benny Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Not an admission, just an observable fact.The US has three tiers, or more accurately two tiers and 50 million people with no insurance who contribute to the reality that ,many Americans suffer from no or really inadequate care. Preventative medicine, which would keep them alive, keep them more healthy and less of a strain on public medicine, just is not there for them. It is puzzling since individual Americans are compassionate people, but those that have insurance are quite content to pay bigtime and let the others suffer. The other top two tiers are : a) are rich or have topnotch insurance that covers all and b ) are employed, insured, have no serious medcial issues and are desp[werate to hang onto all three of those things. If they lose any of the three, they become part of the 50 million. God Bless America. Contrary to the situation in Canada, the US health care system gives priority to the rich over the sick! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydraboss Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Posters have an affinity for posting on how the US has multiple tiers of health care, and yet not one of them want to address the multiple tiers in Canada. There are so many tiers in Canadian health care already that this whole question is moot. WCB, private medicine for athletes, private medicine for politicians, private medicine for the military, .......... I'm not saying it's bad - quite the contrary. I believe in a fully private system. My wife is a specialized RN and she believes in private health care. Why is this debate even going on? Anyone listen to the radio ads for the Cambie Clinic in the last few weeks? "Go where the sports pros go! Located in Vancouver, it's fly-in, fly-out convenience!!! Surgery without the wait."Private, multi-tier health care already exists in Canada. Ask Jack Layton. Still no responses????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Posters have an affinity for posting on how the US has multiple tiers of health care, and yet not one of them want to address the multiple tiers in Canada.Still no responses????? I already said early on that we have two tier of public and private. I consider all private as second tier, by the way. Drug, dental, semi-private rooms, physiotherapy, podiatrists, speech pathology and registered dietitians are mostly private care. In Canada, we have to be thinking more clearly on how to balance public and private care to control costs, make it run more efficiently and produce the best results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 I already said early on that we have two tier of public and private. I consider all private as second tier, by the way.Drug, dental, semi-private rooms, physiotherapy, podiatrists, speech pathology and registered dietitians are mostly private care. In Canada, we have to be thinking more clearly on how to balance public and private care to control costs, make it run more efficiently and produce the best results. No matter how many tiers you want, the foundation has always to be prioritized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydraboss Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 I already said early on that we have two tier of public and private. I consider all private as second tier, by the way.Drug, dental, semi-private rooms, physiotherapy, podiatrists, speech pathology and registered dietitians are mostly private care. In Canada, we have to be thinking more clearly on how to balance public and private care to control costs, make it run more efficiently and produce the best results. Agreed. But it goes further than that. In Canada, we not only have private healthcare with regards to different treatment, we also have different levels of healthcare availability depending on who you are. Athletes, politicians, armed forces, WCB. All have access to the same services covered under the "public system", only faster and better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Agreed. But it goes further than that. In Canada, we not only have private healthcare with regards to different treatment, we also have different levels of healthcare availability depending on who you are. ...and where you are. Canada has n-tiers of health care access and services. Athletes, politicians, armed forces, WCB. All have access to the same services covered under the "public system", only faster and better. Yep...with Blue Cross cards to prove it (just like me). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 ...and where you are. Canada has n-tiers of health care access and services. Having a system and adopting it are two very different situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Having a system and adopting it are two very different situations. The "system" is n-tiers of access and services....not equal access and treatment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 The "system" is n-tiers of access and services....not equal access and treatment. This topic asks should we adopt a two-tier system? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 This topic asks should we adopt a two-tier system? n = 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 n = 2 Should we? Yes..., No... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Should we? Yes..., No... You already have..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 You already have..... having is not adopting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) Agreed. But it goes further than that. In Canada, we not only have private healthcare with regards to different treatment, we also have different levels of healthcare availability depending on who you are.Athletes, politicians, armed forces, WCB. All have access to the same services covered under the "public system", only faster and better. Is that about money or something else? Edited August 21, 2009 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) Is that about money or something else It's, I think, because athletes, politicians and armed forces are very public figures that they receive so-called "private" health care. Edited August 20, 2009 by benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydraboss Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Is that about money or something else It starts with money, but it is much, much deeper. Average Joe taxpayer cannot receive the same level of treatment that these individuals/groups do, and considering that most of it is not available to other members of the public (private MRI machines, personal doctors, etc) it is full-on private healthcare. For example, doctors I deal with on a regular basis prescribe treatments to WCB patients that completely skip the queue but are still allowed to work in the public hospitals/system. That's not currently allowed in the "single payer, public system". Jack Layton received treatment at a private clinic, the armed forces have their own parallel healthcare system (which I agree with completely). One thing all of the above parties have in common....they can afford to pay cash for their enhanced medical services. The question is not whether or not Canada should adopt a two tier healthcare system, it's whether or not it should continue to publicly deny that it already has a multi-tier healthcare system. Anyone who tries to argue these facts is simply being hypocritical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 The question is not whether or not Canada should adopt a two tier healthcare system, it's whether or not it should continue to publicly deny that it already has a multi-tier healthcare system. No. The question is not whether or not Canada has a two-tier healthcare system but whether or not Canada should let this trend takes roots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 No. The question is not whether or not Canada has a two-tier healthcare system but whether or not Canada should let this trend takes roots. And the answer is yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 And the answer is yes. no Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 (edited) Until the U.S. adopts a public system of healthcare (which could be never lol), Canada should try a more 2-tier system. Canada's health care suffers from being isolated neighbours to the US, which obviously has a much more capitalist health care system. It's no secret that many of Canada's doctors, surgeons, nurses etc. have fled to the US for better pay (hard to blame them!). This has greatly weakened our system. I don't blame the US, or Canadian doctors/nurses, it's just the way it is. If Canada happened to be situated in europe however, our system would almost certainly improve. I think we need a 2-tier system to at least try to compete a bit more with US salaries. We should also have plans where we offer to pay some or all of doctors/nurses university/college tuition if they graduate, dependent on them staying in Canada to work. Edited August 21, 2009 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I think we need a 2-tier system to at least try to compete a bit more with US salaries. We should also have plans where we offer to pay some or all of doctors/nurses university/college tuition if they graduate, dependent on them staying in Canada to work. For Canada to remain competitive with the US, I favour the stick approach with health professionals rather than the carrot approach that you are proposing: As soon as health professionals go work in the US, Canada should consider them having debts towards Canada, so that if they want to enter in Canada, even for a quick visit, they have to pay, at the border, the full price of what Canada lost by their departures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 (edited) For Canada to remain competitive with the US, I favour the stick approach with health professionals rather than the carrot approach that you are proposing: As soon as health professionals go work in the US, Canada should consider them having debts towards Canada, so that if they want to enter in Canada, even for a quick visit, they have to pay, at the border, the full price of what Canada lost by their departures. Why limit this to just medical professionals? I know several Canadians who step back into the country at least every six months for a few days just to keep their benefits alive, yet they were educated for "free" in Canada. Edited August 21, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Why limit this to just medical professionals? I think Canada has to pursue first the most important/obvious cases of embezzlement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I think Canada has to pursue first the most important/obvious cases of embezzlement. So it is OK to import thousands of medical and other professional emigres from so called third-world nations that desperately need them, but not OK for Canadians to leave without paying back the money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 So it is OK to import thousands of medical and other professional emigres from so called third-world nations that desperately need them, but not OK for Canadians to leave without paying back the money? Don't hold back BC - no mercey - because some have none to return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.