Economics

[Kitch]

Should a millionaire be eating in a soup kitchen??? If a millionaire is eating in the soup kitchen, he is taking a bowl of soup away from someone who actually needs it and taking space in line.

In Canada we have regulations and controls for everything, private clinics would fall into this. I can see salary caps adjusted for inflation and taxes for the private clinics. They have something like this in Europe.

But in a society that provides 'universal' health care, in which everyone (theoretically) pays taxes toward the system... should that system not be able to provide health care that is ... agreeable to the millionaire?

I say theoretically because I am well aware that people with more money get that money in ways that the regular working person does not and is open to options allowing them to avoid paying taxes. But, that's another issue all together.

And on a more principled angle, the millionaire is a human being regardless of what he/she has done in their life to both make that money and make society better (assuming that's the case). EVERYONE is human and, as such, deserves equal treatment. Health care, in my opinion, is a right. Nobody is more entitled to health care, no matter what. It's just not a matter of money, it's a matter of principle.

Please don't take my tone as being closed to other ideas... on the contrary. I'm still listening!!! But it might be difficult to change my mind.

Edited October 14, 2008 by Kitch

[Slim MacSquinty]

My point about private clinics has nothing to do with buying your way to the front of the line, if the truly rich want to do that, they can already in the US (where most of the top doctors go) and various other countries. When you presently go to your family doctor or walk in clinic, do those doctors work directly for the government? No, they are private clinics that earn their money (profits) and accept patients using your govenment health card, they may (and many do) find other ways of making money through extra health care services. Do you feeling like you're subject to unfair treatment at the hands of "the man" in those circumstances? I suspect the answer is no.

So why not allow other clinics for specialty treatment operate under the same premise, like MRI, X-Ray, orthepedics etc? In cases where heavy investment in equipment is involved then there is less capital outlay by the government and therefore the government can make better use of the public capital elsewhere. That is probably the ideal mix of public private health care.

Even private hospitals could be OK, public health care is just a political boogey man created by tby various political parties to suit their needs. There are many models of private public mix but unfortunately we never get a chance to talk about them because its politically incorrect and you'll be labelled a neo-con for bringing it up. Also, it's not as bad in the US as they make out either, Jeffery Simpson has written two books on the Canadian misconceptions of various elements of US society, and we are being fooled in many cases.

Also, you should know that free public health care was never really the intention of the Canadian system, remember here in Ontario it was called OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan), note the word insurance, you pay premiums and get access to health care, wasn't meant to be one giant freeby, it just got sucked into the welfare state scenario. If we were to return to the concept of health insurance then private clinics would have to compete for your business, instead of complacently knowing you had nowhere else to turn. The concept of private clinics could also help in the training of doctors as they could help fund the education of doctors who then would be contractually obliged to work for them (perhaps even in remote places).

You've been sucked in by years of social engineering that makes you hang onto socialized "this and that" as sacred cows, the reality is that there are many options to many of our problems they just are not allowed into polite public discourse because of political correctness. Your concept of fairness, community and society has been ruthlessly manipulated by 17 years of educational programming.

[Kitch]

My point about private clinics has nothing to do with buying your way to the front of the line, if the truly rich want to do that, they can already in the US (where most of the top doctors go) and various other countries. When you presently go to your family doctor or walk in clinic, do those doctors work directly for the government? No, they are private clinics that earn their money (profits) and accept patients using your govenment health card, they may (and many do) find other ways of making money through extra health care services. Do you feeling like you're subject to unfair treatment at the hands of "the man" in those circumstances? I suspect the answer is no.

So why not allow other clinics for specialty treatment operate under the same premise, like MRI, X-Ray, orthepedics etc? In cases where heavy investment in equipment is involved then there is less capital outlay by the government and therefore the government can make better use of the public capital elsewhere. That is probably the ideal mix of public private health care.

Even private hospitals could be OK, public health care is just a political boogey man created by tby various political parties to suit their needs. There are many models of private public mix but unfortunately we never get a chance to talk about them because its politically incorrect and you'll be labelled a neo-con for bringing it up. Also, it's not as bad in the US as they make out either, Jeffery Simpson has written two books on the Canadian misconceptions of various elements of US society, and we are being fooled in many cases.

Also, you should know that free public health care was never really the intention of the Canadian system, remember here in Ontario it was called OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan), note the word insurance, you pay premiums and get access to health care, wasn't meant to be one giant freeby, it just got sucked into the welfare state scenario. If we were to return to the concept of health insurance then private clinics would have to compete for your business, instead of complacently knowing you had nowhere else to turn. The concept of private clinics could also help in the training of doctors as they could help fund the education of doctors who then would be contractually obliged to work for them (perhaps even in remote places).

You've been sucked in by years of social engineering that makes you hang onto socialized "this and that" as sacred cows, the reality is that there are many options to many of our problems they just are not allowed into polite public discourse because of political correctness. Your concept of fairness, community and society has been ruthlessly manipulated by 17 years of educational programming.

I'd hope that you have seen that I believe there is no idea that is unworthy of consideration... so polite public discourse or not, let's discuss.

I wasn't aware that family doctors and walk in clinics were private. Ya, I have no beef with the way they work. I don't disagree with you about specialty treatment clinics either, but don't private ones already exist (in the new light, for me, of family clinics)? My doctor has referred me many MANY times to an xray/ultrasound clinic in my nieghbourhood that is, presumably, also private.

I don't agree with you about private hospitals. There are too many different types of treatment that happen in hospitals to ensure 'customers' that they're being given what they need rather than being subjected to cost saving strategies. Who's to say that doesn't happen in family doctor offices or walk-in clinics, right? But there is a limit to the kind of procedures that they can perform. For example, let's say a private hospital decides to use an inferior product to set casts for broken bones. A patient with a broken foot gets such a cast and suffers a consequential secondary injury. Sure the hospital would be subject to competition with others but that patient still suffered that secondary injury needlessly. There is no room for such possibilities in health care. It is something that EVERYONE should have... equal access to equal high quality care.

I disagree that there isn't an industry that wouldn't be better if run privately. It's not even a matter of whether or not they'd be run better... presumably meaning that they'd be more profitable, which does indeed lead to good things. Sometimes it's simply a matter of what's good for the 'customers' rather than the company and there are OFTEN times when those interests are at odds. Health care is one of those industries.

[Slim MacSquinty]

You don't think your health care system is making compromises based on belt tightening already? Do you think waiting lists and thin resources haven't impacted patient care, of course, private clinics and hospitals would be no more inclined to use inferior treatments or products than the public system, they would be subject to all the same rules under health Canada and the provincial systems, they would have to be innovative and competitive and therefore may come up with better proceedures and products, very little incentive for that under the current system.

The olny place where public delivery of services is necessary is where they should be not for profit and for the public good in terms of health and safety. Those are generally services that are delivered by municipalities such as water and sewer, road maintenance and nuclear electric generation. These are all example of public infrastructure and are appropriate to be held in public ownership. Health care is on the fringe of that which could be conceived as for the public good, but that is where the insurance concept makes sense, you still have public interest with a mix of public/ private delivery. Its not at all scary really.

Quoting you: "It is something that EVERYONE should have... equal access to equal high quality care" how does the model I propose contradict your statement?

We have this idea that profit is dangerous and bad in this country, there is nothing inherently evil about good profits used properly within the context of a good democratic society. Modest governmental and stockholder controls which encourage competition, good reporting and continuous innovation will ensure the system works to the maximum benefit.

[blueblood]

But in a society that provides 'universal' health care, in which everyone (theoretically) pays taxes toward the system... should that system not be able to provide health care that is ... agreeable to the millionaire?

I say theoretically because I am well aware that people with more money get that money in ways that the regular working person does not and is open to options allowing them to avoid paying taxes. But, that's another issue all together.

And on a more principled angle, the millionaire is a human being regardless of what he/she has done in their life to both make that money and make society better (assuming that's the case). EVERYONE is human and, as such, deserves equal treatment. Health care, in my opinion, is a right. Nobody is more entitled to health care, no matter what. It's just not a matter of money, it's a matter of principle.

Please don't take my tone as being closed to other ideas... on the contrary. I'm still listening!!! But it might be difficult to change my mind.

I`m saying the millionaire has the right to jump ahead in line. BY doing this he`s going to a private clinic which is taxed and doctors are making comparable wages to public health workers (if they ammend the Health act). When doing so he`s freeing up space in the public system so a poor person can get medical care more quickly. Everyone still gets health care, just more efficiently. Plus it`s better for the economy and tax system to boot.

[Kitch]

You don't think your health care system is making compromises based on belt tightening already? Do you think waiting lists and thin resources haven't impacted patient care, of course, private clinics and hospitals would be no more inclined to use inferior treatments or products than the public system, they would be subject to all the same rules under health Canada and the provincial systems, they would have to be innovative and competitive and therefore may come up with better proceedures and products, very little incentive for that under the current system.

The olny place where public delivery of services is necessary is where they should be not for profit and for the public good in terms of health and safety. Those are generally services that are delivered by municipalities such as water and sewer, road maintenance and nuclear electric generation. These are all example of public infrastructure and are appropriate to be held in public ownership. Health care is on the fringe of that which could be conceived as for the public good, but that is where the insurance concept makes sense, you still have public interest with a mix of public/ private delivery. Its not at all scary really.

Quoting you: "It is something that EVERYONE should have... equal access to equal high quality care" how does the model I propose contradict your statement?

We have this idea that profit is dangerous and bad in this country, there is nothing inherently evil about good profits used properly within the context of a good democratic society. Modest governmental and stockholder controls which encourage competition, good reporting and continuous innovation will ensure the system works to the maximum benefit.

There is nothing wrong with profits, indeed. But there is sometimes something wrong with the mindset that results in them. There is a real risk that the leaders of a company will do something in the name of increasing profits at the expense of quality of product. Are we to assume that business leaders in private health care will have higher morals?

How is health care not one of the things that are for the public good in terms of health and safety? I fail to see the disconnect. I had surgery last week and am happy that the hospital didn't cut costs on anesthetic. There are many procedures that are done in hospitals that put patient's lives in danger but are necessary/ideal for treatment. Cutting costs can be a very serious problem. I THINK you're saying that hospitals won't cut costs... but how can you be sure?

If public health care institutes are forced to tighten their belts then they are not being provided with enough funding. I believe it is that simple. It wouldn't make sense to spend wastefully for this endeavour, but the government could certainly evaluate their priorities... I'm sure that there are programs that are not nearly as important as health care and THEY should be the ones that need to REALLY tighten their belts.

[Slim MacSquinty]

If they work under exactly the same rules structure as the public system why would you attribute more negative qualities to those working in the private sector. Don't you think that's unfair?

[independent]

If they work under exactly the same rules structure as the public system why would you attribute more negative qualities to those working in the private sector. Don't you think that's unfair?

http://dsp-psd.communication.gc.ca/Collect.../BP/bp300-e.htm

Here is a study on a comparison between the US healthcare system and ours payed for with our money.

Edited October 14, 2008 by independent

[Slim MacSquinty]

Look at table 5 and see the availablity of services, that is a target we should hope to achieve, beyond that it appears there are few substantial differences, if they like us implemented a universal medical insurance plan thye'd be better off as far as the bottom of the spectrum goes, if we freed up the public/ private miz we might be able to approach them on availability of services.

[Kitch]

If they work under exactly the same rules structure as the public system why would you attribute more negative qualities to those working in the private sector. Don't you think that's unfair?

What rules could prevent a private hospital from cutting corners? A doctor's office can cut corners by buying cheaper chairs, or changing vendors of syringes or tongue depressors. A hospital could begin buying generic brands of serious drugs, which sometimes have their own side effects. There are many places that a hospital COULD cut costs that have serious implications.

It's not about rules though. It's about the paradigm one operates the hospital on... for profit or for patients. There will inevitably be circumstances when the interests of these two are in conflict with each other. So no, I don't think it's unfair.

Tell me why what I've said is unfair instead of using the blanket of accusing me of "attributing negative qualities" to profit motivation. I'm all ears man!