Would you support this to improve healthcare?

[Bonam]

The payer gets price gouged. In this case its the tax payer.

And yet when that money is spent in Canada, it stays in Canada. It goes to doctors, nurses, hospital staff, etc, who then spend that money in the Canadian communities in which they live. If you send the patients to India, the money is spent in India.

[Pliny]

who gets price gouged? my last surgery required the rebuild of a knee, it cost me $21(rental of crutches)....

The rest was free, right?

[wyly]

The payer gets price gouged. In this case its the tax payer.

prices are regulated qualified surgeons are full value for their cost and I'll take a Canadian trained surgeon over one from the third world anyday if only because I know the training here consistently of the best standard

if you want to address gouging then look at dentists, orthodontists, dental surgeons and cosmetic surgeons all unregulated pirates IMO...

[dre]

And yet when that money is spent in Canada, it stays in Canada. It goes to doctors, nurses, hospital staff, etc, who then spend that money in the Canadian communities in which they live. If you send the patients to India, the money is spent in India.

Thats blatant protectionism and it grossly inflates costs.

You could have said the exact same thing about all the manufacturing and textiles jobs we have exported. We could have kept the money in Canada! Problem is a DVD player would still cost $300 bux if we had done that

But thats fine... keep the money in Canada! But dont complain about how much the system costs because protecting those nurses and doctors from competition is what makes those costs so high.

[Borg]

Here's the proposal:

Much of the problem for Canada's long wait times and lack of GP's is that many Canadian doctors (and nurses) have left to work in other countries for more money, most notably the U.S (aka the "brain-drain"). This is quite ridiculous & not fair to taxpayers since taxpayers subsidize all these doctor's lengthy/expensive educations, then they skip south for more money while Canadians are left with a weaker healthcare system.

So to discourage this, and to even encourage more people to become doctors, how about taxpayers/government offer to pay for the entire education of any medical doctor provided they finish school and stay in the country to work. If they leave to work in another country permanently (or for a prolonged period) they have to pay back their education tuition.

There can be variations/tweaks to this (ie: maybe after working for 15-20 years in Canada a doctor could be free to leave with no payback etc.), but this is the general idea. Thoughts?

Just keep all the money that goes to various regimes around the world and use it in our own house first - whatever is left over - and nothing more - can go to help those that have for centuries refused to help themselves

Perhaps a bit less taxation would come from this - and we might see some additional improvements in our own health care.

In the end we would likely see your idea bastardized and every third world "student" coming here to - yet again - benefit from my tax dollars. I believe your idea would be completely twisted by someone calling it a discriminatory policy. Our luck they would also disappear into the wood work - never to return to their own country.

Allow doctors to open a "fee for service" office and you have solved your problem.

Oh, wait a minute - that would solve many problems but canuckleheads will not allow it.

So we will continue to train the doctors and nurses and we will continue to see many leave.

Typical.

Borg

Edited July 25, 2010 by Borg

[Bonam]

Thats blatant protectionism and it grossly inflates costs.

You could have said the exact same thing about all the manufacturing and textiles jobs we have exported. We could have kept the money in Canada! Problem is a DVD player would still cost $300 bux if we had done that

There is of course an obvious difference. A corporation shipping jobs overseas is choosing how to spend its own money. Meanwhile, if the government chooses to spend its money overseas, it is spending the taxpayer's money. The corporation can make the choice it wants and I have no reason to believe that I should have a say in it, unless I own shares in it. The government on the other hand answers (in theory anyway) to the people. I would not support the Canadian government taking taxpayer's money and paying doctors in India to do services that can be performed here.

[dre]

There is of course an obvious difference. A corporation shipping jobs overseas is choosing how to spend its own money. Meanwhile, if the government chooses to spend its money overseas, it is spending the taxpayer's money. The corporation can make the choice it wants and I have no reason to believe that I should have a say in it, unless I own shares in it. The government on the other hand answers (in theory anyway) to the people. I would not support the Canadian government taking taxpayer's money and paying doctors in India to do services that can be performed here.

The government would simply be allowing tax payers to choose, and saving the system a whole lot of money.

BTW... the government patronizes businesses in foreign countries with your tax dollars ALL THE TIME.

[Bonam]

The government would simply be allowing tax payers to choose, and saving the system a whole lot of money.

Perhaps, I am not opposed to the fundamental idea of giving patients more choices. However, I think there are a lot of risks here with your proposal.

Going back to your example of people being given cash in the amounts of perhaps up to tens of thousands of dollars for having their procedures done more cheaply elsewhere... some people may be willing to take on higher risks to get that money. What if complications (medical, political, criminal, etc) arise that would not have arisen here? Such complications can potentially end up costing much more. Who is gonna cover that tab?

And that is not even mentioning the potential for abuse. All you need to do is make some very unhealthy lifestyle choices, give yourself a heart problem, elect to go to India for your cheap procedure, and the government will give you $100,000 of the money that you "saved" for it. Some people just might be stupid enough to try such things. Nothing good can come of having the government directly giving people cash to undergo medical procedures.

BTW... the government patronizes businesses in foreign countries with your tax dollars ALL THE TIME.

Heh yeah I'm sure it does. Do you see me cheering for the government much?

Edited July 25, 2010 by Bonam

[Argus]

Even immigrants need doctors, what better doctors for immigrants than immigrant doctors - they might even speak their language - and then English becomes secondary.

That is not what we want. We don't want to build up communities of foreigners in this country who have little or no knowledge of or attachment to Canada.

- Now I say this half joking - the other half is dead serious. Plus ethinic doctors are some of the nicest doctors around

You've done an academic study of which racial or ethnic groups of doctors are "nice", have you?

The more immigration we have the more success we have

There's not a shred of evidence to support that statement.

[Argus]

There is an ethical aspect to this that we shouldn't overlook. Draining the developing and third world of their best and brightest will diminish their ability to develop, which will lead to more immigrants and worse, refugess.

I've thought that for some years now. In days gone by, the best and brightest, the ambitious, the ones not content with their lot in life, would be the ones who started new businesses, who clawed their way to the top. Now many of them simply leave and go elsewhere. People talk blithely about taking in as many doctors we can from third world countries without a clue about what that means to third world countries who have a fraction of our medical services to begin with.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Argus

[Argus]

Canada can take in about 1 million new immigrants and residents each year and still have growth. Canada needs more people, lots of them.

First. Paragraphs are your friends. You should get more acquainted with them.

Second, you expound enthusiastically about the need for more immigration but haven't got the slightest shred of evidence to support that this would be beneficial to Canada. Nor have you given a single thought to the pitfalls, which include elimination of Canada's current culture and replacement with some sort of international jamboree of people who don't have a common language, religion, culture or identity. Basically what you're doing is trying to design a place where civil war and chaos is inevitable.

[Argus]

Thats blatant protectionism and it grossly inflates costs.

You could have said the exact same thing about all the manufacturing and textiles jobs we have exported. We could have kept the money in Canada! Problem is a DVD player would still cost $300 bux if we had done that

You could say the same about almost every job in Canada. Should we export them all, including yours? But wait, if everyone here is unemployed how are we going to pay for all these foreign services?

[dre]

You could say the same about almost every job in Canada. Should we export them all, including yours? But wait, if everyone here is unemployed how are we going to pay for all these foreign services?

No, I dont think we should export all the jobs. But we shouldnt protect entire industries from global competition either, especially ones that provide essential services that we cant live without.

My plan would not wipe out of Canadian medical industry... it would just force it to be more competitive, and save the tax payers a shitload of money.

if everyone here is unemployed how are we going to pay for all these foreign services?

Thats a very good question, and theres no good answer for it. Im astounded that ANYBODY was stupid enough to buy into the "service based economy" myth/lie/scam/fraud.

But it seems like that ship has already sailed... we have brought down the prices in a number of different industries using this formula. I see no good reason why the medical industry should be protected and only other industries should face competition. And exploding medical costs are a very serious problem that threatens our way of life, so its one area where offshoring would make a lot of sense.

Do you consistantly advocate protectionism, or just in this one case?

[Machjo]

Here's the proposal:

Much of the problem for Canada's long wait times and lack of GP's is that many Canadian doctors (and nurses) have left to work in other countries for more money, most notably the U.S (aka the "brain-drain"). This is quite ridiculous & not fair to taxpayers since taxpayers subsidize all these doctor's lengthy/expensive educations, then they skip south for more money while Canadians are left with a weaker healthcare system.

So to discourage this, and to even encourage more people to become doctors, how about taxpayers/government offer to pay for the entire education of any medical doctor provided they finish school and stay in the country to work. If they leave to work in another country permanently (or for a prolonged period) they have to pay back their education tuition.

There can be variations/tweaks to this (ie: maybe after working for 15-20 years in Canada a doctor could be free to leave with no payback etc.), but this is the general idea. Thoughts?

Very hard to control. Also, from a basic principle of justice, if the government pays for one person's higher education, it must pay for everybody's or no-one's. Politically paying for everyone's is a no go, and payng only for specific professions is a no-go too, unless of course you transform Medicare into something like the military, whereby straight after highs school one signs up to join the Provincial Ministry of Health, after which he receives his training and must then serve in the system for a period of time as per the contract.

But then if you do that, many would complain why not do the same with the Ministry of education or other ministries for example.

[eyeball]

That last line is disgusting. Fundamental rights ought to have nothing to do with corporations, they are universal and part of natural law and morality & ethics.

You think it's disgusting that corporations should be allowed to roam the world completely unimpeded in their search for better opportunities, or the idea that human beings should be allowed to as well?

[Moonlight Graham]

Also, from a basic principle of justice, if the government pays for one person's higher education, it must pay for everybody's or no-one's.

Why? If there is great demand for particular skilled workers where the lack of them is hurting the health of Canadians, why not?

Wealthy people pay more taxes generally than poor people. Is that "justice" too. Everyone isn't treated equal in Canada by law. Just ask senior citizens. Justice be damned. Do what is needed to better the country and keep the idealistic poop on the sidelines.

Edited July 26, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[Bonam]

Very hard to control. Also, from a basic principle of justice, if the government pays for one person's higher education, it must pay for everybody's or no-one's. Politically paying for everyone's is a no go, and payng only for specific professions is a no-go too

That's not true at all. The government has been subsidizing higher education for needed professions for a long long time. Heck, just take a look at the terms of the student loans offered to medical professionals in comparison to those offered to other post-secondary students. Now whether this is "just" or not is certainly debatable, but it is certainly not a problem politically and is in fact already in wide use.