Freedom, Health Care, Glasnost & Perestroika

ToadBrother · December 17, 2008

I'll live with it, as long as in an emergency I can walk into say, a private hospital and get treated under public funding.

I'm sure you would in the short-term, but then you'd be missing the other aspect of Libertarianism, that the less-fortunate should expect nothing save what their betters throw at them. They view any attempt by a government to help people as an atrocity, and that's why they despise Medicare.

Canadian Blue · December 17, 2008

The fact is I don't believe you. It's that simple. I think the Libertarians in the Conservative party and other right-wing organizations have long despised Medicare.

We also engage in conspiracies with the Bilderberg Group and the International Financing Community.

The public will is clear, and the government has no choice, no matter what some crazy uber-right-wing think tanks want to believe. This is a democracy, that means pro-Medicare wins and you lose. Now, deal with that and then let's figure out how to really solve the problem by encouraging lots and lots of babies.

Bravo, nice dodge at arguing against allow some private healthcare based on the grounds that democracy is always right. However as Kim Campbell correctly pointed out elections are not the time to talk about policies. But it seems that support for some privatization is actually growing, and people aren't nearly as drawn to some base anti-Americanism as they once were.

Obviously, NB need to work on their system. I could get an urgently needed CT scan or even MRI right now in MB, SK, BC, AB, and probably ON. I could get heart surgery right now if I needed it. Each provinces system is different. They aren't all in trouble though they all have their own problems.

Smallc, if a private clinic which was operating in parallel with the public system why do you believe you have the right to tell people they can't get faster treatment if they are willing to pay for it. All you're repeating is that "we have problems" and then suggesting that throwing more money will solve all of our problems. Well guess what, it likely won't, and inefficiencies are not sovled through more layers of bureaucracy.

I'm still amazed that you would not allow any healthcare reforms at all based on this fallacious notion you have that any reforms are akin to being "American."

White Doors · December 17, 2008

Obviously, NB need to work on their system. I could get an urgently needed CT scan or even MRI right now in MB, SK, BC, AB, and probably ON. I could get heart surgery right now if I needed it. Each provinces system is different. They aren't all in trouble though they all have their own problems.

Also, this wouldn't have been an emergency Cat scan issue as it's hard to diagnose an aneurism without a Cat scan, alhough the aneurism could kill her at any moment.

ToadBrother · December 17, 2008

I get my information on the Alberta system from an Albertan. His mother had suspected cancer. She got a CT and MRI the next day and started treatment 3 days later. I never said the system was perfect, but it certainly isn't as bad as many make out.

These stories are everywhere. My wife got timely treatment. My niece had some sort of growth of "heavily mutated cells" (they never called it cancer, but surely it must have been) and had it removed within a month of discovery.

Yes, the system fails on occasion, but I demand all the Medicare-haters to show me the system anywhere in the world that doesn't have flaws, and isn't feeling the pinch from an aging demographic.

Canadian Blue · December 17, 2008

Blah blah blah. Libertarians are all the same "Society be damned, it's all about ME!" I have never seen a more poisonous anti-social ideology than Libertarianism.

Yes, because the collectivist ideologies like communism and fascism have never once had any negative effects on society.

By the way, I think that their's a difference between society and government.

I'm sure you would in the short-term, but then you'd be missing the other aspect of Libertarianism, that the less-fortunate should expect nothing save what their betters throw at them. They view any attempt by a government to help people as an atrocity, and that's why they despise Medicare.

Likely because most attempts by government to create a perfect society are fruitless and cause more harm than good. I'll admit I'm not a utopian, but usually I have enough sense to realize that compassion is better served if it's voluntary instead of compulsory.

White Doors · December 17, 2008

The Quebec Supreme Court is not the electorate, and it's reasoning was that it was unreasonable to deny an individual access to private care if the public system could not provide it in a timely manner. It wasn't a carte blanche "Destroy the public system" ruling.
Blah blah blah. Libertarians are all the same "Society be damned, it's all about ME!" I have never seen a more poisonous anti-social ideology than Libertarianism.

The electorate has spoken. Ultimately even Klein backed down, and not because he needed Ottawas funding, but because Albertans are not keen to destroying Medicare.

Who wants to destroy medicare? Certainly not me. Are you so thick that you cannot understand what we are saying? Myself and the Quebec supreme court have said, clearly, that YOU'RE ideaology is no longer a good enough reason that I can't go to a private practise should I so desire. This is not extreme right wing idealogy, in fact, every country on earth allows it except North Korea and Cuba and formerly, Canada.

No longer.

You and your ilk were the extremists. Not us.

ToadBrother · December 17, 2008

I'm still amazed that you would not allow any healthcare reforms at all based on this fallacious notion you have that any reforms are akin to being "American."

Alright, so how do we make sure that doctors and nurses don't flee the public system for the private? If private treatment centers become draws on the public system, then how would you propose to fix it?

Canadian Blue · December 17, 2008

Yes, the system fails on occasion, but I demand all the Medicare-haters to show me the system anywhere in the world that doesn't have flaws, and isn't feeling the pinch from an aging demographic.

No, unlike the left we actually make attempts to improve the system. Unfortunately I suppose critical thinking can do that to people who are individuals instead of collectivists.

White Doors · December 17, 2008

I'm sure you would in the short-term, but then you'd be missing the other aspect of Libertarianism, that the less-fortunate should expect nothing save what their betters throw at them. They view any attempt by a government to help people as an atrocity, and that's why they despise Medicare.

You should really learn to argue and discuss about that people are actually saying, not what you are imagining them to say. Cause, really, all you are doing is talking to your own personal bogeyman.

It's kind of pathetic.

Canadian Blue · December 17, 2008

Alright, so how do we make sure that doctors and nurses don't flee the public system for the private? If private treatment centers become draws on the public system, then how would you propose to fix it?

Then the public centers should learn how to become more competitive with the private system. That's how competition works in a free society, if another entity is able to offer a service at better cost and better quality they will get more users.

Edited December 17, 2008 by Canadian Blue

ToadBrother · December 17, 2008

By the way, I think that their's a difference between society and government.
Likely because most attempts by government to create a perfect society are fruitless and cause more harm than good. I'll admit I'm not a utopian, but usually I have enough sense to realize that compassion is better served if it's voluntary instead of compulsory.

As I suspected, you're a Libertarian. So a poor guy comes through the door and needs immediate surgery, he should start looking for a patron?

Will your proposed mechanisms still make sure that everyone, regardless of income level, gets timely health care, and that the system is forbidden to deny said health care because of an inability to pay, or to priorize based upon income level (by that I mean, a rich guy who needs his pacemaker battery changed can bump in front of a homeless guy who needs emergency bypass surgery).

Or is your system simply a form of Libertarian social re-engineering, where the poor are once again turned away, or foisted with inescapable debts simply to stay alive if they have a health care disaster. Will the lower middle class be forced into bankruptcy unless they can find some kindly rich people to pay their bills?

ToadBrother · December 17, 2008

Then the public centers should learn how to become more competitive with the private system. That's how competition works in a free society, if another entity is able to offer a service at better cost and better quality they will get more users.

So, in effect, there are no safeguards. The poor and lower income groups will be screwed.

Nice reform.

ToadBrother · December 17, 2008

You should really learn to argue and discuss about that people are actually saying, not what you are imagining them to say. Cause, really, all you are doing is talking to your own personal bogeyman.
It's kind of pathetic.

Will the poor and lower income groups be covered? Will there be no income gap as there is in the American system where a certain part of the so-called working poor are not covered by government programs or capable of buying their own health insurance? Will priorization of resources be based solely on the size of the patient's wallet?

Let's get specific. What exactly are you advocating?

White Doors · December 17, 2008

As I suspected, you're a Libertarian. So a poor guy comes through the door and needs immediate surgery, he should start looking for a patron?
Will your proposed mechanisms still make sure that everyone, regardless of income level, gets timely health care, and that the system is forbidden to deny said health care because of an inability to pay, or to priorize based upon income level (by that I mean, a rich guy who needs his pacemaker battery changed can bump in front of a homeless guy who needs emergency bypass surgery).

Or is your system simply a form of Libertarian social re-engineering, where the poor are once again turned away, or foisted with inescapable debts simply to stay alive if they have a health care disaster. Will the lower middle class be forced into bankruptcy unless they can find some kindly rich people to pay their bills?

Yep, like talking to a wall.

Well, I guess you will learn your answers to these questions, because it's the system that's on it's way to Canada.

That ruling in Quebec was a landmark ruling wether you would like to admit it or not. The Canadian Medical Association applauds it and supports it. I'll be happy to have my perspective shared by them. The Unions who are the most adamently against tier 2 healthcare can kiss my ass.

Canadian Blue · December 17, 2008

As I suspected, you're a Libertarian. So a poor guy comes through the door and needs immediate surgery, he should start looking for a patron?

Well, in Canada I'd be considered a libertarian. However I've already stated that the funding should follow the patient, and that we should allow a system of private insurance where people can choose which plan works best for them. If a poor guy does require life saving surgery he would still get it.

Will your proposed mechanisms still make sure that everyone, regardless of income level, gets timely health care, and that the system is forbidden to deny said health care because of an inability to pay, or to priorize based upon income level (by that I mean, a rich guy who needs his pacemaker battery changed can bump in front of a homeless guy who needs emergency bypass surgery).

If someone is willing to pay money to get a surgery done faster in the private sector then I'd allow it. I've already stated what I support, and so far you're argument has mostly been made up of saying that we should simply accept the current system and make no criticisms of it.

Or is your system simply a form of Libertarian social re-engineering, where the poor are once again turned away, or foisted with inescapable debts simply to stay alive if they have a health care disaster.

It's not really social engineering if the individual is free to make their own choices in life.

Will the lower middle class be forced into bankruptcy unless they can find some kindly rich people to pay their bills?

No, I've already stated what kind of system I support. I've already stated that their is no reason we can't have healthy competition and private enterprise in a universal framework.

Right now you're just grasping at straws because you have no real argument against those of us who would like to see some reforms to the system.

ToadBrother · December 17, 2008

Yep, like talking to a wall.
Well, I guess you will learn your answers to these questions, because it's the system that's on it's way to Canada.

That ruling in Quebec was a landmark ruling wether you would like to admit it or not. The Canadian Medical Association applauds it and supports it. I'll be happy to have my perspective shared by them. The Unions who are the most adamently against tier 2 healthcare can kiss my ass.

I notice you didn't answer the question.

White Doors · December 17, 2008

Will the poor and lower income groups be covered? Will there be no income gap as there is in the American system where a certain part of the so-called working poor are not covered by government programs or capable of buying their own health insurance? Will priorization of resources be based solely on the size of the patient's wallet?
Let's get specific. What exactly are you advocating?

As I suspected you are thick.

How many times do I have to say it? How nay rulings does the Quebec Supreme court have to make?

Are you able to actually read what i write without you being blinded by ideaology?

I advocate private involvement inside and outside of the medicare system. Universal coverage for all in the public system. So no appeals to the 'poor' here, thanks.

White Doors · December 17, 2008

I notice you didn't answer the question.

You didn't notice shit. You are too blinded by hateful partisanship to be able to see what I or the Quebec Supreme court said.

Your loss.

Canadian Blue · December 17, 2008

So, in effect, there are no safeguards. The poor and lower income groups will be screwed.
Nice reform.

The poor and lower income groups are already screwed in our system, but we just learn how to redistribute our suffering.

Will the poor and lower income groups be covered? Will there be no income gap as there is in the American system where a certain part of the so-called working poor are not covered by government programs or capable of buying their own health insurance? Will priorization of resources be based solely on the size of the patient's wallet?

This has already been answered, and you're just a brick wall at the moment. You haven't bothered to respond to any argument put forward, and I'll say this once again.

MOST NATIONS WITH UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE ALLOW SOME ELEMENT OF PRIVATE FOR PROFIT CARE, ODDLY ENOUGH THEIR HAVEN'T BEEN MASS DEATHS IN SINGAPORE, SWITZERLAND, THE NETHERLANDS, ETC.

ToadBrother · December 17, 2008

Well, in Canada I'd be considered a libertarian. However I've already stated that the funding should follow the patient, and that we should allow a system of private insurance where people can choose which plan works best for them. If a poor guy does require life saving surgery he would still get it.

Alright, let's explore this then. We can assume in the short term we're still going to be dealing with the same finite human resources (that is, we only have so many doctors and so many nurses). That being the case, and we see it often enough, the system is heavily stretched at times of peak demand.

So let's take two people; Bob Rich and Bill Poor. Bob Rich has a wallet full of cash and is willing to pay, say, thirty thousand dollars for an important though not imminent heart procedure (as in, he could wait). Bill Poor needs a quadruple bypass very quickly.

Now, to properly set the situation up, we have only a very small number of heart surgeons. As well, there's a fee schedule for anyone who isn't willing to pay some sort of a premium. So the heart surgeon in question has the choice between what will likely be a smaller payout from Bill Poor, who is being paid for completely out of public coffers, and Bob Rich, who will pay a hefty extra bonus if he can get in right now.

Will Bill Poor be put on the waiting list because Bob Rich has the money to jump the queue, or will the system have safeguards in place to make sure that normal triage rules apply?

ToadBrother · December 17, 2008

The poor and lower income groups are already screwed in our system, but we just learn how to redistribute our suffering.
This has already been answered, and you're just a brick wall at the moment. You haven't bothered to respond to any argument put forward, and I'll say this once again.

MOST NATIONS WITH UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE ALLOW SOME ELEMENT OF PRIVATE FOR PROFIT CARE, ODDLY ENOUGH THEIR HAVEN'T BEEN MASS DEATHS IN SINGAPORE, SWITZERLAND, THE NETHERLANDS, ETC.

And there haven't been reports of mass deaths here, so what's your point?

Canadian Blue · December 17, 2008

If you want to know which system I'd prefer then read on my dear friend.

http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/bus/storie...n2.21730ee.html

http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/23...ld-switzerland/

http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/01/14...th-care-system/

http://www.singaporeexpats.com/guides-for-...n-singapore.htm

Healthcare in Singapore
Singapore's medical standards, being one of the highest in Asia, have made it the regional centre for medical excellence.

Growth into the future will be based on a total approach as Singapore is further developed as the regional hub for medical and healthcare services, with a strong R&D base, while aiming to become a strategic global manufacturing centre.

Singapore’s well-established healthcare system comprises a total of 13 private hospitals, 10 public (government) hospitals and several specialist clinics, each specializing in and catering to different patient needs, at varying costs.

Patients are free to choose the providers within the government or private healthcare delivery system and can walk in for a consultation at any private clinic or any government polyclinic. For emergency services, patients can go at any time to the 24-hour Accident & Emergency Departments located in the government hospitals.

Singapore's medical facilities are among the finest in the world, with well qualified doctors and dentists, many trained overseas.

Pharmaceuticals are available from numerous outlets including supermarkets, department stores, hotels and shopping centres. Registered pharmacists work from 9am till 6pm, with some shops open until 10pm.

Most hotels have their own doctor on 24-hour call. Contact the Front Office or Room Service for assistance. For an ambulance, dial 995.

Canadian Blue · December 17, 2008

So let's take two people; Bob Rich and Bill Poor. Bob Rich has a wallet full of cash and is willing to pay, say, thirty thousand dollars for an important though not imminent heart procedure (as in, he could wait). Bill Poor needs a quadruple bypass very quickly.

I wouldn't worry too much about it, if theirs more of a profit to be made from doing medicine I'm sure we'll get more doctors.

However I'm certain triage would still be the name of the game on the public side.

And there haven't been reports of mass deaths here, so what's your point?

That you're belief that any form of competition or private insurance will result in massive deathtolls because we allowed some doctors to work for profit. You can't really make any arguments against allowing private healthcare, or for that matter show how any nation with both universal healthcare and private healthcare have resulted in more deaths so I can safely assume that allowing some competition in our system will not result in the anarchy you're describing.

White Doors · December 17, 2008

Exactly CB, which I think has been our whole point all along. The Medicare or nothing zealots refuse to look to other ways to do things simply because of far left wing, Anti-American agendas.

Canadian Blue · December 17, 2008

Exactly CB, which I think has been our whole point all along. The Medicare or nothing zealots refuse to look to other ways to do things simply because of far left wing, Anti-American agendas.

Yeah, I can't help but wonder how much progress has been halted due to a few shrill individuals who like to invoke fear anytime theirs talk of making changes to our ailing system.