Health Care

[guest123]

While I do support some form of basic universal health-care, I am also a strong supporter of a UNA. Devore's statement has an element of truth to it, but not the way he presents it. I know that an awful lot of Canadians would be perfectly happy to trade-in their wonderful socialized medicine for a green card.

Think about this. What kind of person would willingly cut him/herself off from 90% of the economy and people of North America, for the privilege of paying higher taxes, and maybe getting some "free" health-care in return? I'm sure some people would. When someone has limited resources, is in poor health, or is past his most productive years, the temptation to kick back and let someone else look after you may be strong. However, for everyone else, the restrictions imposed on Canada's economy by the US border, increasingly become a losing proposition. The border starts to represent a line which prevents you from accessing all the opportunities of the continent, and keeps you poorer than you otherwise need to be.

Most Canadians who find themselves in the latter situation, feel they have no choice in the matter. Rather than make themselves unhappy over it, they justify their situation with the "at least we have free health-care" argument. That's all it is. A mental justification for what they know in their hearts is not an optimal situation for them. If they truly had the choice of getting a green card or voting for a UNA, I suspect the feelings they would display then would be quite different.

Is this how canadians feel?

http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/phpBB2/t...er=asc&start=30

[maplesyrup]

I think it might be the other way around refering to the previous post.

But i have a question for you health care opinion experts:

Is this BC Campbell's way of privatizing health care:

Nurse shortage forces St. Paul's to use private clinics

[August1991]

I'll jump in here.

I think each province should devise its own health care system as long as this guarantees a minimum coverage for people not paying any premium, and makes coverage transferrable between provinces (MS, that's federalist). In return, the feds would either cede tax points or handover cash.

A provincial government should not necessarily be involved in delivery of health services (hospitals, clinics, individual doctors). This could should be non-profit, for profit or State. (Our education system works this way.)

On the other hand, the provincial government should be closely involved in providing insurance. Premiums should be paid for basic coverage from general tax revenues. The provincial health insurance scheme should be free to impose a deductible (a small user fee) depending on the service.

In setting basic service/deductible, provincial governments would have to think about catastrophic insurance, pharmaceutical insurance, routine care insurance and elderly insurance.

We almost have this now. PM PM in the last agreement essentially gave the provinces the right to experiment along these lines.

Alberta is allowing for profit clinics (I believe) and Quebec is starting on PPP (public-private partnerships - privately operated, government paid).

A private clinic recently opened in Quebec, charging 1000$ annually for basic service. The Quebec government should pay my premium and then offer me catastrophic insurance coverage.

KEY BUGBEAR: Health care workers in Canada are unionized. This makes any change politically impossible/difficult/ugly.

[caesar]

The provinces have had their shot at running our health care and have shown themselves to be too interested in using our healthcare as a tool to pry more money from the feds with no strings attached. Why no strings; so they can use that money for their own pet projects. There is a lack of real interest in having our health care run smoothly; they lose that public supported tool.

We need a REAL national healthcare system run by the federal government. Even the premiers suggested it would be better and cheaper for the feds to run a pharmacare program.

[Cartman]

Thought people might find this story interesting. It claims that heavy workloads are costing the health care system billions.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...lth_041109.html

Last Updated Tue, 09 Nov 2004 17:52:44 EST

OTTAWA - Stress from high workloads is costing Canada's health-care system up to $14 billion a year in additional costs, according to a new federal study.

The Public Health Agency of Canada cited increased work requirements for causing health problems. It said visits to doctors could be cut by 25 per cent and hospital stays by 17 per cent if the issue were addressed.

"These numbers are a wakeup call to employers and governments," said the study. "These workloads are not sustainable over the long term."

[maplesyrup]

Some solutions for above:

Unionize everyone

Vacations based entirely on age run by federal government - why should someone who is 30 have more vaction than some that is 50? It is absurd. Executives are compensated with additional wages - that's enough!

Pensions totally portable run entirely by federal government.

[Cartman]

Even religious leaders are stressed out and should take it easy. Maybe workplace stress does cost too much.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...tion041105.html

Protestant clergy prepares to unionize

Last Updated Sun, 07 Nov 2004 17:11:36 EST

TORONTO - The Canadian Auto Workers union has agreed to help unionize stressed-out United Church of Canada ministers who claim parishioners are mistreating them.