Should Canada adopt Swedish Health Care?

[Machjo]

So instead of having 4 million people in Vancouver we should have 2000 people living on 20 acres in Salmo?

I'm not suggesting government mandating precise numbers, but rather let the market handle it. If the government simply divvied up health care costs per capita, those towns with the right balance of a large enough population to warrant a hospital and density to keep people close to the hospital but not so large a population as to push resources away from the city thus pushing costs up are the ones that could provide the best healthcare for the lowest cost. On the other hand, megacities that have pushed resources too far afield and thus pushed the cost of living and real estate costs up, or hospitals in the middle of the forest having to spend half of their budget just on transport would offer poor service for the price. The free market itself would thus push people to move into more efficient communities. I'm not saying we abandon such people, but maybe we could offer to pay for moving costs or something. At least that would be one cost once and for all, rather than the government having to spend more money on hospital real estate in Toronto or for ambulances, helicopters, and fuel for some hospital in the boonies. If a person insists on living in the boonies, fine, but then he pays for the extra costs of healthcare. But we could offer to move him to a cheaper area if that's what he wants. That's what I mean when I say I'm willing to help those who are willing to help themselves.

 

[Machjo]

So instead of having 4 million people in Vancouver we should have 2000 people living on 20 acres in Salmo?

:lol:

I have to admit, there is humour in that.

Could you imagine a town, population 20,00 let's say, with farms and greenhouses across the street from skyscrapers?

 

[L Gilbert]

I don't see why it would not be possible for farmers to live on the outskirts of town, as is likely the case in most towns anyway. There's no need for farmers to live way, way out in the middle of nowhere. For example, why not encourage more urban development in agricultrual provinces like Saskatchewan while encouraging more agricultural development in the suburbs of Tornoto or Vancouver. Bring people closer together and it saves on transport costs, taxes on transport infrastructure building, etc. Why do we need to produce most of our wheat in Saskatchewan and then all live in Southern Ontario?

Screw urban development. It is one of the worst things that man has come up with alongside petroleum, government, and organized religion. People in urban areas haven't a clue about where their food comes from, what it takes to grow it, and so forth. Familiarity breeds contempt, it is said, so what do people do? Coagulate.It does not work. Kelowna used to have a small center with lots of food grown around it. People moved closer and closer to it and now there is a small fraction of the farmable land left and the population of the area is a huge amount more. Brilliant.

 

[Machjo]

:lol:

I have to admit, there is humour in that.

Could you imagine a town, population 20,00 let's say, with farms and greenhouses across the street from skyscrapers?

Then again, that wouldn't be too bad. Food would be cheap because of low transportation costs, people could walk to work, and everyone would be close to the amenities of an urban centre and nature all at the same time, and still be able to enjoy fresh rural produce.

 

[Machjo]

Screw urban development. It is one of the worst things that man has come up with alongside petroleum, government, and organized religion. People in urban areas haven't a clue about where their food comes from, what it takes to grow it, and so forth. Familiarity breeds contempt, it is said, so what do people do? Coagulate.It does not work. Kelowna used to have a small center with lots of food grown around it. People moved closer and closer to it and now there is a small fraction of the farmable land left and the population of the area is a huge amount more. Brilliant.

That's my point. Let's stop suburban sprawl. Why couldn't Kelowna ban suburban sprawl, thus forcing the town to grow upward rather than outward and thus protecting farmland on its outskirts close to town.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with urbanization. My problem is with suburbanization. Ideally, we should have urban and rural, and nothing in between. Suburbs are a blight on both the urban and rural landscapes, distant from the advantages of both the city and nature. Honestly, I'd see nothing wrong with an urban environment bordered by an agricultural environment with no suburban sprawl to distance them from one another.

 

[L Gilbert]

:lol:

I have to admit, there is humour in that.

Could you imagine a town, population 20,00 let's say, with farms and greenhouses across the street from skyscrapers?

No. Read my bit about Kelowna. What you suggest doesn't work. Simply because everyone has the idea that populations can grow infinitely without any bad effect.
I'll pass on your idea. We live a half hour's drive away from a small town of 15,000. the nearest place that has any form of semblance to a hospital (diagnostic equipment, operating rooms, etc.) is 2 hours away. We'll keep our farm, humanity, sanity, peace and quiet, elbow room, fresh air, fresh water that doesn't taste like chemical soup, thanks.

 

[L Gilbert]

That's my point. Let's stop suburban sprawl. Why couldn't Kelowna ban suburban sprawl, thus forcing the town to grow upward rather than outward and thus protecting farmland on its outskirts close to town.

That'd be fine if you were on the prairies. Kelowna has hills around it. It cannot house as many as it does and stay self sufficient. So it has to continually attract more people. There's a limit as to how high you can build. Especially on flood plains such as the one Kelowna is built on. They already have one building that they have to keep pumping concrete under to hold it upright.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with urbanization. My problem is with suburbanization. Ideally, we should have urban and rural, and nothing in between. Suburbs are a blight on both the urban and rural landscapes, distant from the advantages of both the city and nature. Honestly, I'd see nothing wrong with an urban environment bordered by an agricultural environment with no suburban sprawl to distance them from one another.

I see lots wrong with urban development. One day there won't be any aerable land left and there'll be urbans all over it.
We'll stay away from them and risk the 2 hour drive to the nearest hospital.

 

[mit]

Apparently Norway now has a conservative government that is working at trying to pay for all the things the previous socialist governments had implemented.

 

[L Gilbert]

It happens.

Anyway, Canada's healthcare needs to change. The existing one isn't sustainable.

 

[Machjo]

No. Read my bit about Kelowna. What you suggest doesn't work. Simply because everyone has the idea that populations can grow infinitely without any bad effect.
I'll pass on your idea. We live a half hour's drive away from a small town of 15,000. the nearest place that has any form of semblance to a hospital (diagnostic equipment, operating rooms, etc.) is 2 hours away. We'll keep our farm, humanity, sanity, peace and quiet, elbow room, fresh air, fresh water that doesn't taste like chemical soup, thanks.

I see nothing wrong with that, but then it's only fair that while we pay for the health care, you pay for the ambulance or drive there yourself, or pay a higher gas tax to compensate or something, or alternatively accept less ehalth care money. However we split it, is it fair that you get to enjoy nature while I don't?

Certainly I have no issue with you staying out there, but was just pointing out how medical resources ought to be redistributed.

And as for population growth, that's wrong. It's not population growth, but population redistribution. After all, if a person moves from Vancouver to Kelowna, then Vancouvers' population is shrinking in proportion to Kelowna's.

 

[Machjo]

That'd be fine if you were on the prairies. Kelowna has hills around it. It cannot house as many as it does and stay self sufficient. So it has to continually attract more people. There's a limit as to how high you can build. Especially on flood plains such as the one Kelowna is built on. They already have one building that they have to keep pumping concrete under to hold it upright.

OK, now that's a whole different issue. If that's the cae, then certainly it may be wise to prohibit further development in Kelowna. Fair enough.

I see lots wrong with urban development. One day there won't be any aerable land left and there'll be urbans all over it.
We'll stay away from them and risk the 2 hour drive to the nearest hospital.

I'd say it's the opposite. If we got rid of urban development, we'd have suburban sprawl everywhere. High-density urban development is what prevents the suburbs from eating away at rural agricultural land. In that sense, urban development and agriculture go hand in hand and need each other. Suburbanization is a symptom of the failure of proper urban planning and development. Here in Ottawa our city is geographiclaly way too big for its population. We could probably fit just as many people in half the land we are taking up now and still have more than enough green space to live comfortably. This woudl also help to protect agricultural lands in what have now become ugly suburbs. Had Ottawa not gone the way of suburbanization, our urban centre would be far more developed than it already is and agricultural lands woudl be no more than a short bus-ride or ven bicycle ride away.

 

[Machjo]

Again, Gilbert, my suggestion was certainly not to force people to move into towns, but simply to offer them that option. And like you said, yoy're willing to accept the risks. That's reasonable. If you'd expect ambulances way out there to be as responsive as in a city, then we'd have a problem, but if you accept the risk of slower medical response, then I see nothing wrong with that. You know the risks and accept them. No issue there.

 

[Niflmir]

I'm not sure which I prefer between the Swedish and Singaporean models, though I think they're both better than the Canadian one in that in both cases, a 'pressure valve' of sorts does exist in that they are both two-tier systems allowing considerable private involvement.

I think I lean in favour of the Singaporean system though in that it does encourage individual responsibility while, just like Canada, still guaranteeing universal access. The Swedish model does guarantee higher-quality access to the poor though, but seeeing that the WHO ranks the Singaporean model sixth in the world, I can't imagine they're suffering too much. Canada's is ranked 30th.

I seem to be yelling myself hoarse on this point but, I will repeat once again:

Nothing forbids private health care in Canada.

We already have a two tier system. There just aren't many companies willing to provide the care for the ``private'' tier. Suggesting that we modify our health care system to allow a second tier is the same as arguing that we need to force the market to develop, or we need to water down the public system so they can compete.

 

[#juan]

Clinton praises Canada's healthcare system.

A hoarse but energetic Bill Clinton told a Toronto audience that Canada is the envy of the world.
"You may want to make fun of yourselves all you want, but there are many people who would kill to live in an environment like this," the former American president said.
The former U.S. president's speech, Embracing Our Common Humanity, praised Canada's health-care system. He also lamented the unequal distribution of wealth and opportunities between rural northern Canadians and those who live in urban centres, calling it "a pattern repeated throughout the world."
The wise-cracking and impassioned Clinton spoke to a crowd at the Canadian National Exhibition on Saturday afternoon, only hours after attending the funeral of U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy in Boston.
"I hope that his lifetime dream that America finally will follow Canada and every other advanced nation in the world in providing affordable health care to all of our people will pass," Clinton said of Kennedy.
Clinton expressed hope that his country will adopt a health care system where everyone gets coverage.
Using examples from town hall meetings held across the U.S., Clinton tried to explain why his country was so reluctant to change the way it delivers health care.
Clinton unsuccessfully attempted to reform the nation's healthcare 15 years ago and current U.S. President Barack Obama is trying to bring in reforms.
Clinton said that in the U.S. today, there are "incentives to keep people misinformed and full of fear."
On the issue of poverty, the former president said, "If you live in a poor country and you have no shot, chances are you have no shot because no matter how smart you are, no matter how hard you work, you don't have the systems that we take for granted."
Clinton called on his audience to contribute to fighting global poverty on an individual level, saying donating a dollar a month, or even a year, will make a difference.
Hafeez Ladha — who is completing a master's degree in public health, has seen Clinton several times, and participated in several of Clinton's international AIDS projects — said he was inspired by Clinton's message.
"He discussed how each individual can contribute in their own personal way towards big humanitarian causes, so even though there's certain causes that we may feel are out of our reach, he made that personal and brought it down to our level," said Ladha, 24.
Ladha credited Clinton for inspiring him to study public health.
"He's done so much for domestic society, for international society, for health care for the social benefit of the world, so it's obviously an incredible person to hear from."

 

[mit]

If our health carecosts are so low we should be marketing ourservices to Americans with money to help pay for ours.

We have a worldclass surgeon just north of London that is one of the best for knee surgery - The hospital put forth a proposal to become a specialized knee and joint hospital - It was turned down - too close to being a private system the government thought. Shouldice hospital in Toronto is private - world class hernia surgeries - If you are from Ontario - the gov pays for it - If you are out of province or country the individual pays - They have no emergency ward - no maternity ward - just hernias - They make money at it.
WTF is wrong with that?

 

[mit]

You may want to make fun of yourselves all you want, but there are many people who would kill to live in an environment like this," Bill Clinton about Canada!

When oil gets above $150 bbl and water becomes scarce in the USA this statement may come true!

 

[Niflmir]

If our health carecosts are so low we should be marketing ourservices to Americans with money to help pay for ours.

We have a worldclass surgeon just north of London that is one of the best for knee surgery - The hospital put forth a proposal to become a specialized knee and joint hospital - It was turned down - too close to being a private system the government thought. Shouldice hospital in Toronto is private - world class hernia surgeries - If you are from Ontario - the gov pays for it - If you are out of province or country the individual pays - They have no emergency ward - no maternity ward - just hernias - They make money at it.
WTF is wrong with that?

Actual you make a very good point there. Many countries have agreements with other nations on providing health care to each other's nationals while they are visiting. This is the case in European nations, for instance. We could use more of that. Especially since travel insurance is so cheap in general, it probably wouldn't cost so much.

 

[#juan]

Out of curiosity, why would the Swedish health care system work any better than ours does. The problems we have are not going to get better because we have a Swedish system. We could lose Sweden in B.C..or Ontario.....or Quebec...

Area and Population of Countries — Infoplease.com

 

[taxslave]

Our health care system will continue to be expensive and not all that good as long as we continue to cling to the socialist principal that we should all suffer equally. Works in theory but not in practice. The system cannot continue to be all things to all people or it will soon devour the total government budget. When Tommy Douglas first came up with the universal plan heart transplants were more experiments than reality, CAT scans,MRI were not even in the labs yet. Yet many people cling to the belief that no matter what your social standing you are entitled to all these and more, in order, no que jumping. So a 75 year old will get a heart transplant ahead of a 40 year old with a family and a business to support. Or a deadbeat from DES that did a drunken faceplant on the sidewalk should get into surgery ahead of the worker injured on the job. All for "free".
This cannot go on. One possibility would be having to pay premiums on a basket of services over basic emergency care. Eg; Under no circumstances would I have a heart transplant because I refuse to take anti rejection drugs so I would not pay for that service and when my heart quits I'm dead. Want to smoke, drink and eat junk food-don't expect the rest of us to pay for your diabetes and obeasity problems, pay premiums on this kind of care. This isn't rationing health care it is forcing people to deal with their own lives. Not sure how all the other provinces tax for health care but in B.C. we pay $98/mo for two of us and we are healthy If your income is low enough it is free regardless of how much you use.
Another thing that has to be changed is global funding for hospitals. They need to bill the system on a fee for service model. Right now they have no real idea how much any given operation costs. When the budget is spent they close beds. This may make some hospitals specialize which will be more efficient than all of them being full serve.

 

[mit]

In Ontario the vast majority of us working folks pay $600/yr so I guess it is about the same as BC. However our employers pay a health tax also. Not sure what it is.

There is also a chance to even out wait times across our provinces for testing procedures.

Say you are a small hospital in Ingersoll Ontario - You have a new MRI machine but the patient load requires you borrow a technician once a week from London. It services your catchment area but you have an expensive machine that is underutilized. So you hire a technician for a full week and post that you have available time on a website. A Dr in Toronto has a backlog of patients waiting for MRI's and he can suggest to his more mobile patients - Hey - if you want to take a 2 hour trip down the 401 I can get you in tomorrow. Sure the patient bears the cost of transport but it is like a little mini-holiday trip - you can get a nice room at a reasonable rate - explore a few shops downtown and have a bite to eat.

Healthcare system has no added costs - equipment is better utilized - small hospital has more income - Town has an economic boost. Win-Win-Win

There are simple solutions - Too many consultants look at pie in the sky options