Argus Posted November 18, 2012 Report Share Posted November 18, 2012 the facts be you have no clue....opening more beds does f**k all if you don't have md's and nurses, technicians...two tier medicine does not, can not, produce medical staff... France has 30% more MDs than canada per 1000... And why do we have a shortage of doctors? Because the provinces deliberately lowered the allowable number of admissions to medical schools in order to lower the number of doctors charging them fees. It was a straight out cost saving move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 18, 2012 Report Share Posted November 18, 2012 (edited) ultimately the real measure of healthcare is lifespan, when compared to the other major countries we are in the top 5-6, and just ahead of france... You can't leave out quality of life. Someone who is alive but in terrible pain (Canada sucks at pain relief) or has movement impairment for lack of an operation is not a success story. Edited November 18, 2012 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 18, 2012 Report Share Posted November 18, 2012 Wyly, Wyly, Wyly..... Firstly, we have more than enough medical staff.. What we ARE lacking is efficient and QULAITY medical staff... The "Unionizing" of these resources has created a very poor performing Provincially run medical model. The Europeans are more heavily unionized than we are, yet seem to often have very efficient health care systems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 18, 2012 Report Share Posted November 18, 2012 269 people per sq mi compared to canada's 9 people per sq mi..., 3.7 MD's per 1000 compared to 2.2 MD's per 1000 ...simple demographics are obviously a mystery to some .. .and that Canada has a better end result than France in life expectancy says a lot for how well our healthcare performs in spite of of our enormous size and lack of MD's...as my MD buddy said to me, "I could lose half of my case load and I'd still have too many patients"... The population density has no relevance to this discussion. The shortage of doctors is a product of the system, however. In a system which had more of a private sector involvement private universities would graduate more doctors due to the demand and privately operated hospitals would hire them. However, our completely public systems are not responsive to public demand in that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 18, 2012 Report Share Posted November 18, 2012 If there isnt enough intern positions to allow enough doctors to complete their training, then its not true to say theres an MD shortage. Theres an internship shortage. The ammount of slots available shoudl roughly equal the number of people we expect to pass the exams.... otherwise why even both wasting the money letting someone TAKE an exam, if theres no possible way they are going to get a residency slot after. The guy in the example PASSED his exams, then waited YEARS for a slot and finally gave up. STUPID. All we did was waste our money and his time. I understand a substantial number of those internships and residencies are given over to foreign doctors whose governments pay the hospitals for the slot. After these doctors are trained, they return to their home countries to practice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 18, 2012 Report Share Posted November 18, 2012 the number of applicants per year for the residency programs varies and there are limited residency positions available fewer than there are for graduates of canadian schools which is fair...and the employers will only take the best... You are not helping your case. If residencies are limited, yet there are long waits at ERs, what can we consider to be the blame? Clearly, those hospitals don't have the budgets to hire more residents in order to alleviate the shortage. If there were private hospitals, they would immediately hire doctors in order to meet this excess demand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 18, 2012 Report Share Posted November 18, 2012 how does accepting journalistic articles carry more weight than someone who has real knowledge of the process? All of us have experience with the process of waiting for doctors. All of us want that to stop. Your position is that these extra would-be doctors aren't very good, and that we're not training enough doctors. Either of those is irrelevant because the end result is the number of doctors and nurses is a systemic issue. The system is failing to provide them. A private sector system would move to meet the demand. The public system is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 18, 2012 Report Share Posted November 18, 2012 The Europeans are more heavily unionized than we are, yet seem to often have very efficient health care systems. We probably have a crappy public health system compared to the Europeans because we have a better public health system than the US. Attitudes towards public funding for health care in the US gives their system a hard moral edge that's slopped over into our's. Someone also mentioned the crappy treatment for pain that Canada offers. It's tainted with a similar concern about morality, of taking drugs. You don't have to scratch very deep to find the nerve that's connected to the whipped up perception that public health care is just another entitlement to be sneered at and undermined at every opportunity. The constant drone of voices directed at undermining public funding in general makes it all the easier for governments to cut back or limit funding. As for a privatized sector's level of service...I suspect the underlying amorality driving much of contemporary economic thinking these days would handily maintain the level of crap we've come to expect there as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted November 18, 2012 Report Share Posted November 18, 2012 (edited) Oh, Guyser guyser, I dont need to, The WHO (World health Organization) will! "Like the UK, France a two-tier healthcare system, with a state-run equivalent of the NHS - Couverture Maladie Universelle (CMU) - and the private sector. In 2000, the World Health Organisation said it ran the best national healthcare system" Its rather simple but goes agains every principle of the left. It allows those who do not have the means to obtain the BEST possible medical treatement via a public pool (As we do now in Canada). For those who would rather choose thier own medical facility for any reason (affiliation, faith, ease-of-use, etc) they can pay for it. Now follow along here... When they (30-40 percent) choose thier OWN funded system (outta the wallet) they DEAPRT that tax-payer funded system opening up beds and creating efficiencies in all manners from paper to warm-body resources. If hat didnt assist you, simply go to the WHO web-site. a 2 Tiered system WORKS and works BETTER than all others. Dat, be da facts.. Just so we are clear from the WHO France spends more then a 1% more of their GDP on Healthcare AND GET THIS in Canada close to 30% of healtcare costs are private while in France that number is is 20%. You want to be more like France? That would mean less private healthcare not more. Sorry about the facts man I know Conservatives hate it when those get in their way. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country Edited November 18, 2012 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 18, 2012 Report Share Posted November 18, 2012 The Europeans are more heavily unionized than we are, yet seem to often have very efficient health care systems. This is worth discussing. Does anybody know why this is ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 18, 2012 Report Share Posted November 18, 2012 This is worth discussing. Does anybody know why this is ? I once thought it was higher doctor and nurses salaries/wages, but ours compare reasonably well with those of European nations. I'm now leaning to the division of responsibility; the fact that health care is divided up among eleven provinces, while the feds have a lot of the responsibility for funding and setting guidelines. This allows both sides to blame the other and also makes it almost impossible to make major systemic changes, especially when you bring Quebec into the mix, which always wants to go it alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 18, 2012 Report Share Posted November 18, 2012 I once thought it was higher doctor and nurses salaries/wages, but ours compare reasonably well with those of European nations. I'm now leaning to the division of responsibility; the fact that health care is divided up among eleven provinces, while the feds have a lot of the responsibility for funding and setting guidelines. This allows both sides to blame the other and also makes it almost impossible to make major systemic changes, especially when you bring Quebec into the mix, which always wants to go it alone. I have suspected management, as well as Canadians' overwhelmingly defeatist attitude towards such systems... but I can't find evidence of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 22, 2012 Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 This is worth discussing. Does anybody know why this is ? why would unionization automatically be suspect?...a lack of MD's is our biggest problem and that's due to underfunded universities...looking up md patient ratios we trail european countries by a large margin and a few third world countries as well...imo it's a lack of educational funding thats our problem not so much medical funding.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Posted November 22, 2012 Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 It might help alleviate the pressure on Docotrs if we allowed the rich people to pay for their own healthcare at least partially. For instance if people make over $100k a year then they would pay $1000 healthcare tax or 1% of their income or even a half percentage point. Anything would help. We need to start doing this immediately to save our healthcare system. If it collapses it's the poor and disabled people like myself who will suffer, the rich people can always pay for healthcare whereas we cannot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 22, 2012 Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 100k per year isn't rich, in calgary that's middle class a modest home and pay the bills... a one bedroom condo requires an income 70K per year...life in the big cities is expensive... universal needs to be just that available to everyone poor or rich, the riich getting the same benefits won't break us nor make much difference...and if they want they can already access private care, but few do... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted November 22, 2012 Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 What planet was this hospital ER on? Was it one of those small rural hospitals that only sees an occasional sheep? Nope small city in BC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Posted November 22, 2012 Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 100k per year isn't rich, in calgary that's middle class a modest home and pay the bills... a one bedroom condo requires an income 70K per year...life in the big cities is expensive... universal needs to be just that available to everyone poor or rich, the riich getting the same benefits won't break us nor make much difference...and if they want they can already access private care, but few do... Compared to someone on on welfare or disability $100k a year is rich. Our system is already sucking half of all tax dollars into it every year and is increasing yearly as well. A surcharge or something needs to be done to help pay for this massive program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 22, 2012 Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 and to someone in a thirdworld country someone on welfare or disability is rich, it's all relative...100k in canada is not rich... everything is increasing in price why shouldn't healthcare and a cost increase is to be expected to match population grows as well...what we pay is per year is comparable to what other countries pay and our end result is excellent, we get good value for our dollar...we can well afford our healthcare.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 22, 2012 Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 The median household income is around $65000/year. Two things to keep in mind here: 1) This is the income for the entire household. If both people work, this would be their combined income. 2) This is the median income, not the average. In this case, 50% of Canadian households make less than $65000 and 50% make more. This is a better metric for determining what the "average" Canadian makes, since high-earning outliers (as well as low earning outliers) can skew averages. The reality is that income is a skewed measurement to begin with, looking something like this when plotted on a graph: You can see the difference between median and mean (or average) here. This is why most income statistics, unless they have some sort of agenda to inflate national income, will use median. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted November 22, 2012 Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 why would unionization automatically be suspect?...a lack of MD's is our biggest problem and that's due to underfunded universities...looking up md patient ratios we trail european countries by a large margin and a few third world countries as well...imo it's a lack of educational funding thats our problem not so much medical funding.... You sure do spout alot of non-facts... Please see linky..... We have TOO MANY DOCTORS.. http://healthydebate.ca/2012/09/topic/underemployed-mds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 22, 2012 Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 So, is $100k/year rich? If that's an individual income, then I would most certainly say yes, as compared to the vast majority of Canadians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted November 22, 2012 Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 The median household income is around $65000/year. Two things to keep in mind here: 1) This is the income for the entire household. If both people work, this would be their combined income. 2) This is the median income, not the average. In this case, 50% of Canadian households make less than $65000 and 50% make more. This is a better metric for determining what the "average" Canadian makes, since high-earning outliers (as well as low earning outliers) can skew averages. The reality is that income is a skewed measurement to begin with, looking something like this when plotted on a graph: You can see the difference between median and mean (or average) here. This is why most income statistics, unless they have some sort of agenda to inflate national income, will use median. REALLYY...... Please inform us all how your mean vs median figures into the NWT's "median" income is $101,000.... It must be the "auto sector"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted November 22, 2012 Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 So, is $100k/year rich? If that's an individual income, then I would most certainly say yes, as compared to the vast majority of Canadians. YOur lazy teachers are juuust about rich!!! And only work half a year! Take it up with your 1%...... The teachers.. Ontario (Toronto) $83,865 2011 OSSTF Collective Agreement (2008 - 2012) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 22, 2012 Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 You sure do spout alot of non-facts... Please see linky..... We have TOO MANY DOCTORS.. http://healthydebate...deremployed-mds you sure have a lot of problems with basic comprehension....YOU were the one going on about the great french healthcare, french healthcare that has what 35-50% more MDs than canada reducing wait times...then you post a link to Ontario? is Ontario Canada?...and then not understanding the link itself, the biggest issue in canada's healthcare is wait times, having MDs with no where to practice is a facilities issue and that is the critical factor in regards to wait times.come back when you actually understand something about the issue... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted November 22, 2012 Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 IF the rich was a two-tired health care, then so be it but most Canadians don't want it for themselves and with good reason. The insurance companies in the US, I've heard over and over again from citizens and even some doctors, the insurance companies are there to MAKE money not to HEAL .Drs. want a certain treatment for their patience and the insurance companies want something cheaper. If you think our health care is bad now, just wait when the feds have to renew the healthcare and knowing Harper wants provinces to pay more, he'll try to put this over until the next election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.