blackbird

1. The government and health authorities have had years to re-structure the system and don't appear to have done so. So why would they change now? The failing system will continue to fail. 2. You have not answered the point I made that unions and associations have too much power. I went into great detail. The associations protect and keep unqualified people in critical positions. The system is set up to protect the workers and professionals, not the patients. The government allows this. "nothing to see here folks" would be the standard answer. You like to answer with number and often a curt, meaningless reply as in your number 1. yes. So you basically just write off the failed health care system and have no solutions that anybody will take seriously. Restructure is not solution. There is no proof it will change anything. A bureaucracy with inherent flaws is still bureaucracy with inherent flaws after you restructure it, whatever that is supposed to mean.

God has laid out the ten commandments and guidance for mankind in his written word, in English, the King James Bible. The western world developed it's belief in human rights from Judeo-Christian civilization down through the centuries. Rights are not a human invention. Humans are fallible and sinful. Some humans did over time recognize the value of the individual and they respected that everyone has certain rights. But that is more a result of the human conscience that God gave man. Then later God taught man through his Holy Scripture right from wrong. Man on his own has always proven a failure. Without God there is no hope.

Why do you always parrot Satan? God is omnipotent. No matter what you say, you will one day find out you are dead wrong. You are as a speck of dust in the universe and your life is as a vapour that will come and go. You need to get down on your knees and ask God to be merciful to you. Read the New Testament and be born again. That is your ONLY hope. Jesus is Lord.

Do you seriously think just restructuring a failing health care system would fix the problems? Eastern Europe had a Socialist health care system and after the USSR collapsed beginning about 1989, they have been struggling for decades to try to repair the health care system. One website reports the lifespan of people in Romania is about 73 while western Europe, which has varying degrees of private health care and public health care combined, has an average lifespan of about 83 years. That is the average person in western Europe is living ten years longer than people in Romania. Likely the same scenario in other eastern European countries that are struggling to break free of government controlled everything. My own personal experience with care in the ER when I had a heart attack tells me our system is a disaster in some cases. It may have taken many years off my life. It has left a huge negative impact on my life. Sometimes supposedly medical professionals are in critical positions that should not be there. We the public are paying the price. In a private health care system, I believe people are expected to produce good results and the bad apples may be more easily removed or kept out of the critical positions. I think you should consider that and don't stick with Socialist ideology just for the sake of ideology. We should have a system that produces the best results for the people, not the best for the bureaucracy or staff as far as shielding poor performance. In public systems, I believe staff and people in critical positions have less scrutiny and have too much job protection no matter if they are not qualified for the job. I suspect private systems have more freedom to move people out of jobs they are not suited for. I see unions and associations as a serious threat to health care in public systems if they call the shots for everything and cannot be controlled. Perhaps private systems with no union or very limited power for associations would be much better for the patients or public. Unions and professional associations have their place, but when they essentially control the system, then we should realize they are not there for the best interests of the patients, but are putting their own members first in every way.

Are you serious? Nobody on Vancouver Island wants to separate except a few kooks.

Why should these separatists think they should have more than their share of the seats in a federal system. It is just an excuse to demand more or separate. Seems to me they have more powers than the other nine provinces in many areas plus they have received a lot of money in equalization payments over the years. Yet some are still griping. I don't think the separatists speak for the majority in Quebec. But we will see what happens. I think they are far better off in Canada than they would be on their own.

A book has been written: Welfare, Choice, and Solidarity in Transition: Reforming the Health Sector in Eastern Europe 
 by Janos Kornai and Karen Eggleston
 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 365 pp., $69.95 (cloth), $24.95 (paper) There are probably lots of lesson we can learn from studying material like this and various other articles. The book says in part: "The book advocates the establishment of supplementary insurance markets. The authors wonder why such a market has not yet taken hold in most of Eastern Europe. The answer appears to have both a demand- and a supply-side dimension: Private insurers want a piece of the entire health insurance pie and are lobbying policymakers to introduce a lucrative private health insurance market. On the other hand, there is little consumer demand for supplementary insurance (requiring regular premium payments) in an environment where a reasonable under-the-table payment gets you the same level of service in case you need it (without monthly premiums)." In Canada, if politicians want to reform the health care system, they probably realize they would be entering a political minefield. Half of Canada are Socialist-minded and expect government to be their paternal father and take care of them from cradle to grave. Surprisingly or not so surprisingly, these same people oppose paying anything more for health care and likely oppose supplementary insurance that would require regular payments. Unfortunately there is no such thing as a free lunch and that clearly applies to health care.

Romania is a case in point. Like other former Communist countries Romania is struggling to improve their health care system. Changes to health care cannot be done overnight because of the complexity and other factors. It takes many years for things to change. quote Nevertheless, the system remains in a state of transition. Out-of-pocket payment levels remain significant (for services beyond the statutory minimum package) and taxes continue to account for about one-sixth of health spending, principally capital spending by hospitals. The overall health status in the country also remains below the European average, with life expectancy of 73 years as against 79, and – in spite of reductions - a persisting high rate of both infant and maternal mortality (about 14 and 15.5 per 100,000 births, respectively). unquote Healthcare in Eastern Europe (healthmanagement.org) According to this website and the other one I quoted, the life expectancy in Romania is ten years less than western Europe.

That did not change the health care systems in eastern European countries overnight. It has been an ongoing struggle. There are a number of factors that affect the health care systems. The article I quoted above says their life expectancy rates are getting shorter. I have no reason to disbelieve that. There may be a correlation of general improving health care in countries with greater or increasing private care and lessening of public health care. Public health care systems may not be providing the best outcome for the countries where they are the only system or nearly the only systems. We are witnessing major failures in the public system in Canada. quote Though generally behind their counterparts in central Europe (the Country Focus in our previous issue), significant developments are also underway in the healthcare systems in eastern Europe (Bulgaria, Lithuania, Romania, Serbia and Ukraine). As in central Europe, a major driver is the impact of transition from the Communistera systems inherited by each country and the priority given to health care by national governments. In principle, most countries in the region have transited from an era of ‘free’ care to one modelled on the mixed, social insurance systems of their counterparts in western Europe. Membership in the European Union by Bulgaria, Lithuania and Romania has clearly helped, and is likely to stretch the gap vis-à-vis the other two, Serbia and Ukraine. Nevertheless, many challenges remain to be overcome by all five countries – not least that of access to financing resources from a relatively weak economic base. The growth of private hospitals and practices is relatively slow (and in Ukraine’s case, non-existent). This, in turn, has impacted downstream on engendering efficiency in healthcare financing – although many countries have begun assessing DRG-like schemes. Ironically, partial transformation of the healthcare delivery system has, in some cases, led to a spike in in-patient admissions. Given below is an overview of the healthcare system in each of the five eastern European countries. Bulgaria Bulgaria witnessed dramatic changes to its health care system over a very brief period of time in the late 1990s, and then followup efforts to fine tune the first burst to later realities. Like other transitional countries in the region, the passage of a new Health Insurance Act in 1998 set the legal basis for both compulsory and voluntary health insurance in Bulgaria. The new system was financed by payroll contributions (6% of monthly wages, shared in a 1-4 ratio between the employee and employer – with a target 50-50 split by 2009). Meanwhile, the role of the State (at both federal and local government levels) was circumscribed to coverage of retired citizens and lower-income groups. In tandem, a National Framework Contract laid down a basic benefits package. Structurally, the key goal of the reforms has been to separate healthcare financing from provision. 28 regional insurance funds currently reimburse both public and private facilities on a contractual basis. Seven years before the Health Insurance Act, the government had already moved to legalize private practice in the healthcare area (labs, clinics, surgeries and pharmacies), and begun to reorganize government health facilities. unquote For the whole article: Healthcare in Eastern Europe (healthmanagement.org)

Former USSR countries in eastern Europe, which presumably still have Socialist or completely public health care systems are experiencing statistical shorter life spans than western European countries which have mixed public, private systems. This would seem to indicate that countries must be capable of adaptation and change to maintain good health care for its people.

I just noticed on wikipedia that there is a major difference between eastern Europe's health care systems and western Europe's systems. It says western Europe's life expectancy is increasing while in eastern Europe's former Soviet Socialist countries life expectancy is getting shorter. To me this indicates that Socialist countries health care systems are failing and causing life expectancy to become shorter. Be careful what you wish for. Do we want to keep a universal health care system that is failing and possibly shortening life expectancy for many people? That seems to be the consequence of a Socialist system in eastern Europe. Healthcare in Europe - Wikipedia quote Healthcare in Europe is provided through a wide range of different systems run at individual national levels. Most European countries have a system of tightly regulated, competing private health insurance companies, with government subsidies available for citizens who cannot afford coverage.[1][2] Many European countries (and all European Union countries) offer their citizens a European Health Insurance Card which, on a reciprocal basis, provides insurance for emergency medical treatment insurance when visiting other participating European countries.[3] European health[edit] EU countries with the highest life expectancy (2019)[4] World RankEU RankCountryLife expectancy at birth (years) 5.1.Spain83.4 6.2.Italy83.4 11.3.Sweden82.7 12.4.France82.5 13.5.Malta82.4 16.6.Ireland82.1 17.7.Netherlands82.1 19.8.Luxembourg82.1 20.9.Greece82.1 The World Health Organization has listed 53 countries as comprising the European region. Health outcomes vary greatly by country. Countries in western Europe have had a significant increase in life expectancy since World War II, while most of eastern Europe and the former Soviet countries have experienced a decrease in life expectancy.[5]

quote This article presents an analysis of recent changes in the public-private mix in health care in eight European countries. The leading question is to what extent a process of privatization in health care can be observed. The framework for the analysis of privatization draws on the idea that there are multiple public/private boundaries in health care. The overall picture that emerges from our analysis is diverse, but there is evidence that health care in Europe has become somewhat more private. The growth of the public fraction in health care spending has come to an end since the 1980s, and in a few countries the private fraction even increased substantially. We also found some evidence for a shift from public to private in health care provision. Furthermore, there are signs of privatization in health care management and operations, as well as investments. Specific attention is spent on the identification of factors that push privatization forward and factors that work as a barrier to privatization. unquote The privatization of health care in Europe: an eight-country analysis - PubMed (nih.gov) The health care system in the U.S. is unique in the world and has its own problems. Just because the Canadian health care system is failing, doesn't mean Canada needs to adopt the U.S. system. That is not what I am suggesting. But it certainly doesn't mean we have to maintain a failing system in this country. There are many different countries in the world with their own health care systems. The goal of a country should be to provide the best health care it can for its people. The question is how can that best be achieved. The present system in Canada is failing and harming a lot of people. Canada must find solutions to fix the system. I don't really see any hope for the existing system as it is. Canada has had years to improve it but it is just getting worse. I see the problem as rooted in Socialism and it being run by politicians.

Drug addicts and crime are often closely connected. " Drug Addiction and Crime It’s no coincidence that drug-related crime has become a growing concern of government agencies at the local, state, and federal levels. According to a survey of the nation’s prison population by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 33% of inmates in state prisons and 22% of inmates in federal prisons were using drugs at the time they committed crimes. Even more disturbing is the number of prisoners who had ever used drugs: 83% of inmates in state prisons and 73% of those in federal prisons. In other words, the overwhelming majority of persons incarcerated in the United States at the time the survey was taken had misused drugs in the past.5 " Dangers of Drug Addiction and Misuse | Rehabs.com

"Using drugs can increase paranoid and irrational thoughts, mood swings, and irritability, amongst many other side effects." These are not the kind of people nurses, doctors, and patients should have to put up with in hospitals. As Aristides said, who is going to enforce where they take drugs. What is going to stop them from taking drugs in hallways, waiting rooms, washrooms, or wherever? Do you really think drug addicts will follow rules? Do drug addicts ever rob to get the money for their next fix? There is some danger in having irrational or irritable people in the hospital with other patients. There is no way these kind of people should be permitted to be taking illicit drugs in a hospital. I see this as putting other people at risk. What is become of society?

B.C. to require hospitals have designated spaces for patient illicit drug use, health minister says - The Globe and Mail

If the system is not changed, you will be stuck with a failing health care system. You are living under an illusion if you think it is fair to make people who need urgent care to not get it in a timely fashion. Many people suffer serious consequences for not being treated in a timely manner. People getting proper timely treatment is hit and miss now in the public health care system. It is a Socialist lie to claim everyone is being treated equally under the present system. That is not how it is working. The system is failing. Millions don't even have a family doctor. If you have one, it is just by accident. Many do not. That is not equitable health care. So clinging to the present failing system is not sensible. Do you have a better solution on how to fix the failing health care system?

The problem is the government is not willing and may not be able to put more money into the public health care system to make if function properly. Politics determines how much money is spent on various government services. Health care is just of many services. It is becoming a disaster for millions of Canadians. I never said anybody who can't afford it should go to the end of the queue. You misinterpreted what I said. I said if we had a private system as well as the public system, the people with lots of money could get the care they need in a timely manner. Not like now, where many people are being denied treatment for long periods of time. If a good private system existed, then that would accomplish several things: 1. It would enable people to get treatment rapidly instead of sitting on a waiting list or flying to another country. 2. It would increase the availability of health care options for people who could afford the extra health care insurance and possible deductions to pay for rapid treatment. Therefore it would reduce the burden on the public health care system. That should speed up service for everyone who uses the public system. The goal would be to eliminate the long waiting periods for everyone for urgent treatments and surgeries. 3. It should provide faster and better care for poor people and everyone with the public system. I never said the system should make things worse or put low income or poor people on a longer queue. That is a total misinterpretation of what I said. You haven't thought about the fact a private system must reduce the burden on the public system and enable everyone to get faster health care. That would be the basic idea of adding a private system. The government is not willing to add the billions needed to fix the public system. But a private system would essentially be adding billions of more dollars to health care by people who can afford to spend it. 4. The public system cannot afford to pay to provide an efficient, fast health care for the population and politicians don't want to put enough money into the public system because they are under pressure for many other demands. The private system would help to alleviate that pressure and provide much more money for health care overall. That is one of the important advantages of adding a private system alongside the public system. 5. The public system may be overburdened with bureaucracy and administration. That may be one of it's major problems. Adding a private health care system alongside it might also help to provide health care with less bureaucracy and overhead costs. 6. Holding to Socialist ideology and claiming its not fair to let some people pay for their health care will not fix the failing public health system. It will only prolong and add suffering to millions of people unnecessarily.

That's your opinion. The theory of evolution is in fact not observable evidence. Some people might feel strongly that it is plausible, but that doesn't make it a fact. You are blinded by the Satanic world system, which is what secular humanism is. The Bible has lots of evidence that it is true. The miracles that Jesus performed including raising Lazarus from the dead and observed by eye witnesses are strong evidence. The eye witness accounts of Jesus Christ being raised from the dead one of the most important facts. People do make things up out of thin air. That is what Charles Darwin did when he came up with the theory of evolution. What evidence or proof did he have back in 1859? None really. The biological sciences have advanced incredibly since Darwin came up with his theory. Today they realize the complexity of the most basic cell is immense. The amount of information stored in DNA in cells is vast. Random chance processes do not add information. The complexity of everything is too great to claim it all happened by chance. That is where the real foolishness comes in with Darwinists. Even if you think the theory of evolution is true, you are still far short of explaining the universe. What about the existence of atoms, molecules, the laws of physics which govern how how the particles operate. Where did energy and gravity come from? What about the earth following a path around the sun which gives us the four seasons. Did this all just happen by accident? That is another area foolishness comes in when some people say it just happened by some by some kind of cosmic accident.

Today in Canada many people with lots of money, politicians, and the elite can get on a plane and fly down to the U.S. and get immediate medical care. If they stayed in Canada and waited on the long waiting periods, they might wait a year or two for serious surgery or other procedures. Some of these delays could be endangering or shortening people's life. This is against human rights. Because of politics, Canada's politicians are denying the human rights of Canadians by refusing to allow private health care that people who are willing to pay extra for medical insurance and obtain care in Canada. However, they can't block people with the money from flying outside Canada to some other country for treatment. So the Canadians solution of denying private care to exist within Canada is only giving an illusion of equity. It is not really equal medical care of all. The failing health care system is affecting lower income and poor people more negatively. If Canada allowed and encourage private care, the government would have less pressure on the public system and could speed up and improve the public health care system. That should be the objective. Give Canadians better health care whatever way it can be done. There is just not enough money to provide an efficient, and effective public health care system for everyone. It is time to look at this and do something concrete to fix the system. I would expect the government to act to fix the public system at the same time as a private system is allowed. A private system would enable people with money to pay for extra medical insurance and thereby overall contribute much more money to the health care system and reduce the pressure on the public system.

That's interesting. Well, I don't claim to be an expert on it. I suppose there may be some women that would fit into the that kind of job. They should be carefully screened when they are hired to be sure they are suitable. Wonder why there were so many reports of sexual abuse in the CAF in the last number of years.

A lot of people have the money to pay for extra private health care services in Canada. Perhaps that is the solution to the failing health system we have. Perhaps it is something Canadians should seriously look at. Something must be done about the terrible situation with health care. Right now the health care system is in a crisis and around a million people in B.C. alone don't have a family doctor. Emergency rooms close sometimes in some places. There are not enough beds in some hospitals and not enough necessary services. Long waiting lists for some surgeries. People sometimes wait a year for a procedure. That is not health care. If we had a mixture of private and public, then those with money could use private for some things if they so choose. That would take the pressure off the public system and reduce waiting times, etc. I am sure lots of people would be willing to pay for their own health insurance for certain procedures when they need it. Why deny people the choice if they have the money for insurance and maybe a deductible for a procedure? That is a possible solution to the failing health care system. Government is under pressure to fund all kinds of services in society and just can't seem to fix the broken health care system. Does anyone have a solution that is better?

Perhaps we need a mixture of public and private. Right now the health care system is in a crisis and around a million people in B.C. alone don't have a family doctor. Emergency rooms close sometimes in some place. Long waiting lists for some surgeries. People sometimes wait a year for a procedure. That is not health care. But we know you don't care about anybody else. If we had a mixture of private and public, then those with money could use private for some things if they so choose. That would take the pressure off the public system and reduce waiting times, etc. I am sure lots of people would be willing to pay for their own health insurance for certain procedures when they need it. Why deny people the choice if they have the money for insurance and maybe a deductible for a procedure? That is a possible solution to the failing health care system. Do you have a solution that is better?

"2 The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness." Proverbs 15:2

Who or what says a woman should be involved in writing them? Do we need a man to give birth to babies? Men and women have different roles. You are how old and don't know that yet?

It's simple for you because you read nothing, and know nothing.