Freedom, Health Care, Glasnost & Perestroika

[Smallc]

My feeling is that August1991 and the pro-private health care are right, and that the time has come for us to engage the private sector. However, this action will be useless unless Canadians are better equipped to determine whether these projects are successful or not.

I would have no problem with the private for profit sector getting involved. If they are involved though, I want the ospital to be affordable and accessible within the public system. They should be allowed to do procedures that they want to on the side as well. I have no problem with that type of idea, as long as it actually makes things better.

[Michael Hardner]

Smallc,

I think you're talking about something called 'single payer'.

Wiki definition

Even within that system, there is room for private delivery of services.

[kuzadd]

Not necessarily.

One only need to look at the relative costs of systems that have two tier health care to see that you are indeed incorrect in this assumption.

could you back that nonsensical assertation up, please.

such as this:

Costs of Health Care Administration: U.S. vs. Canada

Using a variety of sources, the researchers calculated the fiscal-year 1999 administrative costs of health care insurers, employers' health care benefit programs, hospitals, office practices, nursing homes, and home health care agencies in both countries. The estimated per capita cost of health care administration was US$1059 in the U.S. and US$307 in Canada. These costs accounted for 31% and 17% of health care spending in the U.S. and Canada, respectively. The average overhead cost for U.S. private insurers was 11.7%; in contrast, this figure was 3.6% for U.S. Medicare and 1.3% for Canadian provincial insurance plans.

why the difference?

because every step of the way, there is profit making.

or this

cost of bypass surgery

Many websites give a bypass heart surgery cost comparison and it is found that the Americans pay more for the bypass heart surgery. The bypass heart surgery cost in America is around $20000. Comparative studies indicate that the cost is 50% less in Canada.

why is that? Because cost are higher. Why are cost higher? The profit that must be taken, by everyone along the way.

So all evidence demonstrates clearly that a for profit system if vastly more costly to the consumer then a non-profit system.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/349/8/768

so whitedoors anything along that line will do, demonstrate how the profit motive included in the cost of health care is cost effective, ie" cheaper and more efficient as you claim.

Other then that you have nothing but a business induced ideology.

[Sir Bandelot]

Both my spouse and I work in health care. Although its not a perfect system, none is. Yet I am not acutely aware of any serious problem in the current system today.

Nationwide we treat millions of cases, and only a small percentage have problems. The cancer treatment waiting list is not long. Here in Ontario it does work... as best you could expect. Any complex system requires constant maintenance and tuning to keep it functional. That doesn't mean we throw out the baby with the bath water.

What's the problem?

[kuzadd]

Au contraire, the businesses that are doing badly right now are the one's that were not runnng efficiently.

One only need to contrast Toyota with that of the big 3 to see that clearly.

(This coming from a GM car owner)

Not sure that healthcare itlsef is a human right, but the Quebec supreme court ruled that timely access to healthcare cannot be over ridden by ideaology. Take your juvenile argument to them and see how you do.

au contraire

toyota is or will be laying off.

Jackson's Toyota Bodine employs about 200 to manufacture all-aluminum, die-cast, V-6 and V-8 cylinder engine blocks for Toyota's North American market. They also manufacture transmission housings. Kathryn Ragsdale, corporate affairs specialist for Toyota Bodine, did not know how far production had fallen since January, only that it began to slide "when the market for V-8s bottomed out." So far, the company has avoided layoffs by cross-training employees in areas such as equipment maintenance, but "there are no guarantees," Ragsdale said.

Ditto for Honda

Production cut at five North American Honda facilities

Honda Motor Co said on Friday it would further cut vehicle production in North America as it adjusts to plunging automobile demand.

Tokyo-based Honda is reducing production by another 119,000 vehicles for its fiscal year ending March 31, bringing expected production for the fiscal year to 1.3 million units.

Honda spokesman Ed Miller said the cuts will take place at five of Honda’s seven plants in the US and Canada. Employees at the plants will be given other tasks or can take paid or unpaid vacation time, he said. No layoffs will result from the cuts, he said.

See all the car makers are watching sales fall....

the problem with car sales boils down not to efficiency, how the plants were run, nope, it boils down to the consumer no longer buying, no customers, no money, no loans.

economics 101,

In the most simplest terms for you to be able to comprehend, consumers aren't buying, they are not willing to take on debt in an unstable economy, therefore, they are not buying cars

You had better check the latest news

oh and btw carmakers and especially the big banks are failing due to rampant greed, and an anything to make a buck sort of ideology.

Which is something definitely not beneficial to health care.

Edited December 16, 2008 by kuzadd

[ToadBrother]

This is a pretty funny comment. Did you expect to go ahead of the people who were really hurt/sick when you stumbled in the other times?

This is the "problem" with our system, those that think that their itchy parts or other non life threatening ailments be treated ahead of the guy with the swelling brain from the car accident because he was there first.

I don't know what kind of hospital you go to, but at any I've been to, triage is used. Someone with scratchy balls might be waiting a long time on a busy night, and someone with a swollen brain is going to be assessed immediately.

[jdobbin]

I don't think emulating practices that seem to work well in Switzerland and France and trying to incorporate them here has to be an ideaological issue.

Neither do I. However, we seem to be looking at the solution offered south of us.

Personally, I think good health care is more important than Ideaology, I know that you never would.

It seems you can't post without personalizing to the person. It seems to be your ideology.

I have no problem seeking good healthcare. My problem is I'm not convinced that large scale privatization makes healthcare more affordable and accessible.

In Canada, some people seem to want to end public financing of it in favour of privatization with little evidence to show how it will make things better.

Edited December 16, 2008 by jdobbin

[Jerry J. Fortin]

There are better systems in use in this world. Some are private and some are a mix, and some are just public. The thing to concern ourselves with is this; what is the net cost to the patient? Does the system pay for everything or does the citizen pay out of pocket for everything?

The long and the short of the options have to contend with the issues of who pays. The answer is no pay no service. So we can move to who pays as the next step in the equation, the tax payer or the patient?

[Michael Hardner]

Sir B,

Both my spouse and I work in health care. Although its not a perfect system, none is. Yet I am not acutely aware of any serious problem in the current system today.

Nationwide we treat millions of cases, and only a small percentage have problems. The cancer treatment waiting list is not long. Here in Ontario it does work... as best you could expect. Any complex system requires constant maintenance and tuning to keep it functional. That doesn't mean we throw out the baby with the bath water.

What's the problem?

You're not 'acutely' aware because problems are under-reported. It's in no one's interest to report problems. Just try to get a report that shows a timeline on waiting times for Ontario. Try it.

The fact is that health care consumers are complacent with regards to how the system works. To say it's "complex" throws smoke in our eyes. Many problems are complex, but most are solvable.

[Michael Hardner]

jdobbin,

QUOTE(White Doors @ Dec 16 2008, 05:45 AM) *

I don't think emulating practices that seem to work well in Switzerland and France and trying to incorporate them here has to be an ideaological issue.

Neither do I. However, we seem to be looking at the solution offered south of us.

A single-payer system with private elements is not the solution offered south of us. It's a continuation of the Canadian system that has worked well in the past.

[Michael Hardner]

JerryF,

The thing to concern ourselves with is this; what is the net cost to the patient? Does the system pay for everything or does the citizen pay out of pocket for everything?

The long and the short of the options have to contend with the issues of who pays. The answer is no pay no service. So we can move to who pays as the next step in the equation, the tax payer or the patient?

I think that having the patient pay is too much of a leap for now. I would like to see privately managed services first, along with new ways for the public to discuss and monitor these changes. That is key. Right now we have dueling press releases from all sides that conflict with each other. The public can't get the truth from such things.

[Sir Bandelot]

Sir B,

You're not 'acutely' aware because problems are under-reported. It's in no one's interest to report problems. Just try to get a report that shows a timeline on waiting times for Ontario. Try it.

The fact is that health care consumers are complacent with regards to how the system works. To say it's "complex" throws smoke in our eyes. Many problems are complex, but most are solvable.

I am not throwing smoke, I actually work in the system and have done for 22 years. I don't need to look it up, I live there. Having worked in several hospitals in defferent cities in Ontario, I have seen crises come and go. Problems were raised, identified, made noise and problems get solved. We are constantly undergoing reviews to improve efficiency. Salaries are the biggest part of the operating budget but its actually insurance companies that drive the cost up through the roof. Thats why the purchase of capital equipment is so high, as medical equipment vendors assume risks they have to guarantee the quality of their equpment, by meeting standards. That's a necessary evil that would not be improved in a private system.

As I said wait lines in Ontario for cancer treatment are low, now that new clinics have finally come on line after twenty years of arguing for the need. Right now it works well. This thread is blowing smoke, IMO.

[kuzadd]

This thread is blowing smoke, IMO.

which is why it was posted.

even the comparison to communism is inflammatory and intentionally so.

wave a boogie man

[Michael Hardner]

SirB,

I am not throwing smoke, I actually work in the system and have done for 22 years. I don't need to look it up, I live there. Having worked in several hospitals in defferent cities in Ontario, I have seen crises come and go. Problems were raised, identified, made noise and problems get solved. We are constantly undergoing reviews to improve efficiency. Salaries are the biggest part of the operating budget but its actually insurance companies that drive the cost up through the roof. Thats why the purchase of capital equipment is so high, as medical equipment vendors assume risks they have to guarantee the quality of their equpment, by meeting standards. That's a necessary evil that would not be improved in a private system.

Ok.

As I said wait lines in Ontario for cancer treatment are low, now that new clinics have finally come on line after twenty years of arguing for the need. Right now it works well. This thread is blowing smoke, IMO.

Says who ? Who says it works well ? I challenge you to find me a constant timeline that shows cancer treatment waiting lists across Ontario hospitals. I have tried to get to the bottom of these issues via the web many times in the past, and the information just isn't there.

What you will find is a lot of self-reporting from interested parties with an agenda - who will gladly tell you that the system works well.

And the worst part of the whole system right now is the consumer that doesn't demand better information. If they did, how could it be possible that both sides of the debate insist that their way is cheaper ? Someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong.

[Shakeyhands]

I don't know what kind of hospital you go to, but at any I've been to, triage is used. Someone with scratchy balls might be waiting a long time on a busy night, and someone with a swollen brain is going to be assessed immediately.

Exactly my point, but there are those that think they can wave a few dollars around and think they should get those taken care of ahead of the brain guy.

[Sir Bandelot]

What you will find is a lot of self-reporting from interested parties with an agenda - who will gladly tell you that the system works well.

The political reality is, it's in the best interest of the professional organizations to report problems so they get more funding. I know for sure that certain crises have been deliberately fabricated by special interest groups. Example, some organizations are very sensitive to having too many trained health care workers newly entering the market. By creating a shortage, it benefits these organizations to press for higher wages. I'm not saying that they outright sabatoge the patient care but they do like to keep school enrollments down to a minimum.

If you want data, check the website for Cancer Care Ontario, they keep the statistics. I haven't gone there recently but that is supposed to be their responsibility. And believe me it's in their interest to report problems, because thats where the money comes from. Squeeky wheel gets the grease. If you do find it please let us know.

[Michael Hardner]

SirB,

The political reality is, it's in the best interest of the professional organizations to report problems so they get more funding. I know for sure that certain crises have been deliberately fabricated by special interest groups. Example, some organizations are very sensitive to having too many trained health care workers newly entering the market. By creating a shortage, it benefits these organizations to press for higher wages. I'm not saying that they outright sabatoge the patient care but they do like to keep school enrollments down to a minimum.

Fine.

Do you know what cleans up these sorts of tactics ? Raw data.

If you want data, check the website for Cancer Care Ontario, they keep the statistics. I haven't gone there recently but that is supposed to be their responsibility. And believe me it's in their interest to report problems, because thats where the money comes from. Squeeky wheel gets the grease. If you do find it please let us know.

Sorry, but I spent many hours looking for stats. Cancer Care Ontario is a government organization, so they will try to make the ministry of health look good. You've already explained why the associations have a vested interest.

The ministry graphs tend to be short-term with lots of asterisks. And they tend to only tell us about good news.

[Topaz]

I don't think we want private healthcare UNLESS, its for the rich, who can afford to pay the fees, and this would be take some off the list of surgeries making room for those who fall under the province. I know over in the US the HMO's has the final say as to what treatment the patient can get and I know alot doctors over there do not like that. The HMO's are in business to make money and if they pay for treatments that cost alot they lose their profits.

[White Doors]

could you back that nonsensical assertation up, please

certainly:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_...ding-per-person

As you can see, there are many countries that spend less on healthcare per capita than Canada that have a mixture of public and private delivery. I know you are obsessed with America, but there are many other countries that we can look to for inspiration and good ideas for our healthcare issues. That said, healthcare spending is becoming a problem for alot of countries so now is the time to be looking at innovative solutions to the problems that we are facing. That does not include yelling rabid political ideaology when confronted about the issues.

Note: This chart only looks at the money spent, not how effective the systems are. I know I would rather be in a medical system of alot of those countries that spend less per capita than does Canada. Throwing money at a problem is not innovative or smart.

Edited December 16, 2008 by White Doors

[White Doors]

au contraire

toyota is or will be laying off.

Ditto for Honda

Production cut at five North American Honda facilities

See all the car makers are watching sales fall....

the problem with car sales boils down not to efficiency, how the plants were run, nope, it boils down to the consumer no longer buying, no customers, no money, no loans.

economics 101,

In the most simplest terms for you to be able to comprehend, consumers aren't buying, they are not willing to take on debt in an unstable economy, therefore, they are not buying cars

You had better check the latest news

oh and btw carmakers and especially the big banks are failing due to rampant greed, and an anything to make a buck sort of ideology.

Which is something definitely not beneficial to health care.

So.... it's your assertion that Toyota and Honda are in deep financial trouble akin to GM and Chrysler?

Ok.. lol, but it's you funeral. haha

[White Doors]

Neither do I. However, we seem to be looking at the solution offered south of us.

It seems you can't post without personalizing to the person. It seems to be your ideology.

I have no problem seeking good healthcare. My problem is I'm not convinced that large scale privatization makes healthcare more affordable and accessible.

In Canada, some people seem to want to end public financing of it in favour of privatization with little evidence to show how it will make things better.

I have never advocated for an end of public financing, nor would I. What I am arguiing for is greater private involvement in the delivery of it - where it makes sense. What I am tired of is screams of UNITEDSTATEDGREEDUNINSUREDMALPRACTICE!!!1111 everytime someone mentions it.

I advocate private-for-profit delivery of healthcare both inside the public system and outside of it.

The Quebec Supreme court agrees with me.

[Smallc]

I have never advocated for an end of public financing, nor would I. What I am arguiing for is greater private involvement in

I advocate private-for-profit delivery of healthcare both inside the public system and outside of it.

The Quebec Supreme court agrees with me.

I like the idea of private for profit inside the system (as we already have private not for profit inside the system) and am even open to the idea of pay services being available provided that those pay services do not take away from the public system.

[White Doors]

I like the idea of private for profit inside the system (as we already have private not for profit inside the system) and am even open to the idea of pay services being available provided that those pay services do not take away from the public system.

That would be the trick. Certainly, if greater privatization is introduced, it would have to be a gradual process to try and mitigate that as much as possible while still having the eye on the ball of actually having better healthcare outcomes for the patient.

In fact, one could argue that is exactly what is going on right now, especially in Quebec. The NDP certainly don't have the cojones to say anything about the increased privatization in Quebec right now and the Liberals never would anyways. So ironically, perhaps our own political ineptitude and immaturity on this issue may in fact, be helping us mitigate the risks of moving to a private system.

[Canadian Blue]

We should privatize most of the healthcare system, but make it mandatory to buy health insurance. For those who truly require the additional money to get coverage the government can simply top them off from a general fund so we can achieve 100% coverage. Let's give individuals the power to make their own choices when it comes to healthcare.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34854.html

Allowing private insurance in healthcare won't be cold hearted or "American" as many Liberals would like you to believe. If anything allowing competition amongst different healthcare providers would improve the care and efficiency of our system, which is better then instead having bureaucrats who are completely cut off from the system make the decisions when it comes to funding, research, etc.

With regards to the American system, the fact is that if people were fully aware of all the benefits available through government welfare the US would be nearly achieve 100% universal coverage. The fact is that America is actually a combination of all the different healthcare systems in the world, when it comes to veterans and seniors they're Canada, for employees like Germany, and for many individuals they simply decide not to get it. It's far from perfect and requires alot of work, but the answer isn't to move towards a more inefficient and bureaucratic healthcare system.

[blueblood]

This is a pretty funny comment. Did you expect to go ahead of the people who were really hurt/sick when you stumbled in the other times?

This is the "problem" with our system, those that think that their itchy parts or other non life threatening ailments be treated ahead of the guy with the swelling brain from the car accident because he was there first.

i apply the same logic when going to the hospital the same as taking my machinery into the mechanics. if I can't fix it myself, then that's the only reason it goes in there. I had food poisoning for 3 days and didn't go, (rather unpleasant being at home laid up in bed for 3 days). So no I don't go unless something is completely buggered.