Liberals talk Gutting health care

[punked]

Influential speakers at the party's policy renewal conference -- including former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge -- said soaring health-care costs are rapidly becoming unsustainable as the country's aging population requires ever more costly medical services.

They said those costs must be reined in and recommended some solutions that have proved toxic to politicians who've flirted with them in the past. Those included setting up a two-tier system of public and private health care.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100327/liberal_conference_100327/20100327?hub=QPeriod

Listen I know Health care costs are going to rise as our population ages, but that tidal wave will pass. Yes that might mean cuts too other sectors of the government, or a rise in taxes if we don't change our single payer system. I am ready for that too know that my family will have health care, and just because the government isn't paying doesn't mean no one is. Single payer has kept our health care cheaper then those south of us. We are going to pay somehow I am happy that I can have the best in Canada work on me regardless if I am millionaire or if I have a cent too my name. Let's not go backwards. Liberals you keep telling me your party is an alternative SHOW ME NOW. Tell your leader what you want.

[Smallc]

Nice spin punked. We have to control costs, but nothing has been decided as far as Liberal policy yet.

[punked]

Nice spin punked. We have to control costs, but nothing has been decided as far as Liberal policy yet.

I agree they talked about gutting health care. Didn't you read the title of the thread. The problem is unless people get out there and have their voices heard with the Conservatives in power and the Liberals holding balance it could easily happen. I know you have a card please send an email off to your leader to tell him that in unacceptable. They are the most conservatives they have ever been right now.

PS this wouldn't be the first time the Liberals gutted health care, in fact it gut so bad that Harper has been more Liberal on health care then the Liberals. Upping transfers for health care by around 3%. From their low under the previous Liberals.

Edited March 28, 2010 by punked

[charter.rights]

The "solution" is to increase immigration.

[Smallc]

The "solution" is to increase immigration.

Well, an increase in productivity is also important.

[Smallc]

PS this wouldn't be the first time the Liberals gutted health care, in fact it gut so bad that Harper has been more Liberal on health care then the Liberals. Upping transfers for health care by around 3%. From their low under the previous Liberals.

You better check your dates. The Liberals did cut health transfers (along with everything else), but they are the ones who put in place the new program that has a 6% escalator clause. That means spending increases by 6% a year. That deal expires in 2014...and I believe the Conservatives have extended it to 2015.

[punked]

You better check your dates. The Liberals did cut health transfers (along with everything else), but they are the ones who put in place the new program that has a 6% escalator clause. That means spending increases by 6% a year. That deal expires in 2014...and I believe the Conservatives have extended it to 2015.

Yah I remember, you remember that was cause they needed Jack Layton's vote? However that doesn't change the fact that in Martin's last year transfers reached an all time low.

[punked]

The "solution" is to increase immigration.

I agree.

[Smallc]

Yah I remember, you remember that was cause they needed Jack Layton's vote?

Nope, you're thinking of the wrong thing.

[msdogfood]

would the Swedish health care model work in Canada at all?

see

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

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muSd9xw1qwo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muSd9xw1qwo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muSd9xw1qwo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

My link

Tell me what you think!

[Shady]

Liberals talk Gutting health care

I'm still trying to find where this so-called "gutting" of healthcare is discussed. Acknowledging problems isn't gutting healthcare. And either is offering a private/public solution. That's exactly the type of system France and Germany have, and it's been a lot more successful at covering everyone, but lowering costs.

The solution isn't more immigrants. Especially if there aren't jobs for them. The solution is to have more of our healthcare available from non-government entities. That way the government incurs less costs, and the services they provide for will have less people waiting for them.

But it's disingenious people like punked, who rachet up the rhetoric whenever these types of solutions are proposed. Just like his disingenious title of this thread, the so-called "gutting" of healthcare.

Instead he offers the same tired old non-solutions. More government money and higher taxes. It's unsustainable.

[Smallc]

The solution isn't more immigrants. Especially if there aren't jobs for them. The solution is to have more of our healthcare available from non-government entities. That way the government incurs less costs, and the services they provide for will have less people waiting for them.

That doesn't solve anything, because the same people pay for it no matter who delivers. The advantage of government is that they have lower overhead because they don't worry about making a profit.

[Argus]

The "solution" is to increase immigration.

Because the more unemployed illiterates we have the easier it will be to pay for health care? I'm not seeing the logic here.

[Shady]

That doesn't solve anything, because the same people pay for it no matter who delivers. The advantage of government is that they have lower overhead because they don't worry about making a profit.

I'm not sure I follow you. I'm advocating for private clinics. Clinics that offer MRIs, CTs, and other important tests and procedures. I'm also advocating for some private health insurance. All of which would require zero federal dollars. It would save money. It would also save time. Not everyone would require going to a hospital or federally funded clinic. Wait times would be much, much shorter.

[Argus]

That doesn't solve anything, because the same people pay for it no matter who delivers. The advantage of government is that they have lower overhead because they don't worry about making a profit.

I think that's offset by inefficiency. However, a private sector model which allows for massive numbers of rate payers (many insurance companies) means even more inefficiencies. And frankly, the health care industries of the private sector are so notoriously ruthless at racking up the highest possible charges they can for every element of health care that I'm loath to leave anything to their control.

Anyone see W5 last night on the pharmaceutical industry?

[Shady]

For the record, I'm advocating private health insurance for non-serious/non-catastrophic medical needs.

[Smallc]

I'm not sure I follow you. I'm advocating for private clinics. Clinics that offer MRIs, CTs, and other important tests and procedures. I'm also advocating for some private health insurance. All of which would require zero federal dollars.

But people would still have to pay for it. People on the right miss the point that there is only one tax, insurance premium, and out of pocket payer.

[Smallc]

For the record, I'm advocating private health insurance for non-serious/non-catastrophic medical needs.

Which will only increase costs.

[Smallc]

I think that's offset by inefficiency.

It probably depends on the province, but I doubt it. Hospitals seem to be quite careful with their money.

[Shady]

But people would still have to pay for it. People on the right miss the point that there is only one tax, insurance premium, and out of pocket payer.

I'm not sure I follow. If I want to spend my own money, and pay for private health insurance, to take care of minor healthcare issues, how does that raise costs for the government? And what does that have to do with taxes?

[Michael Hardner]

Punked, I think the time has come to discuss two-tier.

This debate on healthcare has been centred on one-tier versus two-tier for at least a decade now, and in that time the one-tier system has not addressed its problems. The fact is that the health system isn`t capitalizing on the things that give it an advantage over private options. Costs continue to rise, and governments are managing the system with pure politics in mind, which has been a disaster.

If you take the Ontario eHealth situation as an example, you can see why the health system needs some kind of external challenge to improve.

I heard a health administrator on CBC Radio 1 last fall, and he was talking about how they had recently consulted with management science types to see how their waiting times improved. This is in 2009. So, the implication was that managers with a purely medical background were in charge of managing health services queues for all of this time. Banks, fast food chains and every other type of service know enough to seek out expertise in other areas, but the medical establishment consistently fails to do this, and IMO it`s because they are not challenged to do so.

Adam Smith described the invisible hand that causes market forces to work for the benefit of all involved. If we don`t have a market, then there`s only one entity overseeing the service, which is inadequate.

I don`t think that health services should ever be provided on the open market. I think government needs to set rates for services, and to mandate standards. But the system, as it is, is failing due to political management and due to the fact that the electorate do not pay enough attention to the details of what is happening.

[Smallc]

Punked, I think the time has come to discuss two-tier.

This debate on healthcare has been centred on one-tier versus two-tier for at least a decade now, and in that time the one-tier system has not addressed its problems. The fact is that the health system isn`t capitalizing on the things that give it an advantage over private options. Costs continue to rise, and governments are managing the system with pure politics in mind, which has been a disaster.

I don't think you're correct in your conclusions. A report this week by CIHI says that wait times are falling and have been falling. Two tier will change nothing in regards to wait times anyway, as the same number of people will still be accessing the system and the second tier will simply steal people from the first. You will start to see US wait times (which already exist) rise, now that all people have access to most different care.

I disagree with your talk about costs. I've recently read that it is mostly drug costs that are rising, something introducing private care will not help. Introducing profit will not decrease costs.

I also disagree with your blanket statement about governments managing this in only a political manner. This is a provincial system, and different provinces are doing very different things.

[Shady]

Two tier will change nothing in regards to wait times anyway, as the same number of people will still be accessing the system and the second tier will simply steal people from the first.

That's simply not true. If you allow for for-profit health clinics, for people who want to spend their own money, it will cut down wait times significanntly. They won't all be accessing the same system. Some people will access hospitals and government funded clinics, others will be accessing private clinics.

For example. If new private clinics opened up in every large city in Canada, offering only MRIs and CTs, and similar tests, wait times in hospitals would dramatically drop. And private clinics could fund themselves by people who wish to spend their own money to recieve a faster test or scan. And as a result of their faster test or scan, it will make others in line at hospitals and government clinics recieve a faster test or scan.

[Smallc]

And as a result of their faster test or scan, it will make others in line at hospitals and government clinics recieve a faster test or scan.

This neglects something. MRIs and CTs are operated by technicians that are in short supply. The problem is not the number of machines, and the UK has fewer MRIs per person, and shorter waits than most provinces. For the most parts, CT waits are not a problem in Canada.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think you're correct in your conclusions. A report this week by CIHI says that wait times are falling and have been falling. Two tier will change nothing in regards to wait times anyway, as the same number of people will still be accessing the system and the second tier will simply steal people from the first. You will start to see US wait times (which already exist) rise, now that all people have access to most different care.

While I do like CIHI, they are inextricably tied to the healthcare establishment. I do trust them to be honest in their reporting. The problem is that literally nobody knows about CIHI, so why would governments really listen to them.

Please provide a link, in any case.

I don't believe two-tier will change nothing. I already provided an example of one-tier failing to address service needs, and lacking innovation. If you can provide a link that explains that access problems are all due to lack of human resources then that might help your argument, but even then that would assume that private healthcare wouldn't do a better job of recruiting.

This isn't just a simple supply and demand curve. We are talking about institutions that have to provide adequate services with limited resources. It takes motivated management to address these things.

I disagree with your talk about costs. I've recently read that it is mostly drug costs that are rising, something introducing private care will not help. Introducing profit will not decrease costs.

Again, a link would be helpful but ... probably in a limited sense. The studies that are out there are numerous, difficult to digest and sometimes contradictory.

I also disagree with your blanket statement about governments managing this in only a political manner. This is a provincial system, and different provinces are doing very different things.

It was a general comment, but when politicans are in change of services, what drives performance and improvement ? McGuinty's awful leadership on eHealth is a symptom of a larger problem, it is not the problem.