Liberals talk Gutting health care

[Smallc]

One way to reduce costs and continue to be the "best health care system in the world" would be to stop sending Canadians from provinces to the United States for better, available, and much more expensive care! LOL!

Oftentimes, it's more cost effective to send to a closer US hospital or for a seldom required service.

[bush_cheney2004]

Oftentimes, it's more cost effective to send to a closer US hospital or for a seldom required service.

Oh sure...just ask Danny Williams? Florida is much closer than Quebec! LOL!

[nicky10013]

I don't like the idea but at least the party is bringing in people that doesn't agree with it or feel the need to pander to the base. Far better than what we've been getting from the government these days.

[Bonam]

Smallc, it is not the same money. The government system is funded by taxes. These taxes would still be paid if private options were also available. The relatively rich people who would opt for using private health care would be paying both their regular taxes that fund the public system, as well as the fees for using the private services. That is, the total amount of money spent on health care would be increased.

[Topaz]

Shady, if you want faster service its just down the road from you. Henry Ford Hospital, one of many hospitals in Michigan, are looking for business from Canadians, who don't want to wait, for whatever the reasons. They are usually on CKLW Saturday morning, telling Canadians to come over and get treated. This past Saturday a Canadian Doctor, working over there is the connection. He said they will work with your Canadian family doctor for your treatment. Now the only question is will OHIP pay for your tests and surgeries or will you pay the bill yourself, which can be thousands of US$$. I have no problem with two-tiered system as long as I get my needs done FIRST. That is why the private clinics NEED they own professionals and not borrow the health care systems.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Oh sure...just ask Danny Williams? Florida is much closer than Quebec! LOL!

Danny Williams going to Florida had nothing to do with cost, it had to do with him being an idiot.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... I have no problem with two-tiered system as long as I get my needs done FIRST. That is why the private clinics NEED they own professionals and not borrow the health care systems.

This is a curious statement....as long as YOUR NEEDS are met first!

[nicky10013]

Smallc, it is not the same money. The government system is funded by taxes. These taxes would still be paid if private options were also available. The relatively rich people who would opt for using private health care would be paying both their regular taxes that fund the public system, as well as the fees for using the private services. That is, the total amount of money spent on health care would be increased.

I think the big secret that we're forgetting is that two tiered health care health care exists in the US today. Despite ideological belief to the contrary, in the health care field it's clear that government can control costs far better than private companies. As a percentage of GDP, Canada spends about 8% less but carries more or less universal coverage for everyone. As a result on most measurments of health, Canada is doing better, though I'm willing to admit that we can do a lot better. I think the strain on health care and the costs of health care are far more due to demographics than the system we employ. Despite that, I think that we should be taking examples from across the world to see what works best for them and try and extrapolate it into what works best for us.

[Bonam]

I think the big secret that we're forgetting is that two tiered health care health care exists in the US today. Despite ideological belief to the contrary, in the health care field it's clear that government can control costs far better than private companies. As a percentage of GDP, Canada spends about 8% less but carries more or less universal coverage for everyone. As a result on most measurments of health, Canada is doing better, though I'm willing to admit that we can do a lot better. I think the strain on health care and the costs of health care are far more due to demographics than the system we employ. Despite that, I think that we should be taking examples from across the world to see what works best for them and try and extrapolate it into what works best for us. in

No, the US is not an example of two tiered health care. In a two tiered health care system, full health care services are available to the entire population through a public health system. Additionally, those who want better or faster services can also access them through a private system. This is not the case in the US, but it is the case in some European countries, and those are the ones you should be comparing to when analyzing the pros and cons of two tiered health systems as compared to our system.

[wyly]

I think the big secret that we're forgetting is that two tiered health care health care exists in the US today. Despite ideological belief to the contrary, in the health care field it's clear that government can control costs far better than private companies. As a percentage of GDP, Canada spends about 8% less but carries more or less universal coverage for everyone. As a result on most measurments of health, Canada is doing better, though I'm willing to admit that we can do a lot better. I think the strain on health care and the costs of health care are far more due to demographics than the system we employ. Despite that, I think that we should be taking examples from across the world to see what works best for them and try and extrapolate it into what works best for us.

I'd like to know what the US does better than us, from MD's I know who are familiar with the US they don't have much to offer...what I'd really like to know is how France manages to have more hospital beds and personnel than we do for the about the same cost...

[nicky10013]

I'd like to know what the US does better than us, from MD's I know who are familiar with the US they don't have much to offer...what I'd really like to know is how France manages to have more hospital beds and personnel than we do for the about the same cost...

Bingo. Which is why I want to look for other health care solutions. Not just two-tiered health.

[nicky10013]

No, the US is not an example of two tiered health care. In a two tiered health care system, full health care services are available to the entire population through a public health system. Additionally, those who want better or faster services can also access them through a private system. This is not the case in the US, but it is the case in some European countries, and those are the ones you should be comparing to when analyzing the pros and cons of two tiered health systems as compared to our system.

If you need to see someone in the states, you can't be turned away. People usaully wait unitl the last minute until they need drastic procedures to walkin into an ER. The person can't pay and a lot of the time the hospital debts are heaped onto the government. Not a very efficient way of running things.

Also, European type, most notably Switzerland, offers two tiered health, but if I'm not mistaken (which I frankly very well could be) is for elective procedures only.

Edited March 28, 2010 by nicky10013

[Smallc]

Smallc, it is not the same money.

The problem is that healthcare costs are increasing faster than economic activity, not only for government. Economic activity pays for all of it, public or private. As long as the growth of health costs outstrip the growth of the economy, we have a problem.

[Bonam]

The problem is that healthcare costs are increasing faster than economic activity, not only for government. Economic activity pays for all of it, public or private. As long as the growth of health costs outstrip the growth of the economy, we have a problem.

I agree. The only real way to continue to provide ever improving health care is to have economic growth that can sustain it. But stimulating economic growth is an entirely different subject. In the mean time, a private system (in parallel with the public one) could access funds for health care that would not normally be used for health care, as I explained before.

[nicky10013]

The problem is that healthcare costs are increasing faster than economic activity, not only for government. Economic activity pays for all of it, public or private. As long as the growth of health costs outstrip the growth of the economy, we have a problem.

Exactly. It's not a systemic issue, but a demographical one. Perhaps death panels ARE in order .

[Bonam]

Exactly. It's not a systemic issue, but a demographical one. Perhaps death panels ARE in order .

The growth of health care costs is only partly a result of demographic change. The other part of the growth in costs is due to the development of ever newer and better medications, diagnostics, and procedures, which cost more but provide improved results, treat previously untreatable conditions, and lengthen the lifespan. However, this growth in costs is finite and has a foreseeable endpoint, in that, once the lifespan has been lengthened indefinitely, additional development towards this goal is no longer needed. Some argue that this endpoint will be reached within the present century.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Bonam

[Smallc]

Some argue that this endpoint will be reached within the present century.

I wouldn't doubt that at all. There always seems to be a crisis that doesn't turnout to be a crisis in the end.

[nicky10013]

The growth of health care costs is only partly a result of demographic change. The other part of the growth in costs is due to the development of ever newer and better medications, diagnostics, and procedures, which cost more but provide improved results, treat previously untreatable conditions, and lengthen the lifespan. However, this growth in costs is finite and has a foreseeable endpoint, in that, once the lifespan has been lengthened indefinitely, additional development towards this goal is no longer needed. Some argue that this endpoint will be reached within the present century.

Yeah, I'd say that's all pretty much true. The point I'd like to make is that despite who finances the increasing cost of health care, the net result is an increase in cost for the consumer be it through taxes or insurance premiums. My concern is who can keep costs in line while ensuring access? My inclination is to say the government as they have the ability to cap procedure costs where as there's always the profit motive in terms of private business unless of course these private entites are mandated to be non-profits.

[eyeball]

Yeah, but there wasn't even interest in the topic here on MLW. In the public sphere, it's been discussed for 10 years, and still eHealth happened.

I was talking about scrutinizing the top of the pyramid. But you're probably right, Canadians just do not seem to be very interested in transparency or accountability. Probably because they don't believe it's possible.

I wonder if we'll deserve the corporations we get any more than we've deserved the government's we've had?

[nicky10013]

I was talking about scrutinizing the top of the pyramid. But you're probably right, Canadians just do not seem to be very interested in transparency or accountability. Probably because they don't believe it's possible.

I wonder if we'll deserve the corporations we get any more than we've deserved the government's we've had?

If one truly looks at the history and the structure of governance the answer is always no. The belief in the idea of enterprise for people on the right has reached the level of morality in certain cases. Not only do people believe that companies will provide the best services, but they'll provide them in the best fashion which is almost never the case. Though I don't argue with the first point, that in the vast majority of cases private enterprise far outweighs public, the fact remains that I'd much rather have a person whom the public can fire in regards to health care rather than a CEO that takes home a 100 million dollar bonus cheque who isn't accountable in the slightest.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'd like to know what the US does better than us, from MD's I know who are familiar with the US they don't have much to offer...what I'd really like to know is how France manages to have more hospital beds and personnel than we do for the about the same cost...

The US offers a lot more services without long wait times. This includes things like diagnostic services (e.g. MRI and CT). Also means more advanced procedures are available at more regional and local hospitals, more aggressive revascularization, more post operative care options, better placement and advancement for medical professionals, better/more research investment by government and the private sector, etc.

Saudi kings do not fly to Toronto when their asses are on the line.....neither did PM Chretien!

[bloodyminded]

If one truly looks at the history and the structure of governance the answer is always no. The belief in the idea of enterprise for people on the right has reached the level of morality in certain cases. Not only do people believe that companies will provide the best services, but they'll provide them in the best fashion which is almost never the case. Though I don't argue with the first point, that in the vast majority of cases private enterprise far outweighs public, the fact remains that I'd much rather have a person whom the public can fire in regards to health care rather than a CEO that takes home a 100 million dollar bonus cheque who isn't accountable in the slightest.

Well said. I too agree that private enterprise is extremely effective in an awful lot of ways. Where I diverge from free-market fundamentalists (and they ARE extremely religiously-devoted) is that I believe human affairs and societies are complex, and that sometimes the public good is better served by public rather than private interests.

[msdogfood]

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

Yes or NO???.

[eyeball]

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

Yes or NO???.

No doubt it would, I'm actually open to the idea of turning Canada into a province of Sweden.

[nicky10013]

The US offers a lot more services without long wait times. This includes things like diagnostic services (e.g. MRI and CT). Also means more advanced procedures are available at more regional and local hospitals, more aggressive revascularization, more post operative care options, better placement and advancement for medical professionals, better/more research investment by government and the private sector, etc.

Saudi kings do not fly to Toronto when their asses are on the line.....neither did PM Chretien!

Perhaps Saudi kings fly to the Mayo Clinic due to reputation. As an example, Princess Margaret is easily one of the best cancer hospitals in the world. I'm willing to bet the difference is in how much money each hospital puts in to their annual advertising budgets and that the Mayo Clinic or John Hopkins spends significantly more.