Freedom, Health Care, Glasnost & Perestroika

[Smallc]

In fact, they're in charge of monitoring the system and communicating how well it's running and they don't do that.

This is no different than private business. Things are always missed. Its the job of the public to point things out that are missed.

[Michael Hardner]

Small,

This is no different than private business. Things are always missed. Its the job of the public to point things out that are missed.

The public hasn't done that because they don't know better. Shareholders or a board of directors know enough about the business to ask the right questions, demand proper reporting, monitor performance etc. The public just grumbles and says things like the "the system is stretched". It's difficult enough to implement change in business, but in a political environment it's impossible because there are stakeholders who resist it.

[Smallc]

but in a political environment it's impossible because there are stakeholders who resist it.

There are also stakeholders that push reform forward. It is no different than a business in this way.

[Michael Hardner]

There are also stakeholders that push reform forward. It is no different than a business in this way.

SC,

I'm afraid that if we don't integrate the public into the process in a better way, the reform push will come from those who would gut the system. This is what happens when the status quo is defended to the nth degree.

[Canadian Blue]

TD, if you're argument against making any kind of reform is that the evil libertarians want to destroy the system and nothing else, then you've already admitted that you aren't open to any suggestions for reform, no matter how valid they might be.

This is no different than private business. Things are always missed. Its the job of the public to point things out that are missed.

Problem is that even if we saw reforms that we wanted, we'd have to wait while the politicians dragged their feet when it came to healthcare. At the very least if we had a system where the patient is given the choice between a number of healthcare alternatives including public insurance, the system would have to remain competitive and meet the changing demands of patients. In the current system nobody is really accountable for the problems in healthcare, the current system is open to abuse and is unable to meet the demands which it has been given. Think for a second if you were to run a general store, how would you operate your store if you were the only business in town and the government essentially granted you a monopoly. Chances are that it would likely become inefficient, corrupt, and not produce the best product for the people. If on the other hand you had to compete with several other businesses you'd try to make your business more competitive. The same should be true of healthcare whereby funding instead follows the patient.

Edited December 17, 2008 by Canadian Blue

[Smallc]

Problem is that even if we saw reforms that we wanted, we'd have to wait while the politicians dragged their feet when it came to healthcare. At the very least if we had a system where the patient is given the choice between a number of healthcare alternatives including public insurance, the system would have to remain competitive and meet the changing demands of patients.

That would defy the fundamental principles of our system and I am certain that you would encounter massive opposition. Everyone has to be able to use the government funded system. Talking about whether or not we should be able to buy faster or better care if we choose (I want the system to evolve so that we don't even have to worry about such things) is another issue.

[Canadian Blue]

That would defy the fundamental principles of our system and I am certain that you would encounter massive opposition. Everyone has to be able to use the government funded system.

I'm certain the only reason such a system would meet opposition is due to the rhetoric employed by groups like Friends of Medicare, and not the merits of it.

People would still get the same level of funding per-person that we currently have, however the big difference would be that each individual can decide on their own which doctor or form of health insurance they would want, whether it's public or private.

Talking about whether or not we should be able to buy faster or better care if we choose (I want the system to evolve so that we don't even have to worry about such things) is another issue.

I recall in the lat 90's politicians were talking about how to reduce waiting times, a decade later the same discussion is going on. We won't evolve as long as the government assumes that the best answer to all of our problems is to simply throw around money in a drunken orgy hoping all our problems will go away.

[Oleg Bach]

Universal dental care would be a good idea. Some how the government seperates teeth from general bodily health. But of course with such a monopoly amoung dentists - 300 dollars an hour at times - would not be given up freely. Maybe the problem with high level privatizatoin would result in doctors behaving like money grubbing dentists...oh no!

[Smallc]

I'm certain the only reason such a system would meet opposition is due to the rhetoric employed by groups like Friends of Medicare, and not the merits of it.

People would still get the same level of funding per-person that we currently have, however the big difference would be that each individual can decide on their own which doctor or form of health insurance they would want, whether it's public or private.

Many Canadians don't want to deal with insurance companies when it comes to healthcare. They have one goal, to make money. To do that, is is estimated that they have to refuse 50 - 70% of claims.

I recall in the lat 90's politicians were talking about how to reduce waiting times, a decade later the same discussion is going on. We won't evolve as long as the government assumes that the best answer to all of our problems is to simply throw around money in a drunken orgy hoping all our problems will go away.

That is not at all what is being talked about now. There is enough money in the system. The problem now is people, and many different avenues are being used to try to fix the problem, but its not easy.

[Smallc]

Universal dental care would be a good idea. Some how the government seperates teeth from general bodily health.

If your teeth are to the point where they are causing health problems, you can usually get their removal paid for.

[Oleg Bach]

If your teeth are to the point where they are causing health problems, you can usually get their removal paid for.

Just like a rich guy talking - disfigure the poor...wonderful - then with a toothless mouth and bad dentures - success and acceptance is guarenteed. I'm keeping what I have in my head thanks and if I have to stiff the banks by running up the X-wifes mothers credit card so be it....the average person in Canada can not afford proper mantainance of the holy pearls of the soul called teeth....I suggest you come down to earth - and come over - I have pliers..

[Canadian Blue]

Many Canadians don't want to deal with insurance companies when it comes to healthcare. They have one goal, to make money. To do that, is is estimated that they have to refuse 50 - 70% of claims.

If they don't want to deal with insurance companies then they can put their money into the public system. Don't think that I'll do away with the public system entirely, all I'll do is ensure that each Canadian is given a certain amount of money for health expenditures, if they wish to opt out of the public system they can, if not they can keep that money flowing to the government.

That is not at all what is being talked about now. There is enough money in the system. The problem now is people, and many different avenues are being used to try to fix the problem, but its not easy.

These 'avenues' have been talked about for ages and little action has been done. My view is that we should allow your average taxpayer to decide whether or not they would rather keep funding the public system, or if they wish opt out and go the private route. As I've stated many times before my preference is for a system similar to Singapore.

[Canadian Blue]

Just like a rich guy talking - disfigure the poor...wonderful - then with a toothless mouth and bad dentures - success and acceptance is guarenteed.

Toothpaste isn't that expensive, if you're truly concerned about your teeth you can layoff the sweets and pop.

[Smallc]

If they don't want to deal with insurance companies then they can put their money into the public system. Don't think that I'll do away with the public system entirely, all I'll do is ensure that each Canadian is given a certain amount of money for health expenditures, if they wish to opt out of the public system they can, if not they can keep that money flowing to the government.

I am hesitant on that. I'm not sure i like the idea of a patchwork system. In this system, many would choose to ope out and not buy any coverage, and that is not a situation that I welcome.

These 'avenues' have been talked about for ages and little action has been done.

Not true. They are going to places like the Philippines and bringing people back. They are increasing seats at medical schools. Things are being done, but the solution is not an easy one.

[Canadian Blue]

I am hesitant on that. I'm not sure i like the idea of a patchwork system. In this system, many would choose to ope out and not buy any coverage, and that is not a situation that I welcome.

All you have to do is make coverage compulsory. As well you put in a well regulated framework for the private sector ensuring that they meet their commitments to the patient. For medical procedures that are a requirement for the well being and livelihood of an individual you setup a certain pool covered through taxation that can meet any cost overruns.

Not true. They are going to places like the Philippines and bringing people back. They are increasing seats at medical schools. Things are being done, but the solution is not an easy one.

I realize that, but I think additionally if we had a vibrant private sector in Canada as well they could help train doctors and entice people to come from overseas. Just look at the success of the Mayo Clinic in the United States.

[Oleg Bach]

Toothpaste isn't that expensive, if you're truly concerned about your teeth you can layoff the sweets and pop.

Now your skipping around my point - I don't drink pop - Smoking has caused some damage...with the temperature increase in the mouth the bad bacteria become more prevailent..causing gum disease - but I do admit - my mum did own a candy store..Teeth are a badge of social merit and standing these days. There are thousands of children who even with modern dentistry will lose what should last a life time because dentistry is so overly priced...just to have a look costs you a hundred bucks - and we are not talking work - When I had cash I spent over 5000 dollars on evaluations and cleanings - then I ran out of money and the guy had the nerve to send my account to collections - I owed him 200 - and he was happy to take the 5000 for absloutely nothing and bicker about the 2 bills. It's stupid - teeth and good dental care is a real health issue - teeth are not some sort of privledge...anymore than keeping your fingers is a privledge. Could you imagine if you had a small infection in your finger and the if you could not pay full the full amount for treatment they cut it off? That's the way I look at the Dental industry - greedy.

[Smallc]

I realize that, but I think additionally if we had a vibrant private sector in Canada as well they could help train doctors and entice people to come from overseas. Just look at the success of the Mayo Clinic in the United States.

We do both those things right now. The University of Toronto Health Network is world renowned in the fight against cancer. Most of the HIV research and the fight against HIV in Africa is conducted out of Winnipeg. We do far more than people realize.

Oh, and since you mentioned the Mayo Clinic: Edmonton Clinic

[Canadian Blue]

The Edmonton Clinic looks promising, however it still doesn't negate the fact that individuals do not have any other choices in this system if they are unhappy with the care they received. At the very least if people are allowed to choose multiple providers including a public one, they can decide to spend their money on alternative means of getting care.

Allowing competition will not endanger the Edmonton Clinic, in fact it will only encourage governments to look at those kinds of improvements to help meet patients demands.

Edited December 17, 2008 by Canadian Blue

[Smallc]

The Edmonton Clinic looks promising, however it still doesn't negate the fact that individuals do not have any other choices in this system if they are unhappy with the care they received. At the very least if people are allowed to choose multiple providers including a public one, they can decide to spend their money on alternative means of getting care.

Actually, you don't have to go where they send you. You can ask for a different facility, a second opinion, etc. Yes, they are all in the same system, but they are each their own entity.

[Canadian Blue]

Actually, you don't have to go where they send you. You can ask for a different facility, a second opinion, etc. Yes, they are all in the same system, but they are each their own entity.

Are these entities competing for funding from the government to ensure they give the best care to patients. That's the benefit of the system I'm touting is that it will allow for more competition and innovation within the system, which is far greater improvement than the system we currently have.

[Smallc]

Are these entities competing for funding from the government to ensure they give the best care to patients. That's the benefit of the system I'm touting is that it will allow for more competition and innovation within the system, which is far greater improvement than the system we currently have.

I would want proof of that before I made a decision. Perhaps a pilot project. And yes, the facilities are competing for government funds. Its why some Hospitals end up being so much bigger ad end up having so much more than others. Again, I would have no problem with private for profit getting involved, but there better be universal access, cost effectiveness, and some type of tangible improvement.

Edited December 17, 2008 by Smallc

[Michael Hardner]

That's the benefit of the system I'm touting is that it will allow for more competition and innovation within the system, which is far greater improvement than the system we currently have.

You know, CanB, you could get that within the existing system if there was simply more supply than demand.

[Goat Boy©]

And Quebecers are like High maintenance women. Calling a quebecer a seperatist is like calling a woman fat. We're supposed to automatically understand you guys, but you won't tell us your problems. Quebecers place high demands, high maintenance women place demands. It's all right for Quebecers to do something, but it's not alright for the ROC (reasonable accomodation, language laws), it's all right for high maintenance women to call other women fat, but hell awaits the guy that does so.

As a person from Quebec speaking to English Canadians, you go on and on about how we don't get Quebec, and how Harper doesn't get Quebec, honestly how are we supposed to "get" Quebec, if we haven't a clue what we're in for. If this is how Quebecer's act, (pout about how English Canada doesn't get them, yet won't tell us what we're supposed to get) can you understand why Quebec is so frustrating for the Rest of Canada?

Applause. Should just tell them, put up or shut up. Settle it once and for all. If you don't like it......leave. They won't.

[Mr.Canada]

You know, CanB, you could get that within the existing system if there was simply more supply than demand.

This takes funds and since we're in a crisis why drain the public purse more than it already is?

Why not give Canadians more choice. A two tier system would provide this with having yearly fees charged to use the new system generating money and not relying on the taxpayer for it. It would pay for itself. The model is brilliant.

[Smallc]

Why not give Canadians more choice. A two tier system would provide this with having yearly fees charged to use the new system generating money and not relying on the taxpayer for it. It would pay for itself. The model is brilliant.

Except that it would take money out of the public system....and it would rely on the same people as the public system for funding, so it would rely on the taxpayer.