, indicating it is too high, then post that we should be paying ourselves. When I ask ask for a clarification, you then state you think Allowing some people to pay their own health care is good...

I am trying to find out what you are trying to say. Are you saying having some people pay for their own health care will somehow help. In which case I don't think so, unless you force them...

What exactly are you proposing that will help with the cost of health care that you consider too high?

We should all take out private healthcare insurance, and the government should subsidize those who cannot afford to cover their own insurance.

 

[Freethinker]

RE: New Bush Health plan

So emulate the US system?

 

[Jay]

If there are 40 million people without insurance in the USA, I don't think my proposal would be emulating the US.

 

[Freethinker]

Re: RE: New Bush Health plan same as Harpers Mentor/Advisor.

If there are 40 million people without insurance in the USA, I don't think my proposal would be emulating the US.

We have an irreconcilable difference in philosophy here that will just lead to endless argument. I believe universal health care will cover everyone and only cost a little more than what you propose.

What you propose is the US system and will lead to the same result. If people, who fail the means test, have to buy their own health insurance, many won't for a variety of reasons. And eventually we would have millions uncovered just like in the USA.

Next the argument will say it is their own fault then. No doubt just like the 45 Million uncovered in the USA. It will be their own fault, if that is the way you choose to look at it.

The only real savings in what you suggest is from the people who go uncovered.

Thankfully. I think your desire is still the minority viewpoint.

 

[nomore]

I can't believe that anyone could possibly want anything other than a single payer system.

Well you should believe it. When single-payer systems come at the cost of important services, and increased taxes, why would you not want to look at alternative options? Every other industrialized nation has. Including the ones that once had fully funded systems.

Anything else is just adding so much more inefficiency and cost to the system it's ridiculous.

Do you have supporting evidence for this statement, or is it just opinion? Because there is significant evidence to the contrary.
We spend more %GDP on healthcare than almost all industrialized OCED countries, and they all have some sort of private paralell system, not to mention many have better access to services and doctors.

That's the main reason the US spends more on administrative costs.

once again...do you have evidence to support this? they may spend more per GDP than Canada on health, but that dosen't mean their administrative costs are higher per capita. Not to mention they are one of the stongest economies in the world, so therefore they can support it either way.

But that brings me to my final point...and I don't know how many more times I will have to bring this up before you get it. No-one is looking to the US to model our healthcare system after. If you want a better comparison look at the OCED countries that offer universal healthcare, of which there are almost 30, and none of them follow a U.S system. But they all offer some sort of private option.

 

[sanch]

But that brings me to my final point...and I don't know how many more times I will have to bring this up before you get it. No-one is looking to the US to model our healthcare system after. If you want a better comparison look at the OCED countries that offer universal healthcare, of which there are almost 30, and none of them follow a U.S system. But they all offer some sort of private option.

The idea that Canada can create an indigenous private health care system modeled on something other than the US system is a bit naïve. Canada will just be too big of a new market for US insurers to ignore and so they will compete and simply buy up any Canadian companies. So the same insurers will bring the US private system into Canada. There are caps and if you get really sick you will be forced to use your savings and sell your house to pay for care. If you have a precondition and lose your job no insurer will pick you up. Then you will be back in the public trough.

In Europe I can see a two tier system being balanced somewhat. In Canada though one does have to factor in the destabilization effect of the US. It will be a very lopsided teeter totter.

 

[nomore]

The idea that Canada can create an indigenous private health care system modeled on something other than the US system is a bit naïve. Canada will just be too big of a new market for US insurers to ignore and so they will compete and simply buy up any Canadian companies. So the same insurers will bring the US private system into Canada. There are caps and if you get really sick you will be forced to use your savings and sell your house to pay for care. If you have a precondition and lose your job no insurer will pick you up. Then you will be back in the public trough.

In Europe I can see a two tier system being balanced somewhat. In Canada though one does have to factor in the destabilization effect of the US. It will be a very lopsided teeter totter.

*sigh*
let me re-quote myself, and highlight something you obviously missed.

But that brings me to my final point...and I don't know how many more times I will have to bring this up before you get it. No-one is looking to the US to model our healthcare system after. If you want a better comparison look at the OCED countries that offer universal healthcare, of which there are almost 30, and none of them follow a U.S system. But they all offer some sort of private option.

The universal healthcare system won't disapear in Canada. Therefore you won't be forced to sell your house for medical costs.
If you choose to get private healthcare insurance, and for whatever reason you lose it, you would still be fully covered under the public system....hence the term "universal"

And just as a side note, you don't think U.S owned company's operate out of any other OCED nations?

 

[FiveParadox]

I think that it may be naïve, sanch, to suggest that Canada is incapable of developing a system of health care that would not be in keeping with that of the United States — while it could certainly use improvement, I would argue that many Canadians would identify the "universality" of our system as an important factor, and one that should be retained indefinitely.

 

[sanch]

I can’t see the two systems co-existing in Canada. My experience with a public/ private or two tier school system in the US is that the private domain is able to appropriate many of the resources intended for the public system thereby weakening it. I suspect it would work this way for health care as well. And just as the public school system here is really only for those who cannot afford private schooling so the public health system will quickly evolve into a service that only those who cannot afford private health insurance use. To save money it is easy to create eligibility rules for public health care. You want private care with a safety net. I can’t see that working. Canada is in North America, next to the US and part of NAFTA. Canada is not part of Europe.

Nelnet announced their 4th quarter results today and its net student loan assets were $20.3 billion at Dec. 31, an increase of 51 percent from a year earlier. One of the reasons for the increase is the purchase of Edulinx from CIBC. Look at the stock price for Nelnet in the period shortly after they bought Edulinx. A big bump. The chairman and vice-chairman of Nelnet with salaries and stock appreciation each earned 100 million last year. And do you think the management of the student loan system has improved since the takeover. No. It’s still a mess.

What I got out of your post FiveParadox was that the universal system will endure because the people wish it so. I can take you to a lot of villages, regions and towns around the world where people were living lives they thought were unalterable until the companies moved in. It’s called capitalism.

Here are some numbers. It seems a lot of Canadians see private care as a viaable option. This is why it is so important to fix the current system and to do that you have to fix the government. Public opinion is trending in this direction.

http://www.mediresource.com/e/pages/hcc_survey/pdf/2005_hcic.pps

 

[sanch]

Here is perhaps a better example. Pre-NAFTA in Mexico many peasants had access to land through the ejido system. They were small parcels of land and the peasants only had usufruct rights as the state held the title so the land could not simply be purchased and reincorporated back into the large landed estates. After NAFTA agribusiness moved in and today the ejido system is largely history. The Mexican government opened the system up to capitalist penetration and mechanized agriculture did the rest.

 

[FiveParadox]

sanch, are you sure it is wise to link directly to non-browser files? Perhaps an intermediate page would be more appropriate.

On a health care note, I don't blindly advocate for public health care because the people "wish it so," but because I think that it can work. I'm not saying the system doesn't need improvement — because it does.

 

[nomore]

To save money it is easy to create eligibility rules for public health care. You want private care with a safety net. I can’t see that working.

again, not the type of system being proposed. No one would be forced into private care, regardless of your income. It's freedom of choice. There are no eligibility rules applied to a UNIVERSAL system. Rich or poor you would have the right to choose the public system if you wanted, or private if you wanted.

As for your schooling analogy, there already are private schools in Canada as well, and they co-exist with the public system.

 

[Jay]

http://www.cbc.ca/manitoba/story/mb_health-rankings-20060201.html

A new study suggests Manitoba ranks at the bottom of the provinces when it comes to the overall performance of our health-care system.


I thought the NDP ran that province....

http://www.gov.mb.ca/minister/premier.html

"Under Premier Doer’s leadership, Manitoba’s innovative health care plan has focused on rebuilding the system through educating and hiring more nurses, doctors and health care professionals, moving ahead with strategic capital projects, and investing in diagnostic equipment and leading-edge technology to improve outcomes for patients. "

Must have been pretty bad....

 

[the caracal kid]

From ctv.ca:
"Access to cancer drugs varies nationwide: study"
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe.../cancer_reportcard_060131/20060201?hub=Health

We already have a "10 tier system". Now, as i said before, if we can not produce a national system that covers everything, then there MUST be an alternative provided to cover the things the public system will not.

 

[Jo Canadian]

:lol: I've been saying it before the Election, and now someone's actually drawn it. :lol: :lol: