Liberals talk Gutting health care

[Sir Bandelot]

Liberals are doing everything exactly right, to assure that they will never be elected. Ignatieff will never be PM (thank you god) and will eventually have to be replaced.

Indeed, the Liberal party has died, but no one noticed yet. The only way for them to continue, is for a new Liberal party to be incarnated. But the bloated fatcats who make all the decisions behind the scenes, have not died yet. Let them be force-fed on vichyssoise

[msdogfood]

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

my question is real would Swedish healthcare work! In Canada.

[bjre]

False. Plenty of prices in the "free market" end up costing way too much. It is cause of game theory, if we all get a piece of the market we wont have to compete if we all work together to up prices. It happens all the time.

Costing too much means the regulations are not set properly. This makes market not free enough. In real free market, self-regulation nature have the ability to attracting people to profitable business until supply more than demand and price become lower. The current law set makes this impossible. Medicine making, sell, hospital, insurance are all over protected by laws that makes others hard to entering.

In economics, the

invisible hand

, also known as the invisible hand of the market, the term economists use to describe the self-regulating nature of the marketplace,[1] is a metaphor first coined by the economist Adam Smith in The Theory of Moral Sentiments. For Smith, the invisible hand was created by the conjunction of the forces of self-interest, competition, and supply and demand, which he noted as being capable of allocating resources in society.[2] This is the founding justification for the laissez-faire economic philosophy.[3]

[Michael Hardner]

Speaking of which, the McGuinty Liberal budget was launched last week, and I didn't hear the word 'eHealth' mentioned once.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The entire health care debate is a joke. You cannot simply bring in "competition" and lower the expenses. Private care requires a profit, we already have that within our system, yet most people either do not realize this truth or accept the reality of it. Doctors are private corporations and do very well. Putting any more profit scenario into the system will simply increase, not decrease the cost of service delivery.

The big argument seems to be that private ventures are more efficient and can do it cheaper, to this I would suggest that we could instead improve the existing system and SAVE money instead of providing a profit at a higher cost to the consumer. I think some people actually believe that private ventures would reduce government expenditures. To them I would suggest that unless government tax dollars were completely removed from the equation there will never be any savings realized by the public. Even then, I would suggest that the net cost to the consumer would in fact be greater than they currently experience.

[msdogfood]

no answer OK.

[Michael Hardner]

The entire health care debate is a joke. You cannot simply bring in "competition" and lower the expenses. Private care requires a profit, we already have that within our system, yet most people either do not realize this truth or accept the reality of it. Doctors are private corporations and do very well. Putting any more profit scenario into the system will simply increase, not decrease the cost of service delivery.

I'm convinced that there simply is not enough knowledge about the system to say that it's definitely true. The byzantine arrangement of associations, private and public organizations that are engaged to do this appear to be organized somewhat like wildlife in the forest.

As for doctors doing well, isn't this a question of labour supply ? It seems straightforward enough, and yet we still hear about shortages.

The big argument seems to be that private ventures are more efficient and can do it cheaper, to this I would suggest that we could instead improve the existing system and SAVE money instead of providing a profit at a higher cost to the consumer. I think some people actually believe that private ventures would reduce government expenditures. To them I would suggest that unless government tax dollars were completely removed from the equation there will never be any savings realized by the public. Even then, I would suggest that the net cost to the consumer would in fact be greater than they currently experience.

That would be a good point, except that we have been talking about this for years now and the system has not improved, nor risen to the challenge. I believe that private ventures would reduce government expenditures by deploying labour more efficiently. If this assertion is incorrect, then the private ventures will fail, or will not even enter the market.

[Michael Hardner]

Tom Clossom, President and CEO of the Ontario Hospital Association (btw - yet another "association" to add to the overhead, clutter and confusion as to how healthcare is managed and reported on in Ontario) was on CBC Radio 1 this morning, and estimated that 30% of doctors are using electronic filing. This, in 2010 ! That's 25 years after the arrival of the PC.

Our medical system is in the dark ages, and it needs a jolt. I not only opposed Harris and privatization, I marched against him. But a full 15 years after Harris landed in the Premier's office, we're still arguing these things as 'public vs. private' and not 'how do we improve the system'.

I have proposed ways that the public system could be improved, but it's like the old story about the mice putting a bell on the cat - who will do it ? There is no incentive for any of the parties to move forward.

“If there is hope, wrote Winston, it lies in the proles. Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I'm convinced that there simply is not enough knowledge about the system to say that it's definitely true. The byzantine arrangement of associations, private and public organizations that are engaged to do this appear to be organized somewhat like wildlife in the forest.

As for doctors doing well, isn't this a question of labour supply ? It seems straightforward enough, and yet we still hear about shortages.

That would be a good point, except that we have been talking about this for years now and the system has not improved, nor risen to the challenge. I believe that private ventures would reduce government expenditures by deploying labour more efficiently. If this assertion is incorrect, then the private ventures will fail, or will not even enter the market.

A few years back a report from a major US health insurance company was delivered to the provincial government in Alberta in a response to private coverage. The result was that the big US company decided they would not come to Alberta because of a lack of profitability based on the parameters given by the government. Small population base was only a part of the problem.

[M.Dancer]

Obviously health care funding has to change but the difficulty with two tier is that resources and human resources are likely to be divided in an efficient manner (ie public health might have 100 doctors for 10,000 patients while private could have 100 doctors for 1000 patients).

Now very few countries have single tier universal health care...with good reason. Some services should be private...we have over the last 15 years or so started reducing the services which are publickly funded...it wasn't that long ago that electrolysis was covered, now it is not.

Another solution is to keep the level of access exactly the same (equal access for all) but making the cost of care "means tested". In other words your bill for care will be calculated according to your after tax income.

[Michael Hardner]

A few years back a report from a major US health insurance company was delivered to the provincial government in Alberta in a response to private coverage. The result was that the big US company decided they would not come to Alberta because of a lack of profitability based on the parameters given by the government. Small population base was only a part of the problem.

That sounds like it would be a good link to add to this discussion.

[bjre]

A few years back a report from a major US health insurance company was delivered to the provincial government in Alberta in a response to private coverage. The result was that the big US company decided they would not come to Alberta because of a lack of profitability based on the parameters given by the government. Small population base was only a part of the problem.

If the government can let some people open a small hospital there, and let people like this person work there and allow people bring medicine from abroad. it will be a cheap solution and I am sure it can solve the problem. If such kind of hospital exist in Toronto, I am sure it will make health Canada feel strongly competed and begin to improve their service.

[Michael Hardner]

Obviously health care funding has to change but the difficulty with two tier is that resources and human resources are likely to be divided in an efficient manner (ie public health might have 100 doctors for 10,000 patients while private could have 100 doctors for 1000 patients).

Now very few countries have single tier universal health care...with good reason. Some services should be private...we have over the last 15 years or so started reducing the services which are publickly funded...it wasn't that long ago that electrolysis was covered, now it is not.

Right, so services can be privatized piecemeal, starting with the most inefficient. Equipment-based scanning seems like a candidate. We don't seem to have a handle on what queuing levels are, and what they should be. (By "we" I mean we the patients.) It seems bad, but is it ?

Another solution is to keep the level of access exactly the same (equal access for all) but making the cost of care "means tested". In other words your bill for care will be calculated according to your after tax income.

This already happens with a progressive tax system. I favour benchmarking the system, declaring what service level goals are and bringing in private entities to manage those areas - either supplementing or complimenting the public option.

[M.Dancer]

This already happens with a progressive tax system.

No it doesn't. The cost in that fashion is bourne by all whether they are sick or not....I mean means tested so that a person with a house hold income of 50K, needing a bypass pays less than a person with a HHI of 150K. And of course, the person needing nothing only pays their income tax.

I would see something where the lowest tier pays nothing...then the next tier pays 2%....and so on till the millionaire pays 80%....or so

[Michael Hardner]

No it doesn't. The cost in that fashion is bourne by all whether they are sick or not....I mean means tested so that a person with a house hold income of 50K, needing a bypass pays less than a person with a HHI of 150K. And of course, the person needing nothing only pays their income tax.

I would see something where the lowest tier pays nothing...then the next tier pays 2%....and so on till the millionaire pays 80%....or so

Ok... this sounds complicated and seems to add overhead. I don't like it.

[msdogfood]

so no one thinks my suggestion will work at all!

[Michael Hardner]

so no one thinks my suggestion will work at all!

Based on my 3-minute Wiki visit to "healthcare in Sweden", it sounds like it would work.

Now explain to me how we "put the bell on the cat", i.e. how we get there.

[msdogfood]

will any of you look a how its dune in sweden think it may work in Canada!

Sweden has both public health care & privet health care they work together it is equal access and universal

The Swedish get more care than we get!

[msdogfood]

Based on my 3-minute Wiki visit to "healthcare in Sweden", it sounds like it would work.

Now explain to me how we "put the bell on the cat", i.e. how we get there.

ops so sorry did not see your reply before my new post sorry!

[Michael Hardner]

What do you know of the system ?

[bjre]

More than 53,500 Ontario public sector workers were paid over $100,000 last year, while the size of the provincial deficit is $21.3-billion and the unemployment rate of 8.7% is the highest it has been since 1997.

Only in Hospitals and Boards of Public Health, sunshine salary list cost tax-payers more than $946 Million dollars, include several who make over $800k last year.

[wyly]

A few years back a report from a major US health insurance company was delivered to the provincial government in Alberta in a response to private coverage. The result was that the big US company decided they would not come to Alberta because of a lack of profitability based on the parameters given by the government. Small population base was only a part of the problem.

they don't because they can't compete with a not for profit system...small population base does not prevent them from operating in regions of the US with small population...

[wyly]

Right, so services can be privatized piecemeal, starting with the most inefficient. Equipment-based scanning seems like a candidate. We don't seem to have a handle on what queuing levels are, and what they should be. (By "we" I mean we the patients.) It seems bad, but is it ?

I don't about where you live but we already have that here and people still use the public system, they are willing to wait...and there is no rush of private companies moving to offer services no one wants to use...

[Michael Hardner]

I don't about where you live but we already have that here and people still use the public system, they are willing to wait...and there is no rush of private companies moving to offer services no one wants to use...

That's good to know.

[Sir Bandelot]

More than 53,500 Ontario public sector workers were paid over $100,000 last year, while the size of the provincial deficit is $21.3-billion and the unemployment rate of 8.7% is the highest it has been since 1997.

Only in Hospitals and Boards of Public Health, sunshine salary list cost tax-payers more than $946 Million dollars, include several who make over $800k last year.

Yes indeed, I read this list when it gets published and the number keeps increasing every year, out of control.

For every cheese-eater on this list, typically making 175-250 thousand dollars, you could replace them with 3 qualified medical technologists, the people who have to operate very complex equipment like MRI machines, the people who really make health care happen.

It's absurd to threaten to close down front line services, close beds and essentially cease to provide a service to the public while these hogs continue to splurge at the trough. And these salaries are only the tip of the iceberg, most of them make even more than that. The trick is to have multiple sources of income for their roles, each paying just under $100,000 so they don't make the list.

Alternatively, doctors can be paid separately under a contract between a third party company which charges the hospital one lump sum for all the doctors salaries, thus they are not even considered to be on the public payroll themselves. There's always a way to get around these pathetic attempts at "accountability". Meanwhile keep closing the services, then complaining that the health care system is untenable.