Canadian's Support 2 Tier Healthcare

[Alliance Fanatic]

I found this article on Canada.com. Apparently Canadian's are smarter than the media thinks.

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpos...8a-17e447c651ca

What does this mean for the election.

[idealisttotheend]

Alright let's have this out.

Assuming I make less money than you, which is very likely true, what exactly gives you a right to "speedier" service than me.

What is the benefit to anyone if the people with money pay for their own service and therefore have no use for the "universal" system.

[Kliege]

If Canada is a free country, shouldn't I have the right to pay for my medical service if I choose to. They haven't it in Britian

[idealisttotheend]

I love how 'freedom' these days. Freedom to work, freedom to spend money on health care. You may not have the freedom "to" purchasing health care services but you have the freedom "from" worring about not recieving any services if you don't have the money because everyone is treated equally and it forces a race to the top (the richest people push for the best standards for all).

[Kliege]

Indeed idealisttotheend freedom to wait weeks just to see a G.P(If you can find one). Freedom to spend months on end on a waiting list just to get a surgical operation. Freedom not to see a specialist because they can't take anymore patients. Thats some freedom idealisttotheend

[idealisttotheend]

Indeed it isn't. That's why you have the freedom to go to your government and demand more resources be put in to the system if that's how you feel. That's why you have the freedom to demand more doctors be trained at the universities. That's why you have the freedom to demand elected health boards so you have even more freedom in determining health policies.

That's some freedom.

[takeanumber]

He said the economic institute is an advocacy group that favours such policies, so a poll done for the group should be treated with "some caution and some skepticism."

Prof. Smythe said there may be some argument to be made in favour of private medicine from a libertarian point of view, ,but he said there is no economic case to be made for it.

Two-tier health care does not create any efficiencies, he said.

[August1991]

The Montreal Economic Institute is well known as a market-oriented think tank. It was created recently. They are heavily into PR. Quebec's left wing largely dismisses much that they do.

For myself, I would like to see the exact wording of the question that Leger asked in the survey.

BTW, one of the directors of the institute is the wife of Paul Desmarais's son. If you go to the site and flip down, you'll see her pic and bio. A good PR job.

Desmarais Jnr's wife

[Michael Hardner]

Indeed idealisttotheend freedom to wait weeks just to see a G.P(If you can find one). Freedom to spend months on end on a waiting list just to get a surgical operation. Freedom not to see a specialist because they can't take anymore patients. Thats some freedom idealisttotheend

Under the new system, this poor treatment will only happen to those who don't pay.

[Slavik44]

Alright let's have this out.

Assuming I make less money than you, which is very likely true, what exactly gives you a right to "speedier" service than me.

What is the benefit to anyone if the people with money pay for their own service and therefore have no use for the "universal" system.

It depends hwo you look at it, obviously the rich will get health care faster then the poor.

however that is not what we should be comparing, rich versus poor; instead we shoudl compare before and after, and i think you will find that if there was a 2 tier system weather you are rich or poor you would get health care faster, obviously it would have a higher level of benifiet to the rich, but it would also bennifiet the poor as well. When you are in a country liek Canada, where the poor are relatively rich in comparison to peopel of third world countries, we should not be looking for absolute equality, but rather absolute improvement on what we have now...it makes it better for every one. No it is not equally better for every one, but it is better then what we have for every one, and that shoudl be are goal making things better for people. The current system posses equality yes, it doesn't matter if your rich or poor you still need to wait 2 years to get your hip fixed, however that is a horrible way to look at things, its equal but it is equally horrible...we should now be looking at advancing that time for everyone.

[Kliege]

I just think its so unfair that I have to fly or drive to the United States to have a surgical operation or to see a specialist. When I should be able to do that in this country at my own cost :angry:

[Argus]

Alright let's have this out.

Assuming I make less money than you, which is very likely true, what exactly gives you a right to "speedier" service than me. 

Well, if I have more money than you I can buy more and better food than you, right? I can buy a bigger, nicer house, and heat it better, and buy better and warmer clothes. I can buy a big, comfortable car while you shiver in the cold waiting for the bus. I can fly south to holiday in Florida, for that matter. Everything I buy will be better than anything you can get. And so? That's the way the world works, man. Why do you think you should be exempting health care? More to the point, what makes you think you can exempt health care?

Chretien went to the US for speedy health care, so did Alan Rock, then health minister. If it makes you feel good to think that millonaires have to wait around in hospitals for hours on end just like you then fine, but they don't, and they never will. Rich people will always get preferential treatment., even if they have to take a short flight across the border.

Let me ask you a question. I make the same as you do. You take holidays in Cuba, buy a nice, big car, go out drinking a lot, spend your money on cigarettes. I, meanwhile, stick my money in the bank, or investments. Now if I get sick, why is it I can't use that money to get a quick MRI test? Because you spent yours on other things and can't afford one? Is that fair?

What is the benefit to anyone if the people with  money pay for their own service and therefore have no use for the "universal" system.

Well, there are a number of possibilities. Let me examine one because it's obvious. Some people were paying extra in Ontario to get quicker MRI exams at hospitals. Now the reason they could do this was because the hospitals did not have enough money to pay for the employees to keep that MRI machine running during the evening hours. When the Liberals got in they immediately put a stop to this. What was the result? Well, those people who had been paying extra to the hospitals now had to go back into the regular line - making it longer. Or else they went to the US. So did this victory for the prolotariate help anyone? Nope. It just made the line longer.

You can, btw, get an MRI for your dog pretty quickly. The government doesn't mind if you pay for MRI's to take place in the evenings as long as it's on your pets, and not you.

[idealisttotheend]

For myself, I would like to see the exact wording of the question that Leger asked in the survey.

"allow those who wish to pay for health care in the private sector to have speedier access to this type of care, while still maintaining the current free and universal system." - original Canada.com source

Remind you of a certain question regarding soverignty. Have your cake and eat it too.

Why do you think you should be exempting health care?

Prior to the universal system health care wasn't exempt you are right. So people without money had to go without necessary medical treatments all the time. They went through their lives unnecessarily sick or missing limbs that could have been saved. That's what Douglas fought against at the expense of his political career. I don't find this preferable or even acceptable, but that's the free market solution.

Now if I get sick, why is it I can't use that money to get a quick MRI test? Because you spent yours on other things and can't afford one? Is that fair?

This is a decent point. I wonder if rewarding/promoting healthy behaviour isn't a better answer though. We already punish some unhealthy behaviour, if I spend my money on cigarettes than I pay enough tax to pay for my MRI.

Well, those people who had been paying extra to the hospitals now had to go back into the regular line - making it longer.

Given a static number of MRI machines how is this possible. If the machines are there they ought to be used and the line by definition cannot get longer.

You can, btw, get an MRI for your dog pretty quickly. The government doesn't mind if you pay for MRI's to take place in the evenings as long as it's on your pets, and not you.

If this is so (and I assume it is) then those machines ought to be being used in the evenings for people 9paid by the government). THis would shorten the lines further and probably save money in the long run by providing quicker diagnosis and treatment.

I just think its so unfair that I have to fly or drive to the United States to have a surgical operation or to see a specialist. When I should be able to do that in this country at my own cost

Perhaps then we should stop wasting time talking about two tiered systems and deal with the one we have and making it faster for everyone and not just you.

[DAC]

I haven't studied the issue thoroughly, and I've seen arguments that look good in both directions, but I keep coming back to one thought.

If I'm 50th in line for an MRI or a specialist, and five of those ahead of me have the money and decide to pay for private care, it makes me 45th in line. I won't complain about their getting out of the queue when it gets me closer to the front.

[takeanumber]

You can't have a private system without starving the public system.

[Argus]

Why do you think you should be exempting health care?

Prior to the universal system health care wasn't exempt you are right. So people without money had to go without necessary medical treatments all the time. They went through their lives unnecessarily sick or missing limbs that could have been saved.

Yes, and in the old days they'd freeze to death because no one provided them with government housing, or starved because they couldn't afford food and there was no welfare.

So what exactly is your point? Health care is certainly something we need, but it isn't even among the most neccesary requirements to sustain us; food, clothing, and shelter. And you cannot tell me that those with money don't get much, much better food, clothing and shelter than the poor. I realize that idealism and ideology are offended when we let the rich get better health care, but the fact of the matter is that they do, and nothing you can ever do will stop that. So why don't we stop pretending we live in an egalitarian society where we all get the same treatment in the courts and hospitals, hmm?

Now if I get sick, why is it I can't use that money to get a quick MRI test? Because you spent yours on other things and can't afford one? Is that fair?

This is a decent point. I wonder if rewarding/promoting healthy behaviour isn't a better answer though. We already punish some unhealthy behaviour, if I spend my money on cigarettes than I pay enough tax to pay for my MRI.

To some extent we do punish unhealthy behaviour; with hefty taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. But I was talking about economic care, not healthy behaviour.

Let me put it to you in another way. You have two squirrels living in two trees. One carefully gathers and stores nuts for the winter while the other plays. Now winter is upon us and the one squirrel is hungry while the other is well fed and along comes you to say "Hey, that's not fair! Why should you get to eat well when that other poor squirrel goes hungry!?"

Now I understand the offense of having the poor getting no treatment while the rich get what they want. But that isn't going to happen and you must surely know that. So what we're really talking about is people who "could" be saving money for health care emergencies but choose to spend it on holidays in cuba, cars, cigarettes, big screen TVs and the like. I've managed to save money not because I'm richer or better paid than others but because I'm careful. But you believe that I should not be able to reward myself with better health care in an emergency?

Oh I know I'm simplifying to some extent, but preventing the likes of private MRI clinics harms mainly the middle class, not the poor. And if the middle class can lay out $20k for a car they can lay out $500, or whatever, for a quick scan at an MRI. I certainly wouldn't be offended by that and I don't understand why you should be.

Well, those people who had been paying extra to the hospitals now had to go back into the regular line - making it longer.

Given a static number of MRI machines how is this possible. If the machines are there they ought to be used and the line by definition cannot get longer.

What is static in this case is the money available to the hospitals to pay the people who run the MRI machines. There's only enough to run them one shift. The people who were getting evening slots were paying so the hospital could hire an extra shift.

Now you'll say that the government should simply pay more so the hospital can run its MRI machines 24hrs a day, and I won't disagree. The problem is there are many, many such examples, be it a lack of anethsitists or nurses or equipment or building. Health care is so damned expensive we'll never be able to afford to pay for everything.

So if some private company wants to set up an MRI clinic, and people like me, who have been hoarding their coin against a rainy day choose to use them to avoid a long wait - and by the way, take us out of the long line, and thus shorten it - how is society harmed? The end result would seem to be that those unable to afford it will at least have a shorter line.

[idealisttotheend]

Yes, and in the old days they'd freeze to death because no one provided them with government housing, or starved because they couldn't afford food and there was no welfare.

So we developed systems to prevent that and we ought not give up on them now, my point exactly.

Health care is certainly something we need, but it isn't even among the most neccesary requirements to sustain us; food, clothing, and shelter.

Sir, if you are having a heart attack, are in a car crash or are afflicted with some sort of neurological condition in childhood, health care is all you need to the exclusion of food, shelter etc. Trust me I know. It is absolutely necessary to the maintance of human life to the standards we are capable.

So why don't we stop pretending we live in an egalitarian society where we all get the same treatment in the courts and hospitals, hmm?

I pretend nothing of the sort, but I argue for a more egalitarian society while you are arguing for a less egaltarian society.

You have two squirrels living in two trees. One carefully gathers and stores nuts for the winter while the other plays.

Yes well this assumes that both squirrels have an equal access to opportunity to earn those nuts. You have just argued that they don't and that we must not only acknowledge that but accelerate it. It also assumes that there aren't other squirels who depend on people 'playing' in order for them to earn their nuts in the first place. The savings rate is at 0% across the board these days so by your own logic no one would get the MRI in question.

So what we're really talking about is people who "could" be saving money for health care emergencies but choose to spend it on holidays in cuba, cars, cigarettes, big screen TVs and the like

People choose to pay taxes which support a publicly administrated health insurance system and so are paying/saving for their treatment, please don't pretend they're not.

And if the middle class can lay out $20k for a car they can lay out $500, or whatever, for a quick scan at an MRI.

They could also lay out less than the $500 in taxes, see Taft, Clear Answers about Health Care . That's my choice.

The end result would seem to be that those unable to afford it will at least have a shorter line.

Indeed. It never fails to amuse me that people with higher incomes are dead set against progressive income taxes but are more than willing to pay more than their "share" for health care when it suits them. No flat tax here.

As to the shorter lines, if shorter lines are the desired result why don't we simply put more resources into the system. Surely we all deserve shorter wait times, not just you? N'est pas?

Health care is so damned expensive we'll never be able to afford to pay for everything.

On this we agree. This is the issue we ought to be dealing with. New technologies are making it very expensive to keep everyone alive for as long as we possibly can. We need to debate where/when to draw the line and who will make that decision. But I think the trap we will fall into is to determine who lives and dies based on money and I think that there should be a mechanism whereby a poor person will still get treatment based on their potential quality/length of life.

[August1991]

Well, if I have more money than you I can buy more and better food than you, right?...That's the way the world works, man. Why do you think you should be exempting health care? More to the point, what makes you think you can exempt health care?

I just think its so unfair that I have to fly or drive to the United States to have a surgical operation or to see a specialist. When I should be able to do that in this country at my own cost 

The problem with both of these arguments is that we generally don't buy health care this way. We don't buy health care the way we buy food; we buy health care the way we pay damages to someone after a car accident - or the way we buy car repairs after an accident.

Most people do not self-insure a new car. The risk is too great. Health care is the same.

Even in the US, most people have health insurance. (The very wealthy may self-insure but I doubt it. The risk is too great.)

IOW, it is impossible to talk of health care without talking about insurance. (The equivalent would be discussing car repairs without noting that insurance companies write the cheques for the garages.)

The next step is to ask: who should operate the insurance scheme? Private HMOs or the State?

In the case of health insurance where virtually everyon wants it, a very strong case can be made for universal, obligatory State insurance. How the premiums are determined, whether there's a deductible (a small user fee) or what is included in the "coverage" are good questions that have been raised at various times in Canada.

None of this requires State provision of health services. In fact, there is many reasons the State should not be involved at all in producing health care.

As to the question of two-tier, I have a vague suspicion that if the State left entirely the area of producing health services, and introduced an intelligent array of health policies - with different premiums starting from a basic policy with premium paid from general revenues - the two tier issue wouldn't be a problem. (Sorry for the long sentence; maybe I'm naive.)

People don't take their smashed cars to the States for repairs.

[August1991]

I can't help myself. Another point.

Everything I buy will be better than anything you can get. And so? That's the way the world works, man.

Argus, the world does not work that way. If it did, we would still be living in caves fighting over access to the waterhole.

The world is rather you and me on a desert island (!) each picking 10 pineapples a day. You discover a better way to pick pineapples so each of us can get 25 pineapples a day. So, you come to me and say, "I'll show you how to get 25 pineapples a day but to learn my trick, you must agree to give me 5 of your pineapples."

[idealisttotheend]

I wonder what the significance is that that little story started off being 20 pineapples and then went up to 25. Which is closer to the truth 50% of new production as profit or 33%? Just an observation.

I can't help myself either.

[August1991]

Please, Idealist, NOT.

My first effort was good but not absolutely clear. I changed the numbers simply to make the divisions unequal and obvious. Mathematics (arithmetics) is a precise language - but it's just another language with its own style.

Nothing of substance changed. I'll repeat me example (with a word addition):

The world is rather you and me on a desert island (!) each picking 10 pineapples a day. You discover a better way to pick pineapples so each of us can get 25 pineapples a day. So, you come to me and say, "I'll show you how to get 25 pineapples a day but to learn my trick, you must agree to give me 5 of your pineapples." Should I agree?

[idealisttotheend]

Yeah, August I'm just being a smartass no serious critisism intended though I may use the example of the pineapples again (I quite like it). Every man is articulate in his own language and I assume one of yours is mathematics and I respect that. I also respect the fact that you care enough to edit your posts.

I'm just showing off how I have nothing better to do recently than notice such things. I'll stay on topic I promise.

[August1991]

smartass

WTF? Not at all.

I'm just showing off how I have nothing better to do recently than notice such things.

OMG! Dead wrong. IMV, we'll talk again.

[takeanumber]

Equality is a pretty fundamental value when it comes to Canadian healthcare.

It's not just for a captain of industry like Milton or Martin to get superior healthcare while retired soldiers would get inferior healtcare, all on the basis of incomes.

As we've seen here on these boards, a few people have a problem with equality, so for them, this point will be moot.

But just because it's moot point for them doesn't make it so.

It's a value call.

If a captain of industry is so incredibly superior, they can afford to go down to the United States and burden their system, just don't expect the rest of us to pick up the tab, compensate them in any way, or lay awake crying into our pillows for them.

[August1991]

Equality is a pretty fundamental value when it comes to Canadian healthcare.

Maybe. But let's make plain what the equality refers to.

Bad health is a lottery. It could happen to anyone of us. How to share this risk? State health insurance is an obvious way to equally share this risk.

Now, how to organize this? Good question. How to ensure the dishonest don't take advantage?