Members Only Healthcare - preventitive healthcare

[Bryan]

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.

Nah, make them still pay into the public system. If they want to pay extra, over and above, that's good for everyone. That's the trick: as long as everyone still pays into the system, AND as long as the private clinics pay their own way fully outside of it. Cross the two at any point, and all bets are off.

[Zachary Young]

Nah, make them still pay into the public system. If they want to pay extra, over and above, that's good for everyone. That's the trick: as long as everyone still pays into the system, AND as long as the private clinics pay their own way fully outside of it. Cross the two at any point, and all bets are off.

I've still yet to hear any good arguments for a public health care system. Do you advocate government ownership of all industries, or just a few? What is wrong with private ownership of the means of production?

[Drea]

I've still yet to hear any good arguments for a public health care system. Do you advocate government ownership of all industries, or just a few? What is wrong with private ownership of the means of production?

There is public health care, then there is public insurance (in Canada we have public insurance paid to private doctors).

There is nothing wrong with public insurance paying for private clinics/hospitals as long as we never go down the road of "private insurance" we will be fine with privately owned hospitals etc.

The private insurers are the bad guys -- they get to say if they will cover you for such and such treatment.

As it is in Canada most treatments are covered no matter what. Even a skiier can get physical therapy covered even though it was his risky lifestyle that caused the condition. Same with smokers, fat people, etc. We are not penalized by insurers by having a "certain" lifestyle.

Just watching "Medium" last night and they could hardly afford to take their child to the optomistrist. I took my son six months ago and it cost me $90. Also, the star of the show had some kind of fainting episode and her husband freaked because he had to spend $500 for her to be checked out.

I never want private insurance to deny treatment. I would rather pay for the odd "unnecessary cosmetic surgery" than find out some poor sap wasn't covered because he was "high risk".

[Qwerty]

There is public health care, then there is public insurance (in Canada we have public insurance paid to private doctors).

There is nothing wrong with public insurance paying for private clinics/hospitals as long as we never go down the road of "private insurance" we will be fine with privately owned hospitals etc.

The private insurers are the bad guys -- they get to say if they will cover you for such and such treatment.

As it is in Canada most treatments are covered no matter what. Even a skiier can get physical therapy covered even though it was his risky lifestyle that caused the condition. Same with smokers, fat people, etc. We are not penalized by insurers by having a "certain" lifestyle.

Just watching "Medium" last night and they could hardly afford to take their child to the optomistrist. I took my son six months ago and it cost me $90. Also, the star of the show had some kind of fainting episode and her husband freaked because he had to spend $500 for her to be checked out.

I never want private insurance to deny treatment. I would rather pay for the odd "unnecessary cosmetic surgery" than find out some poor sap wasn't covered because he was "high risk".

Drea, I am shocked. I think we have closet conservative here...

100% agree. I wouldn't want a system like in the USA either. It seems a little to cold. Dr.'s go to school to save peoples lives not turn them away because of bureaucracy.

Also if we had a system like this it would attract more doctors that are trained in Canada to stay in Canada and not flee to the USA.

In addition it would free up money from the public care system to improve it to a higher standard than we currently enjoy.

This is exactly what Ralph Klein was speaking about when he was the premier of Alberta. To have public and private clinics, hospitals working hand in hand with public insurance.

Even private insurance can be useful as well. If someone is paying more money per year in premiums than they are entitled to better care, or the ublic insurance could offer more coverage for a monthly premium. It would raise money for the government as well.

Edited April 22, 2008 by Qwerty

[Zachary Young]

Drea :

As impressive as sourcing a crappy television show is and at the risk of repeating myself :

Do you favour socialism in all industries, or just health care?

Why do you favour socialism (state ownership of the means of production) over capitalism (private ownership of the means of production)?

Do you think the government should own grocery stores and give food out for free?

How has socialism/communism worked when applied in the past?

[Bryan]

I've still yet to hear any good arguments for a public health care system. Do you advocate government ownership of all industries, or just a few? What is wrong with private ownership of the means of production?

Funny, I've yet to hear a single good argument for a fully private healthcare system.

The disconnect is thinking of healthcare as a product to be sold.

[Pliny]

Funny, I've yet to hear a single good argument for a fully private healthcare system.

The disconnect is thinking of healthcare as a product to be sold.

Exactly. It went to the business and science model and should have gone to the arts and philosophic model.

It should never be a business and should only partially be based in science.

[Drea]

Margrace is right Z. Young, you are just a youngin'!

And as a youngin' you have yet to have a serious health issue (I haven't either, but I am older n' wiser)

Who cares about socialism or liberalism or capitalism? We are talking about access to health care.

In the United States, an INSURER (a private company) dictates whether a person will be treated for any given health issue.

We have private insurance too. Our family has Blue Cross. But -- and here's where we lose you -- if hubby and I both lose our jobs we still have health insurance. This is NOT the case in a 100% for-profit insurance system such as the US's.

I am all for private care... paid for by public and private insurance.

If Mr. and Mrs. Nobody both work and have no private insurance, then their public insurance would pay for them to go to the private clinic. The rich can pay $3000 for "membership", and the poor get in at no cost to them through the public insurance system.

Money should never dicatate whether or not a person gets cancer treatment (or any other "expensive" treatment). You are a person, you live in this country, then you are covered.

That being said, Canada needs to look at Europe, not the US for examples of how to run a medical system.

Edited May 11, 2008 by Drea

[Bryan]

Exactly. It went to the business and science model and should have gone to the arts and philosophic model.

It should never be a business and should only partially be based in science.

More disconnected thinking. Science and business are not synonymous.