Renegade

Doctors who open private clinics are no different then the rest of us who seek the best possible compensation for their efforts. If they stand to earn more in a private clinic, why shouldn't they be entitled to do so. I fail to see how that is "gouging" any more than a union who strikes the best possible deal with an employer.

Absolutely, replace the man. As long as party policy is primarily dictated by its leader, we cannot ignore the direction the leader sets. Harper is alienating his potential support in the population. When he pushes government intervention in social issues which should be best left to personal choices (eg his stance on same-sex marriage), he narrows his support base to those on the "religious right" Harper would have stood a much better chance had he stuck to fiscal issues, and efficient running of government. Alas, it is too late for him to backtrack and for the Tories to have a chance, it will take a new leader to set the direction.

While it is uncomfortable to do so, of course we can. We do so everyday whether we choose to acknowledge it or not. Our govenment makes choices in deciding it will fund a cheaper treatment, over a somewhat more effective but considerably more expensive treatment. Is that not making a valuation on the worth of a life? No doubt, people die while on waiting lists for treatment which could save their lives. Has the govenment not already made a value judgement by choosing not to more extensively fund this treatment? Don't we all subjectively value a life when we choose to buy a new car rather than contribute to alleviate starvation in Africa? Of course each valuation is subjective, and we tend to value our own lives and those of people close to us higher than strangers, or people in other countries, but our actions prove that we make valuation judgements on the worth of a life every day. A smoker makes a voluntary choice to smoke despite knowing the risks to their health. They do so for their own reasons, not to abuse the health system, yet despite this, I don't really see why all of us should be forced to subsidize the cost of a choice which is made by the smoker alone. I would have the same stance for participation in high-risk sports. If someone decides to engage in a high-risk activity, all the costs (including the healthcare) should be their's alone to bear. BTW, I do personally participate in sports and frequently injure myself. I'm fine to assume the costs of those injuries as I don't make reckless choices. As I have proposed before, one fairer system is for users of the system to pay based upon risk (just as we do with auto, or life insurance). In this case, contributions by smokers, and others who engage in high-risk activites would help offset the costs that they incur.

One other thought I had, was that another way for people to handle health care costs is for the government to institute a saving plan. This would be analagous to an RRSP but for healthcare, or alternatively expand the use of RRSP funds to pay for healthcare. Obviously each of us don't need the govenment to tell us to have our own "rainy day" fund, but many people would only do it if the government initiated the system.

The thread on healthcare got me thinking. We have a finite set of resources which we can spend on treating people. There is currently no set limit on the amount of resources which can be expended to save a life, yet if we spent all our resources on saving lives of those who need it, we would impovrish the system (and ourselves). What if there were a cure for AIDS, or Cancer, but the cost was enormous? What if the cost was so high, that if we cured everyone we would impovrish ourselves, should we still do it? Answer the poll with the understanding that if the cost of saving a life is high, each of our taxes must go up to meet the need.

Yes, but that would be your choice. You may choose the government to donate to to handle hardship cases, I may choose my favourate hospital, someone else may choose their church, others may choose not to donate at all. But ultimately it shoud be a choice. Yes, but that is one of the realities of life. If the poorest among us cannot afford food, they go hungry. If the poorest among us cannot afford shelter, they go homeless, and if they cannot afford healthcare they would do without. I go back to my premis that the reason for a healthcare system is so we share risk of catastrophic illness or injury which to each one of us would be unaffordable.

Choices are constantly made in determining funding for worthy causes. The main difference is we can abrogate responsibility for these choices to the government or we can make them ourselves. I would advocate that the preferrable situation is to make the funding choices for charitable situations ourselves. Despite the overhead of making more decisions, at least we are in control of our funding choices. I too have heard of situations of families going to great lengths to fundraise for medical situations, but this result is due to many of us (potential doners) making a funding choice (even if we don't explictly wish to acknowledge it).

Melanie, Thank-you for your thoughtful response!! Yes I agree with you that there are going to be cases such as the example you cite where a family cannot afford the cost of paying for their own health coverage, however this case is analogous to the case of a family's house burning down and they couldn't afford fire insurance. These are exceptional situations, and we generally handle situations such as this by voluntary charitable giving. I believe it is impossible to create a workable system based purely on social principles. If the economic principles do not support the system, it will collapse as our system is doing now. As well, a system based purely upon social principles while morally commendable, will economically penalize those who contribute to its funding. This would be ok if the funding was voluntary, but in our system it is not

True, medical costs in Canada are less than the US, however part of the reason is that the government as sole payer can dictate the labour cost. While this is beneficial to the general health care consumer, it is not of benefit to the labour which makes up the health care industry. Is it any wonder that the best ones leave for the US? The other issue in comparing costs of medical procedures it that it does not evaluate the entire experience for the medical consumer. Which is of more value to you: a bypass surgery which you had to wait 10 months for and costs $10,373, or one you can book within a week and cost $20,673. If you didn't have 10 months to live, it might be the latter. Even assuming we retained our single-payor system, healthcare can be overhauled by: 1. Rethinking how the system is funded. The system is currently funded from general taxes. IMO, the system should be funded just like any other insurance system (ie based upon risk and propensity to use the system) 2. Adding disincentives to overuse the system. This would include requiring users to pay a portion of the costs and a yearly deductable. IMO the intent of a healthcare system is to make healthcare affordable (not necessarily to make it free) 3. Adding a yearly maximium. Virtually all insurance has defined maximiums, and healthcare should be no different. To make the most efficient use of healthcare funds, it makes no sense to spend huge sums on one individual when the same funds can be used more effectively on a larger number. yes, I know this is my first post, so feel free to bash away.