Members Only Healthcare - preventitive healthcare

[pfezziwig]

The title of this post no doubt scares a lot of people but it is catching on. After a successful start up in Vancouver this members based clinic is soon to set up in Calgary and Edmonton.

For $2000-$4000 a year you get hours of doctor and nurse consultations and dozens of tests. Most of this is focused on preventitive healthcare. Advising and analyzing and recommending a proper diet, exercise and treating minor problems before they become big problems. Sure beats my normal 5 minutes and your rushed out the door treatments.

This approach is the opposite to the public system which waits for people to fall apart then treats them. The private clinc believes this is a more cost effective way to treat people.

Should the public system learn from this private healthcare system, or is the public system incapable of preventative healthcare treatment at this stage and private clinics are our only hope?

[eyeball]

I could care less as long as the government is still collecting health care premiums from you to pay for Canada's universal health-care system. If your clinic proves to be as cost-effective as advertised then I'll be expecting the public system to either adopt it or pay for memberships.

I still think Canada should maintain a non-exlusive universal health care system that is publicly-funded. Sorry.

[oreodontist]

It's a tough one to evaluate. The cost quoted is 'per person' and not per family.

Does this lower overall costs? I doubt it. When you have such a close relationship with medical profesionals, I would think that a person would be accessing more services, etc. My experience is many doctors will send you off for a test as a sort of 'just in case' scenario.

Example: I'm healthy as a horse but a couple years ago had a wierd pain. ....long story short ...2 ultrasounds, 2 catscans, 1 gamma scan and 3 MIRs later it was 'that's just a benign growth and don't worry about it.' Well, I wasn't worried BEFORE I was plugged into the medical bureacracy by well meaning but over cautious doctors. After all types of tests, specialist visits, etc. I must have cost the systems tens of thousands of dollars. The point? Wealthy folks will pay a couple thousand for this special 'relationship' with health professionals but will end up costing the health system many times more that for 'just in case' tests, x-rays, specialist visits and so forth.

'Preventive' care may be cost effective when dealing with lifestyle issues but I'm not accepting it's cost effective by early detection of issues because more visits to a doctor. People signed up still have full access to the public infrastructure. If a hundred healthy adults were to walk into most GP offices, 80 would come out needing some test or another, or referral 'just in case' to a specialist or to some radiology device.

(I have no problem with private health care but question the cost savings of this particular program).

[guyser]

Sounds like the Executive health care offered to everyone on Bay Street.

Nice clinic by the way, whole floor of the BCE bldg. Must spend a couple hundred thousand a month in rent. Not sure if my diagnosis was right though.

[Qwerty]

Sounds like the Executive health care offered to everyone on Bay Street.

Nice clinic by the way, whole floor of the BCE bldg. Must spend a couple hundred thousand a month in rent. Not sure if my diagnosis was right though.

Did the prescription call for a shift to the right?

If it did, it was the correct diagnosis.

[Zachary Young]

"Should the public system learn from this private healthcare system, or is the public system incapable of preventative healthcare treatment at this stage and private clinics are our only hope?"

The latter, but we must be careful about how we do it. The ideal transition is this - we must, either legitimately if we can convince the government (unlikely) or illegitimately create a healthy market in the provision of medical services. The socialist system is destined to collapse - likely within my lifetime (which has, sadly, been shortened by the socialist system itself, at least statistically) - but if we are not careful we will degenerate into a corporatist (the correct word is fascist, but I dare not use it for fear of the inevitable yokel asking 'but where are the jackboots') system of health care, such as seen in the medical-industrial complex in the United States of America. A healthy market, for those unfamiliar with agorism, is a completely untaxed and completely unregulated free market.

[margrace]

There are around 60% of seniors in our area living on Old Age Pension in our area, this means that they get around $900 to $15,000 a year to live on. How could they afford to pay almost half of this for health care?

[Topaz]

One angle that US is handling this in Windsor On, they advertise on the radio program with US doctors, for Canadians who don't want to wait, can make appointment to see a US doctor and if surgery is needed then they can handle it for you. One person asked about the cost and they wouldn't say on air. I'm surprised that more cities along the border don't have the US doing this more.

[Zachary Young]

"There are around 60% of seniors in our area living on Old Age Pension in our area, this means that they get around $900 to $15,000 a year to live on. How could they afford to pay almost half of this for health care?"

Moonlighting at Walmart as greeters FTW.

Whenever the cry for privatization is brought up, there are those who ask 'but what about the poor'? The truth is that socialism has never helped the poor - it is only under capitalism that the standard of living for the poor has been elevated to any meaningful degree. How will the poor be able to eat, if we do not have the government give away the food supplies? How will the poor be able to wear clothes, if we do not have government give away clothing? As a matter of fact, as the child of a very poor single mother, I am in the unique position to answer my question. We eat because my mother was frugal and did not waste money on alcohol or drugs or fancy clothes - instead she bought staple foods and we bought clothes at the salvation army (clothing that was charitably donated and sold for a pittance).

It is important to note that the government giving away health care does not make it free - it must still be paid for. Free market health care would cost less and be of higher quality. For those who are truly desperate, there will always be enough charity - and if we adopt a fully free market system, we will see so much prosperity that those who are truly desperate will be few in number, and those who give charitably are of a much greater number. The reason there are so many seniors in your area of such a level of poverty is an indictment against the current system, not a defense of it.

[margrace]

These people have lived in this area all their lives. They are descendants of local farmers who settled the area. Most of them still have gardens, they live in their own homes, they used to make their own clothes and canned their own produce. Because health care is available to them they are able to maintain these life styles.

How these compare to your mother I cannot see, they never had to rely on charitable organizations because they were quite self sufficient. They raised and educated their children but because there was no oportunities in this area the children all left. When the farming became unprofitable they quit and the land has gone back to tag elders for the most part. They had no opportunities to save money, but everything they have was paid for.

[Zachary Young]

"How these compare to your mother I cannot see"

Really? It seems pretty obvious to me... they are / were both poor. However charming your prose may be, it does not include an argument of any sort...

[oreodontist]

One angle that US is handling this in Windsor On, they advertise on the radio program with US doctors, for Canadians who don't want to wait, can make appointment to see a US doctor and if surgery is needed then they can handle it for you. One person asked about the cost and they wouldn't say on air. I'm surprised that more cities along the border don't have the US doing this more.

Why the USA? Radio stations in Alberta advertise for quick surgery in private facilities in Vancouver. Need a hernia operation and the wait is two months in Calgary? Pay for it out of pocket and have it done next week in Vancouver.

(I thought Jack Layton did this once in Ontario? Didn't he pay out of pocket for an operation? Perhaps it was some other NDP dignitary ).

[Zachary Young]

Why the USA? Radio stations in Alberta advertise for quick surgery in private facilities in Vancouver. Need a hernia operation and the wait is two months in Calgary? Pay for it out of pocket and have it done next week in Vancouver.

(I thought Jack Layton did this once in Ontario? Didn't he pay out of pocket for an operation? Perhaps it was some other NDP dignitary ).

I think it's fairly routine for Canadian politicians to fly to America for any serious surgery. Four legs good, two legs better.

[WarBicycle]

A member only health care is the first step towards private health care. Remember Sunday shopping? It started with only a small bit of the store being open in the early 1980's; it took less than ten years for the entire store was open for business. Same approach was taken when it comes to smoking. In the early 1980's the restrictions were limited; today you cannot even smoke in your own car if there are children in it in some parts of the country. The big losers in a country with public health care are the insurance companies. Should the insurance companies get their way our health care system will be quietly eroded over the next decade or more until it no longer exists.

I was once a member of my industry's Political Action Committee. A Member of Parliament once told me that the insurance companies have been lobbying politicians for decades to put pressure on the provinces to put restrictions on senior citizens driver’s licenses limiting them to driving within a few mile radius of where they live. Despite the majority of seniors having good driving records compared to 18 to 25 year olds, the insurance industry's concern was the cost of medical expenses. A young person involved in a minor mishap would cost the insurance company very little, while a senior involve in a similar accident could cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars. Eventually, insurance companies will get their way because they never quit lobbying

[margrace]

"How these compare to your mother I cannot see"

Really? It seems pretty obvious to me... they are / were both poor. However charming your prose may be, it does not include an argument of any sort...

I guess what you consider poor and what I see as poor are pretty different. I have never had over $28,000 per year to live on but I don't consider myself poor and these people would be highly insulted to be called poor. They worked hard all their lives, paid their taxed and now people such as you want to take away what they paid for.

[Zachary Young]

I guess what you consider poor and what I see as poor are pretty different. I have never had over $28,000 per year to live on but I don't consider myself poor and these people would be highly insulted to be called poor. They worked hard all their lives, paid their taxed and now people such as you want to take away what they paid for.

Well it's all semantics anyway, but I'm pretty sure any REASONABLE person will concur with me that '$900 to $15,000 a year' is poor, and I don't care if you or anyone else is insulted by the truth, I'm not going to lie to make you feel better.

I'd be interested to know exactly how you know that these people 'worked hard all their life' (did you follow them all around for 60 years?) and I do wish the government hadn't stolen money from them the whole time, but that is a very poor rationalization for socialism. Besides, they're going to die soon so it's no big deal anyway.

[oreodontist]

Well it's all semantics anyway, but I'm pretty sure any REASONABLE person will concur with me that '$900 to $15,000 a year' is poor, and I don't care if you or anyone else is insulted by the truth, I'm not going to lie to make you feel better.

I'd be interested to know exactly how you know that these people 'worked hard all their life' (did you follow them all around for 60 years?) and I do wish the government hadn't stolen money from them the whole time, but that is a very poor rationalization for socialism. Besides, they're going to die soon so it's no big deal anyway.

It's a big deal to them. My elderly mother is also a big deal to me and my siblings and to her grand children and to her great grandchildren. From your attitude why care about anything...you'll be dead in a few decades.

I have no issue with supporting elderly folks who live 'on farms' 'coastal fishing towns', etc. But I have a huge issue with supporting their children who want to maintain the cycle. We can't get workers at any price but still send transfer paymnents in various direct and indirect means to subsidize the lifestyle of some regions of the country. If Billy or Bob want to fish for 12 months of the year, I don't want to pay taxes so they can sit on their ass the other 40...especially when jobs elsewhere go unfulfilled. Hundreds of thousands have shown the initiative and wherewithal to go where they can be contributing citizens and not dead weight on the end of a handout. The irony is that some of their ancestors would disdain their slothiness and that's why they immigrated to Canada in the first place....they'd tell them to get off their ass and go make a life for themselves.

[margrace]

Well it's all semantics anyway, but I'm pretty sure any REASONABLE person will concur with me that '$900 to $15,000 a year' is poor, and I don't care if you or anyone else is insulted by the truth, I'm not going to lie to make you feel better.

I'd be interested to know exactly how you know that these people 'worked hard all their life' (did you follow them all around for 60 years?) and I do wish the government hadn't stolen money from them the whole time, but that is a very poor rationalization for socialism. Besides, they're going to die soon so it's no big deal anyway.

[margrace]

Well it's all semantics anyway, but I'm pretty sure any REASONABLE person will concur with me that '$900 to $15,000 a year' is poor, and I don't care if you or anyone else is insulted by the truth, I'm not going to lie to make you feel better.

I'd be interested to know exactly how you know that these people 'worked hard all their life' (did you follow them all around for 60 years?) and I do wish the government hadn't stolen money from them the whole time, but that is a very poor rationalization for socialism. Besides, they're going to die soon so it's no big deal anyway.

Thats what I though another know it all 20 something.

[Zachary Young]

Thats what I thought (sic) another know it all 20 something.

Well, perhaps if your political beliefs were the product of a firm understanding of economics and history instead of a patchwork of ideas that you absorbed from the media/school system/people in your life you too would have the courage of your convictions.

[guyser]

I was once a member of my industry's Political Action Committee. A Member of Parliament once told me that the insurance companies have been lobbying politicians for decades to put pressure on the provinces to put restrictions on senior citizens driver’s licenses limiting them to driving within a few mile radius of where they live. Despite the majority of seniors having good driving records compared to 18 to 25 year olds, the insurance industry's concern was the cost of medical expenses. A young person involved in a minor mishap would cost the insurance company very little, while a senior involve in a similar accident could cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars. Eventually, insurance companies will get their way because they never quit lobbying

Wherever you heard that they were lying.

The exact opposite is the reality.

Young people cost infinitely more to the insurance companies, for the rest of their lives in many cases , but old people die quicker. Dying quicker means less money paid out.

Remember this....auto insurance companies like death. It is cheaper than any other alternative.

The economics of young people vs old people is well documented.

And I can point you to your nearest youn g persons auto policy. Look at the Accident Benefits section of say a 23 yr old, and then look at the AB premiums of a 70 yr olds. No comparison as the young persons will be 2 or 3 times the cost.

[Bryan]

The economics of young people vs old people is well documented.

And I can point you to your nearest youn g persons auto policy. Look at the Accident Benefits section of say a 23 yr old, and then look at the AB premiums of a 70 yr olds. No comparison as the young persons will be 2 or 3 times the cost.

And the whole thing is a deliberate misinterpretation of the evidence. Young people getting in more accidents is just a factor of the number of young people driving. More young people drive around just for the sake of driving around. The older they get the less they drive. The longer they've been driving the more bad habits they develop. The older they get, the less capable of controlling the vehicle they get. I have to laugh every time I read people torturing statistics to make young drivers look bad, especially with the number of cotton tops I see parking by braille. I've never been scared to drive with or beside a 20 yr old, but I'm terrified every time I see a 70 yr old on the road.

Here in Manitoba anyway, young people don't pay more for auto insurance. It's based solely on merit. Good driving record means good rates, bad driving record and you pay through the nose.

Back to the OP:

Why do people think that additional private clinics will hurt the poor? More people who can afford to pay out of pocket takes strain off the public system, and gives the poor better access to those services. As long as these members-only clinics do their own diagnostics

Edited April 21, 2008 by Bryan

[guyser]

And the whole thing is a deliberate misinterpretation of the evidence. Young people getting in more accidents is just a factor of the number of young people driving.

Torture is the logic that produced that. The facts are there. Young people cost more...period.

There is simply no deliberate misinterpretation of anything.

[guyser]

Why do people think that additional private clinics will hurt the poor? More people who can afford to pay out of pocket takes strain off the public system, and gives the poor better access to those services. As long as these members-only clinics do their own diagnostics

Because the lure , or deliberate run down of public systems , will relegate the poor to second class care.Not entirely mind you.

[Topaz]

The only benefit for two-tier healthcare system would be the waiting list would be shorten by the rich paying for their own service and maybe if that person wanted to go that route, then sign a legal document saying you are opt out of the Canadian healthcare system and will paying your own way. So the Canadians who do want to healthcare system their taxes pay for it and are taken care of first. US system of HMO's is not cheap and you can't alway get what is BEST treatment, even if the doctor says you should have it, plus the fact their can up the rates at any time.