Machjo

The best system in the world, France, is two-tier, as are a few other first-class systems. Two tier could work just as well as one-tier, or even better, depending on the funding provided.

I should point out too that the Swedish system, also a one-tier sytem to the best of my knowledge, has proven to work well, but then again, it's very well funded too. We could opt for more funding I suppose. But if we're not willing to pay that tax, then go French. Eitehr system can work, as long as it gets the sufficient public funding. The French system will require less of course since some of the rich simply opt out, whreas the Swedish and Canadian systems need more funding. But the reason the Swedish system has proven more effective is because they've been more realistic in providing the necessary funding. Either system can work, but we must accept the reality surrounding each. That's all.

OK, Smallc, you made reference to public funding for private health care, that's a whole different ballgame. Of course if you choose to opt out of the public system you should be on your own. I can fully agree with that. All I'm saying though is that it's ridiculour to force a person to use public services when he's willing to pay his own way and still pay taxes to the public ssytem. And rememebr, if the private system still charges HST/PST, then even it is funding the public system from which the private service taker doesn't benefit. I can't see how this hurts the public system.

Yes, and France was ranked first, and it's a two-tier system. Singapore was ranked sixth, and it's a ture two-tier system. Canada was ranked thirtieth. So it would seem that the WHO is indeed impressed with a few two-tier systems.

Add to that that those who opt for private health care might even have to pay taxes on it, part of that monty going towards the public system. It just doesn't make sense to sacrifice it to another country. The US must be laughing at us right now. We're giving them our best.

Bunch of socialists. I say privatise the military now.

Exactly. Revenue for education comes from hardworking ripped off people like you and me. But for the military, it somes from patriots like you and me.

No no no no no! If it's military spending, it's not socialist. That's why I think we could create all kinds of jobs in the military without being called socialist. Great idea, eh. But educating kids? That's terrible, just so socialist.

And the skills are so transferable to the private sector too.

And a good investment too. I say sell it off on the NY stock exchange.

Exactly. Think of all the jobs it would create, and appease the unemployed so that we don't need to hear all that rubbish about educating kids.

I fully agree. Think of the money that could be saved if only we could privatise the US military.

Not to mention that the increase in demand might also encourage more to study medicine.

A two-tier system would put more money into medicare thus allowing us to take in more medically trained immigrants.

Immigration. They can immigrate eitehr to the US or Canada. Why not bring them here?

How would it happen? Pure logic. Ten people pay their taxes to the public system, and one would rather not use that system but pay out of pocket for his own. So you'd rather prohibit him from paying on his own and instead force him to use the limited resources of the public system? Of what logical benefit could this be? If we allow him to pay his own healthcare, then he's essentially paying twice, and of his own free will, thus essentially paying his own healthcare for himself and contributing through taxes to everyone else's. It would actaully free funds to help the rest. This woudl improve the quality of the public system. Straight logic.

And why only the US? What about the Swedish, French, Singaporean systems? I believe the Swedish system is a one-tier system, but heavily funded, and the Swedes pay high taxes for their quality healthcare. If we want to pay those kinds of taxes, then by all means have a one-tier system. Otherwise, let's allow two-tiers.

How would a two-tier system take away from the Canadian system in any way? Whether the rich man chooses to go to a private facility in the US or Canada, the only difference I see is whether that physician will pay his taxes to the US or Canada. Why do we want to give that tax money to the US? It woudl also take nothing from the Canadian public ssytem. The French, British, Singaporean and many otehr systems are two-tier, and they provide better service to the poor than ours does. Like I said before, if people choose to opt out of using public services, they're still stuck paying the taxes, so the money still flows in, but they alleviate the burden on the public system. In a pure public system, the rich pay their taxes and use the service. In a dual system, the rich pay their taxes and then pay again for private care and make no use of the public service. Essentially, it's like they're paying for the public system but not using it, thus simply freeing more funds for the rest. Honestly, how does that hurt the poor. I can see only how the poor could benefit from this. How you see this hurting the poor is beyond me.

So you'd rather chase the private healthcare system away to the US? Why must it always be either or? Can we not learn from the best countries for healthcare and adopt their proven two-tier systems? Why would we want to chase private healthcare out of the ocuntry when our own economy could benefit from this, especially in a recession?

I have an issue with paying my taxes towards educating kids, caring for the less fortunate, etc. But, if you want to give to the military, I'm right there baby. Crank those taxes up and create all the jobs ya want. Provide training for the troops and quality health care. Anything to fight the tyrany of socialism.

I'd see both inflation and deflation to be equally harmful. Inflation promotes borrowing and spending in a race against price increeases. Of course this promotes debt wich chan only come crashing down sooner or later. Deflation promotes excessive savings and even selling off of assets before prices drop, which likewise is unstable. A long-term maintenance of an average rate of inflation of 0% would neither encourage spending nor saving, essentially leaving such incentives to other economic factors, thus ending busts and booms.

You have a point there. If we ban private healthcare altogether, they'll just go to the US anyway, thsu exporting medical jobs too. If we allow private healthcare, then at least those physicians stay in Canada, pay their taxes in Canada, and who knows, some of them might even work for the public system part time too. So it really woudl be a win win situation. Why would we want to flush that all away just over ideology?

We shouldn't aim at eqaulity at all cost even if it hurts the poor. If allowing the rich to bow out can help the poor, then we ought to let it happen. It's not up to us to sacrifice the poor to teach the rich a lesson.

Let's took at the practical reality. To have perfect healthcare for all would mean a sharp tax hike unlikely to occur even in Europe, let alone Canada. In Europe, instead of sacrificing the masses for their ideology, they were wiling to make practical compromises by increasing taxes as far as was politically feasible to improve public healthcare, and then allow for a two-tier system to allow the rich to step out if they want to so as to reduce the burden on the system for the rest, thus maximizing all healthcare. To make the poor suffer just to teach the rich a lesson is vindictive but with no pratical benefit for the poor whatsoever. In fact, the more the rich bow out of the public system, the more the poor benefit.

I think this is a problem in both Canada and the US. Americans look at the Canadian system of nearly totally public health care, and it just appears too extreme for them. And whenever Canadians think of any kind of privatization, they think US. Neither of these systems is a particularly good system because they both go too far in one extreme or another. Both countries should be looking not to each other, but beyond. If they should do that, they could both meet halfway. Most of it is just irrational fears and dogmatism on both sides.