wyly Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 Costs are already going up, and there isn't a good mechanism for public collaboration around that issue so to increase funding without fixing the information side would be a bad move IMO. Because 'taxpayers' are viewed as a mass voting blob who respond to announcements of expensive side projects, but don't vote against the mundane problems such as increasing wait queues or lack of family doctors. Fix the public, then start talking about the problem. you're right but we'll be waiting a long time before any politican has the balls to stand up and tell the voters "we need to raise taxes for better healthcare delivery, is everyone okay with that?"...the same people who whine on uninformed about healthcare will be the first ones screaming about tax increases... our politcal system does not encourage long term planning by our politcal leaders, their primary concern is short term, the next election...doing anything that may hamper re-election is to be avoided at all costs, so they dither and nothing changes... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
dre Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 (edited) how do we increase speed of delivery for services without more MDs and nurses?...here in Calagry we have wards closed down for lack of nurses and MDs, ER wait times can be excessive due to the lack of walk-in clinics again insufficient MDs...to equal US MD patient ratio per thousand would require nearly 30% more MDs than we have now, to equal Norways we would need to double our number of MDs...there is no way that can be accomplished without significant increase in cost to taxpayers... to equal Norways we would need to double our number of MDs If Norway had our doctors and associations they couldnt afford to have that many doctors EITHER! Hmmmm How does Norway keep prices down so that services can be more abundant? Gosh! They do exactly what Iv been suggesting. They are recruiting foreign doctors and allowing them to work in the country for lower wages. Hungarian doctors. The doctors will receive annual salaries of 300 000-400 000 Norwegian krone (about £23 000-£30 000; $35 000-$45 000). Even though Norwegian law requires that they will have to pay nearly half of their incomes in taxes, their take-home pay would still be about 10-12 times higher than the average for doctors in Hungary, most of whom have to rely on gratuities from patients to supplement their incomes. Thats why Norway can have more doctors per family. The doctors make between 280 thousand and 600 thousand kroners per year. 40 - 80 thousand US. If Norway was forced obtain its resources from the Canadian medical associations they would likely have to cut the number of doctors by 75% or face a funding crisis! Edited August 26, 2011 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
wyly Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 Its not a conspiracy theory that the medical industry is a protected workplace its an objective fact. Its no less protectionism than if we only allowed Canadians to buy television sets made here. You would create artificial scarcity and very few people would be able to afford TV sets. oh gawd!...requiring a diploma and appropriate training to work in a highly critical career is now a conspiracy theory to prevent the unqualified from working, geez man what the hell are you smokin'...our MDs are over worked as my MD friend told me "take away 50% of my patients and I would still have a 6 month waiting list", he's only too happy to give up his patient load to others the loss will not affect his income... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
dre Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 oh gawd!...requiring a diploma and appropriate training to work in a highly critical career is now a conspiracy theory to prevent the unqualified from working, geez man what the hell are you smokin'... our MDs are over worked as my MD friend told me "take away 50% of my patients and I would still have a 6 month waiting list", he's only too happy to give up his patient load to others the loss will not affect his income... I never said anything about a conspiracy. And we dont just require certain qualifications, and as Iv already shown you it isnt just the unqualified that are prevented from entering the workforce. And we also prevent people from seeking other options by refusing to fund most operations that are done overseas even though in many cases the payer (you and me) would save 50-80%. This is classic protectionism... the exact literal definition. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Smallc Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 our MDs are over worked as my MD friend told me "take away 50% of my patients and I would still have a 6 month waiting list", he's only too happy to give up his patient load to others the loss will not affect his income... Maybe it's like that in Alberta, but it's certainly not like that in Manitoba. The number of doctors here is growing faster than the population. Maybe Alberta isn't doing the right things? Quote
wyly Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 If Norway had our doctors and associations they couldnt afford to have that many doctors EITHER! Hmmmm How does Norway keep prices down so that services can be more abundant? Gosh! They do exactly what Iv been suggesting. They are recruiting foreign doctors and allowing them to work in the country for lower wages. Hungarian doctors. Thats why Norway can have more doctors per family. The doctors make between 280 thousand and 600 thousand kroners per year. 40 - 80 thousand US. If Norway was forced obtain its resources from the Canadian medical associations they would likely have to cut the number of doctors by 75% or face a funding crisis! what no link address oh ya that's right it's a article dating back to 2000, and you shit on me for a link to 2005 wages ha!...even the math sucks 600K works out to 110K canadian not 80K...as well Norway is much different than canada, it's highly socialized and subsidized, and without doing any research I'll bet those doctors aren't paying any overhead out of those wages...no MD in Canada can pay office overhead or staff wages out of that salary... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 Maybe it's like that in Alberta, but it's certainly not like that in Manitoba. The number of doctors here is growing faster than the population. Maybe Alberta isn't doing the right things? but how fast is the population growing? Manitoba has been averaging 10K a year, Calgary with a similar sized population averages 20K... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Michael Hardner Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 you're right but we'll be waiting a long time before any politican has the balls to stand up and tell the voters "we need to raise taxes for better healthcare delivery, is everyone okay with that?" They may not have to say that. They may say "We're not funding this or that in order to put more money into improving wait times"... The Public doesn't pay attention, so the "choices" are made with too much weight on politics. Would a politician rather see a press release saying that funds have been reallocated to better fund existing operations, or one that shows a new machine or research wing being unveiled ? This is because the Public is not a public at all. We have no Public in this sense, we have masses. ...the same people who whine on uninformed about healthcare will be the first ones screaming about tax increases... our politcal system does not encourage long term planning by our politcal leaders, their primary concern is short term, the next election...doing anything that may hamper re-election is to be avoided at all costs, so they dither and nothing changes... Cost is one of the choices in the mix, which again is why we need a Public. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
dre Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 what no link address oh ya that's right it's a article dating back to 2000, and you shit on me for a link to 2005 wages ha!...even the math sucks 600K works out to 110K canadian not 80K...as well Norway is much different than canada, it's highly socialized and subsidized, and without doing any research I'll bet those doctors aren't paying any overhead out of those wages...no MD in Canada can pay office overhead or staff wages out of that salary... Heres 2011 data on doctor salaries there. http://www.legeforeningen.no/id/115154.0 Leger i helseforetak/sykehus (Spekter) fra 1.1.2011: Medisinstudenter med lisens: kr 379.000,- Turnusleger: kr 417.500,- Leger under spesialisering kategori A: kr 464.000,- Leger under spesialisering kategori B: kr 502.000,- Leger under spesialisering kategori C: kr 542.000,- Leger under spesialisering kategori D: (avtalt i lokale B-deler) reguleres med kr 21.000,- Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Smallc Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 (edited) but how fast is the population growing? Manitoba has been averaging 10K a year, Calgary with a similar sized population averages 20K... Manitoba has been one of the fastest growing provinces as a percentage of population. Q4 2010 had Manitoba with the highest percentage population growth...and anyway, a growing population should mean more doctors. Alberta obviously isn't doing something right. Edited August 26, 2011 by Smallc Quote
wyly Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 Manitoba has been one of the fastest growing provinces as a percentage of population. Q4 2010 had Manitoba with the highest percentage population growth...and anyway, a growing population should mean more doctors. Alberta obviously isn't doing something right. ya but that growth thing is somewhat misleading it's based on percentage....this years stats say Alberta is the fastest growing but Ontario has the biggest influx by numbers...it's easier for a small population to make a dent in it's MD shortage than a large population...if manitoba gains 10 MDs that will have a bigger impact than if ontario gained 50, based on growth ontario would be falling behind...Alberta is doing a lot of things not right, we have government determined to undermine the healthcare system by doing as little as possible, cutting back rather than improving funding...some conservative members openly calling for private care... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 They may not have to say that. They may say "We're not funding this or that in order to put more money into improving wait times"... The Public doesn't pay attention, so the "choices" are made with too much weight on politics. Would a politician rather see a press release saying that funds have been reallocated to better fund existing operations, or one that shows a new machine or research wing being unveiled ? This is because the Public is not a public at all. We have no Public in this sense, we have masses. Cost is one of the choices in the mix, which again is why we need a Public. I think I'm only partially understanding what you saying...define for me what you mean by "Public" verus "public"... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 Heres 2011 data on doctor salaries there. come back when understand the difference between our society and Norway's, why a direct comparison in wages is not relevant and very misleading... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Smallc Posted August 26, 2011 Report Posted August 26, 2011 ya but that growth thing is somewhat misleading it's based on percentage.... Not really. You just have to make sure that you have enough MDs coming in for the percentage increase. Quote
Argus Posted August 27, 2011 Report Posted August 27, 2011 It's the thin end of the wedge. The thin edge of the European style health care wedge? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted August 27, 2011 Report Posted August 27, 2011 Canada already has public and private components. Dental and Eye Health for instance. Which, coincidentally, perhaps, work quite well. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted August 27, 2011 Report Posted August 27, 2011 I've never heard this before... and it seems ridiculous to me that this could happen. The provinces only fund so many residency positions in hospitals, and there is a limit to how many residents a given hospital can have anyway. It's not like we're building lots of new hospitals either. And to add to that problem almost one out of every five residency positions is taken up by foreign trainees. There are foreigners who are sponsored by their government to train in Canada. When they complete their training they return home to practice medcine. If we'd stop taking all those foreigners in we'd have more room to train our own doctors. Of course, the difference is we would have to pay for them, whereas their own government now pay quite a bit, helping subsidize the training of our doctors. The thing is I think Canadians are willing to pay more if it would genuinely mean noticeable improvements in health care. Unfortunately, as Dalton McGuinty has so ably demonstrated, throwing billions and billions of extra dollars into the health care system doesn't necessarily mean there will be any noticeable improvement. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Bonam Posted August 27, 2011 Report Posted August 27, 2011 (edited) The provinces only fund so many residency positions in hospitals, and there is a limit to how many residents a given hospital can have anyway. It's not like we're building lots of new hospitals either. And to add to that problem almost one out of every five residency positions is taken up by foreign trainees. There are foreigners who are sponsored by their government to train in Canada. When they complete their training they return home to practice medcine. They perform a useful function by carrying out their residency here. Residents aren't just students sitting there learning, they are carrying out actual medical duties, and doing so for a relatively low wage. If they stayed in Canada to practice afterwards, that would be even more beneficial, but it is sufficiently beneficial as is. Anyway, there's no guarantee even Canadian born residents will remain in Canada after completion. After all, they can get far higher salaries in the US. Edited August 27, 2011 by Bonam Quote
wyly Posted August 27, 2011 Report Posted August 27, 2011 (edited) View Postwyly, on 26 August 2011 - 11:21 AM, said:I'm meeting up with my MD friend tonight I'll get back to you on the accredittation issue... Look forward to hearing about it. it's complicated some I already knew and some was new to me, here's what I found out what is required and what gets MD's disqualified from working here...first step in accreditation, exam records and such, some countries are very difficult to get records from for various reasons without that they have nothing, you can't take the applicants word for it that he/she has completed their training successfully...also the school they attended is important some are recognized others are not even within the same countries med schools have different standards... if the MD is well known and published helps establish qualification... residency programs are either 2, 5 or 7 years depending on the discipline the MD is entering, they can be released early from residency if they show they are capable... a hospital can make exceptions for one particular candidate and wave many stipulations but that MD is then restricted to working in that one hospital and nowhere else... if the MD is not culturally sensitive can be a serious problem in doctor patient relationships... MDs' from tropical countries may be great at identifying tropical diseases but absolutely useless here... then there's this biggie, language fluency, if the applicant is not completely fluent in english (or french in quebec) written as well they can't gain residency... lot's of variables but nothing to stop a qualified MD from working here, they only need to prove they're as good as a Canadian medical graduate and that's how it should be...yet gaining residency will always be a problem if there are finite residency spaces available and a bigger supply of MDs than spaces, if we want more residency spaces governments need to find more cash... Edited August 27, 2011 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
dre Posted August 27, 2011 Report Posted August 27, 2011 come back when understand the difference between our society and Norway's, why a direct comparison in wages is not relevant and very misleading... Norway spends less as a percentage of GDP than we do and that includes the parts that each of us socialize... yet they have twice as many doctors per person. The fact is they are paid way way less even if you take account the diferences in overhead. Those foreign doctors making 300 000 kroners also pay about 60% of their income in taxes. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
wyly Posted August 27, 2011 Report Posted August 27, 2011 Norway spends less as a percentage of GDP than we do and that includes the parts that each of us socialize... yet they have twice as many doctors per person. The fact is they are paid way way less even if you take account the diferences in overhead. Those foreign doctors making 300 000 kroners also pay about 60% of their income in taxes. wow you don't get it do you, let me show you how flawed your logic is... Cuba has 6 MDs per 1000 so Canada can do it too, we just pay our MDs the average 25$ per month Cuban Md's are paid and let them figure out how to pay office rent, utilities and staff out of their gross pay... wages, standard of living and cost of living are regionally specific you cannot make a simple country to country comparison, that doesn't even work well province to province in Canada... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Michael Hardner Posted August 27, 2011 Report Posted August 27, 2011 The provinces only fund so many residency positions in hospitals, and there is a limit to how many residents a given hospital can have anyway. It's not like we're building lots of new hospitals either. And to add to that problem almost one out of every five residency positions is taken up by foreign trainees. There are foreigners who are sponsored by their government to train in Canada. When they complete their training they return home to practice medcine. Cite please. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Argus Posted August 28, 2011 Report Posted August 28, 2011 They perform a useful function by carrying out their residency here. Residents aren't just students sitting there learning, they are carrying out actual medical duties, and doing so for a relatively low wage. If they stayed in Canada to practice afterwards, that would be even more beneficial, but it is sufficiently beneficial as is. Anyway, there's no guarantee even Canadian born residents will remain in Canada after completion. After all, they can get far higher salaries in the US. The point is that the residency positions would be used by Canadians, the vast majority of which would stay on to practice in Canada. Instead they're used by foreigners, none of whom will stay on to practice in Canada. If we're so short of doctors why are we training doctors for other countries? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted August 28, 2011 Report Posted August 28, 2011 Cite please. cite Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Bonam Posted August 28, 2011 Report Posted August 28, 2011 The point is that the residency positions would be used by Canadians, the vast majority of which would stay on to practice in Canada. Instead they're used by foreigners, none of whom will stay on to practice in Canada. If we're so short of doctors why are we training doctors for other countries? Do we have a substantial backlog of people coming out of med school and being unable to find a residency? If so, your argument is valid. If it is not so, then if we did not accept foreign residents, we would simply have less total residents, and thus less people to perform medical services. Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.