A US-Swedish healthcare model for Canada?

[Machjo]

Over the years, many Canadians have complained of excessive waiting times for health care delivery in Canada, yet we continue to be loath to pay more taxes unless it's for the military.

If we wanted to improve the system, we could consider a two-tier system as a means of bringing more private-sector funds into the system. But many Canadians are opposed to a two-tier system too. If we were looking at a foreing single-payer model outside of Canada that has proven successful over the years, we could took to Sweden's:

http://www.sweden.se/eng/Home/Quick-facts/...sh-health-care/

It has an excellent, albeit highly tax-dependent, system. A Lamborgini Countach might be a good car, but it won't go far without gas. If we're not going to fund the system adequately, then for the sake of the ill, we may have no choice but to adopt a two-tier model.

One possibility I could see would be to combine the strenghs of the Swedish system with those of the US model with that of the Swedish model, whereby a public system of the Swedish quality would exist side by side with a US-style private system. Whenever the government of the day is prepared to fund the public system adequately, the private system would simply become redundant. And whenthe government of the day is not prepared to fund the public system adequately, then those who wish to pay out of pocket woudl certainly be free to do so as a means of reducing wait-times for the rest.

Such a co-existence of the Swedish and US models would likely come out looking something like the Singaporean model, whereby both a private and public system co-exist on all levels.

Though I can understand the passion many have for a single-payer system, we must also appraise the political reality in Canada that most Canadians are not willing to pay the taxes necessary to maintain a high-quality public single-payer system anymore, unlike in Scandinavia. If we aren't willing to pay the tax anymore, then we really have no choice but to switch to a two-tier system.

[Smallc]

Over the years, many Canadians have complained of excessive waiting times for health care delivery in Canada, yet we continue to be loath to pay more taxes unless it's for the military.

[Machjo]

Think about it. Most seem just thrilled with the government spending on the military, yet while we've heard of people complaining of long waiting times, seldom do we hear people exclaim that they'd be willing to pay more tax for health care.

[Wilber]

Whenever the government of the day is prepared to fund the public system adequately, the private system would simply become redundant.

How in hell could anyone base a business plan on that?

[Machjo]

How in hell could anyone base a business plan on that?

Hey, that's the reality of politics. By the way, the military faces the same challenge depending on the government of the day. Same with the police, same with public schools. If we allow for private participation, then the private sector arms industry, private schools, private hospitals, etc. all face the same challenge of having to react to the demands of the government market, likely to change every four years depending on the government in power,

So how do we solve this? Do we nationalize the weapons industry, all private schools, etc. etc. etc.? And if we do that, then how does the government manage the fluctuation in demand for various products and services from election to election whenever a government reduces or increases taxes and spending? Do we lay off excess staff one year and then four years later hire them again and retrain them?

How far do we go in banning private sector participation in public sector spending just to protect the private sector from fluctuations in government spending? This would also mean that the government woudl have to suck up the costs involved in these changes instead of the private sector. Yet more bureaucracy to overlook this massive government industry.

[Smallc]

Most seem just thrilled with the government spending on the military

Most? Most of who?

[Machjo]

Most? Most of who?

Well, from my experiences, it would seem that most people have defended the military against my claims about the tax burden for the war in Afghanistan, even though if we suggest more taxes for social services, it's just unacceptable. I have no statistics, but just going on my personal experiences.

[Wilber]

Hey, that's the reality of politics. By the way, the military faces the same challenge depending on the government of the day. Same with the police, same with public schools. If we allow for private participation, then the private sector arms industry, private schools, private hospitals, etc. all face the same challenge of having to react to the demands of the government market, likely to change every four years depending on the government in power,

So how do we solve this? Do we nationalize the weapons industry, all private schools, etc. etc. etc.? And if we do that, then how does the government manage the fluctuation in demand for various products and services from election to election whenever a government reduces or increases taxes and spending? Do we lay off excess staff one year and then four years later hire them again and retrain them?

How far do we go in banning private sector participation in public sector spending just to protect the private sector from fluctuations in government spending? This would also mean that the government woudl have to suck up the costs involved in these changes instead of the private sector. Yet more bureaucracy to overlook this massive government industry.

Good luck getting private investors to buy into that. All you would have to do is burn them once and they would never come back. I wouldn't use our domestic weapons industry as a shining example. Perhaps our lack of one is a better indicator. Sweden on the other hand has a very successful weapons industry.

[Machjo]

Good luck getting private investors to buy into that. All you would have to do is burn them once and they would never come back. I wouldn't use our domestic weapons industry as a shining example. Perhaps our lack of one is a better indicator. Sweden on the other hand has a very successful weapons industry.

And Sweden, though it has among the highest tax rates in the world and among the best education and social systems in the world, is also among the most privatized systems in the world. I rememebr reading a few years back that the Swedish government owned less of its GDP than the US government did of its!

Sweden uses a school voucher system, and about 10% of its compulsory education system comprises private schools!

SAAB is a privately-owned company too by the way. So how does it function? I don't know, maybe government spending is consistent most of the time?

I guess the same would apply to private health care in Canada. If the government funds public health care as well as the Swedish governemtn does, then private hospitals won't even come to be in Canada. It would just be a law on paper saying that they may exist, but no fruit would come of it.

Alternatively, if successive governments consistently underfund the system, then some private companies might enter the system.

If government after government keep changing their minds, then maybe some private hospitals might decide to open on the US side but near the Canadian border, profitting from the US healthcare system but always ready to take advantage of Canadians who are willing to pay, though granted this last option is likely already in place.

But what would be the point of banning it legally when if the public system is underfunded, then let the private system compensate as needs be.

I'm all for sufficient funding of the public ssytem, but if the government fails to do that, then two-tiered is the way to go.

[Smallc]

SAAB is bankrupt. And again, I say, all hospitals in Canada are private, they just aren't for profit.

Edited August 15, 2009 by Smallc

[Machjo]

SAAB is bankrupt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab

And again, I say, all hospitals in Canada are private, they just aren't for profit.

That's different from private health care. Though Canada does technically have a two-tier system already, it's extremely restricted and in most cases, one must go abroad to the US to get private care. If we legalized private care across the board, maybe it still wouldn't come into being, but then that woudl be a sign of the quality of the public ssytem, wouldn't it?

[Smallc]

They're not bankrupt in the sense of being gone.

[Machjo]

They're not bankrupt in the sense of being gone.

I'm just saying, why would we want teh state to take all the risk of fluctuations in government demand for services? Let the private sector deal with it.

[bush_cheney2004]

....And again, I say, all hospitals in Canada are private, they just aren't for profit.

False.....Cambie Surgery Center counts itself at a private hospital thet thumbs its nose at such restrictions.

http://www.csc-surgery.com/

[Oleg Bach]

False.....Cambie Surgery Center counts itself at a private hospital thet thumbs its nose at such restrictions.

http://www.csc-surgery.com/

There is no such thing as a not-for profit operation..if there is paycheque - there is a profit - even charities are profit making - frankly there are no charities left in the west...all is for profit.

[Machjo]

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/179/2/129

It would appear that the Swedish system is going two-tier too.

[Machjo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muSd9xw1qwo

[Machjo]

The Singaporean model is well described here too: