Your predictions on how we will deal with the coming health care crisi

[Shady]

And, as usual, nobody seems to care that we don't have good information about the problem and many are ready to offer solutions...

I disagree. I think we absolutely do know what the problem is. It's the same problem facing most Western countries. A baby boomer population that's living much longer, and putting stress on the system.

[dre]

By health care crisis, i of course refer to the fact that baby boomers are getting older and soon this large age group they will be jamming up the already-stressed public health-care system.

Of the top of my head, i can think of 3 ways this can be dealt with:

1) Raise taxes

2) deficit spending and racking up the debt for a few more decades.

3) introduce substantial 2-tier healthcare

I'm wondering what you think is most likely to occur? Or is there another obvious solution i missed?

Personally i think it may be a combination of all 3. Though i would think #2 would be most likely. 2-tier will only happen if higher taxes and/or debt can't solve the problems.

I dont see how option 3 will do anything to deal with the Crisis. We are probably stuck with options 1 or 2, but theres other options that arent on your list (such as ending the healthcare protectionism thats driving up prices in the west).

Edited January 18, 2011 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

Produce them.....

Produce the obvious? Provinces contract with US facilities to fill in gaps for services and the now politically unpopular "wait times" for certain procedures. Example of such contracts using excess US health care system capacity is documented here:

http://www.freep.com/article/20090820/BUSINESS06/908200420/Canadians-visit-U.S.-to-get-health-care

Hi profile cases were in the news media years back for the lack of neonatal facilities as well, prompting a trip to Seattle. No wonder so many in BC are Seahawks fans.

[August1991]

Since the 3rd one doesn't actually solve anything, it had better be one of the first two.

If a two-tier system doesn't solve anything, then I guess we'll just have to go with rationing. That's how bureaucratic systems typically deal with situations where the price is too low, the demand is too high and there is a shortage.

A new report from Statistics Canada says an estimated 4.1 million Canadians aged 12 or older are without a family doctor, either because they can’t find one or haven’t looked.

The 2007 Canadian Community Health Survey found that among those who have no primary-care physician, about 78 per cent seek medical care elsewhere.

CBC

[Topaz]

The bit about smoking and drinking is a matter of choice but we do need to eat and again I say that the government needs to have better rules regarding our food especially processed food which really isn't healthy for us. The chemicals that is put into these food can and will cause health problems. There's ingredients they put into foods like soft drinks. The sugars in there will put weight on a person which will lead to diabetes. There too many high fats in process food. People need to read more labels and sometimes the labels don't give you the whole story. Yes, we need to move more and more education of the hazards of smoking and too much drinking, which should be done in grade6 before they get that cigarette.

[Smallc]

We need to introduce privately run clinics and/or hospitals.

Welcome to every hospital and clinic in the country.

[Smallc]

I don't want the government dictating what health care I can, and cannot spend my own money on.

The government does that in every country.

[Smallc]

If a two-tier system doesn't solve anything, then I guess we'll just have to go with rationing.

Two tier would also have rationing...unless you think that for profit hospitals and insurance companies do things out of the goodness of their hearts.

[Moonlight Graham]

Since the 3rd one doesn't actually solve anything, it had better be one of the first two.

Well the idea of adding to the debt entails that instead of hiking taxes to pay for the added pressure on the healthcare system, we would instead take on debt and pay off the debt with tax hikes over the longterm, and/or possible reallocation of resources/budget.

I do think it's very likely to be a combo of tax hikes (whenever they occur) and deficit spending.

When it all comes down to it, the baby boomers generation has not properly prepared for their coming health needs and it will be their children and grand children who will foot the bill.

[Michael Hardner]

I disagree. I think we absolutely do know what the problem is. It's the same problem facing most Western countries. A baby boomer population that's living much longer, and putting stress on the system.

As I said, countries that didn't have a baby boom are experiencing the same problems.

[Shady]

Legalize it! That's right, legalize private health insurance. Let people use their own money to pay for their health care. It would save a boat load of money for the government. And I'm gettin sick and tired of people opposing this based soley on politics. Other countries have good hybrid systems. We can too.

[bloodyminded]

Legalize it! That's right, legalize private health insurance. Let people use their own money to pay for their health care. It would save a boat load of money for the government. And I'm gettin sick and tired of people opposing this based soley on politics. Other countries have good hybrid systems. We can too.

If those who opt for private insurance continue to be taxed for the public service, then I have no problem with it.

[Shady]

As I said, countries that didn't have a baby boom are experiencing the same problems.

Then they're probably experiencing the fact that people are living much longer than before.

[Shady]

If those who opt for private insurance continue to be taxed for the public service, then I have no problem with it.

That's what I'd suggest as well.

[pinko]

I don't want the government dictating what health care I can, and cannot spend my own money on.

The government doesn't dictate what healthcare you spend your money on. If you opened your eyes you might realize that.

[pinko]

Privatization is not a quick fix for the health system

Published On Fri Jan 7 2011

The Fraser Institute has recently called for a five-year suspension of the enforcement of the Canada Health Act, claiming that this would permit more “experimentation” with cost sharing and privatization, which would be a solution to access issues and sustainability of the health system. Cost sharing is a euphemism for double-dipping by physicians and user fees that lead to queue-jumping.

Private delivery of health services using public funds is not precluded by the Canada Health Act, so those who think that, contrary to the evidence, private delivery would create savings, cannot claim that the act is a barrier to private delivery. However, most of the experience in Europe and the United States is that private hospitals and clinics engage in cherry-picking while the sickest, most complex patients are in the public or not-for-profit system — or are heavily subsidized by the public purse.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/917635--privatization-is-not-a-quick-fix-for-the-health-system

[Michael Hardner]

Then they're probably experiencing the fact that people are living much longer than before.

Fair point. I also think that as our general lifestyle improves, and the economy gets better, healthcare is the logical place where we would put our dollars.

[pinko]

If a two-tier system doesn't solve anything, then I guess we'll just have to go with rationing. That's how bureaucratic systems typically deal with situations where the price is too low, the demand is too high and there is a shortage.

CBC

In both the USA and Canada healthcare is already rationed and in the case of many in the USA simply not available. I notice that many Americans come to Canada for their medication.

[eyeball]

Alcohol and cigarettes are already highly taxed. It's not as if that idea hasn't been thought of and alreday implemented.

It hasn't been implemented with other substances. If it was the money being wasted on prohibiting them could be applied to health-care, I realize the idea of just throwing more money at health care has also been thought of and implemented but let's face it, the real crisis in health care is money and the lack thereof.

Lifestyle and junk food have little to do with it. People are living much longer, and in the case of baby boomers, there's more of them. Those are the issues that need to be addressed. Not food, alcohol, and cigarettes.

If it's just a matter of baby boomers and living longer then just borrow more money and amortize the payment schedule according to their average life span.

[pinko]

The boom times are over. A secular change has now taken place. The U.S. will look more and more like a Third World country. In health care, compared to Canada or Europe, it already does. Thus our prospects for another economic boom in the next decade are like those of Monty Python’s famous Norwegian Blue parrot—

http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/08/the-incredible-shrinking-boomer-economy/

Why would anyone want to emulate the American model?

Edited January 18, 2011 by pinko

[dre]

The answer is "SOMETHING ELSE".

The key to reducing healthcare costs is not two-tier care in Canada or a private system. Health costs are going up EVERYWHERE in the west regardless of what kind of system is used so the PRIVATE VS PUBLIC argument is a completely and total red herring.

The real silver bullet is to force Canadian health providers to compete with providers in places like India, Thailand, NewZealand, etc.

This could be done with a very simple change to the Canada healthact that will allow people to volunarily organize procedures done in JCI accredited facilities around the world, and pocket 1/2 of what they save the government.

Lets take open heart surgery as an example. Providers in Canada will typically bill out over 100 thousand dollars for these types of operations. But a JCI accredited hospital in India will do the same operation for about 10 thousand. Thats a saving of 90 thousand dollars. So Health Canada pays the 10 thousand for the procedure, and cuts the patient a check for 45 000. The patient will use that to organize their travel and accomodations to india (or wherever) and they get to pocket the rest to send their kids to college for a year, buy a new car, or whatever they want.

The government just saved 45 thousand dollars on the procedure, and demand on our system was reduced.

Since the foreign facilities is JCI accredited they know the facility is modern and offers comparable patient outcomes, and partipation in this "medical tourism" program was completely voluntary, nobody can complain.

People are already doing this... the JCI is getting stronger and stronger, and millions of people from the west are fleeing to foreign markets to escape price-gouging. Theres no reason for Health Canada to not cash in on those savings as well.

Theres consumer confidence issues, and a lot of Canadians that havent done any research on patient outcomes in various host countries picture getting operated on in a grass hut by a guy with a bone through his nose. But as more and more people are lured into this program that will change, and demand for Canadian based health services will be reduced which is the ONLY WAY TO BRING DOWN PRICES... PERIOD.

This is the ONLY approach that will work. If demand on Canadian services INCREASES (which is is, and will), then PRICES WILL GO UP. It doesnt matter if the providers are public or private, or what you write into the Canada Health act. Its simple economics.

Edited January 18, 2011 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

The boom times are over. A secular change has now taken place. The U.S. will look more and more like a Third World country.

That's OK...Canadians and sultans alike with cash will still make the trip to a Mayo Clinic....not Toronto...just like your MPs and PMs. Looks so much like the "Third World".

Edited January 18, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Shady]

Why would anyone want to emulate the American model?

Nobody's suggesting that. That's the usual false choice trotted out by regressives who wish to see no real changes.

[dre]

That's OK...Canadians and sultans alike with cash will still make the trip to a Mayo Clinic....not Toronto...just like your MPs and PMs. Looks so much like the "Third World".

Both Americans and Canadians will be fleeing the price gouging in increasing numbers, and getting healthcare abroad.

A forecast by Deloitte Consulting published in August 2008 projected that medical tourism originating in the US could jump by a factor of ten over the next decade. An estimated 750,000 Americans went abroad for health care in 2007, and the report estimated that a million and a half would seek health care outside the US in 2008. The growth in medical tourism has the potential to cost US health care providers billions of dollars in lost revenue.[10]

Its one of the fastest growing industries in the world with over 50 countries now listing health tourism as a national industry. I predict that by 2020 that number will have increased to 5 million patients a year fleeing the Canadian and US systems to avoid ass rape. By 2030 only emergency operations should be done in either country.

[guyser]

That's OK...Canadians and sultans alike with cash will still make the trip to a Mayo Clinic....not Toronto...just like your MPs and PMs. Looks so much like the "Third World".

Meh...American Drs and patients come to Toronto all the time to learn and be treated at the best place they can find.

Eye and Heart Specialists for two.