Snow job about health care competition

[maplesyrup]

Former central bank governor questions proposal for competition in medicare

Unusual CanWest says. What they really mean is anything that does not give carte blanche to their corporate buddies, to milk the Canadian health care system, and hose the Canadian citizens, is considered unusual to attempt to discredit the idea. How many other people are sick of this right wing crap reporting?

All Kirby is is a lobbyist for a HMO or whatever they are called.

[maplesyrup]

The wrong medicine

Kirby & Keon's solution will only make health care worse and why their ideas are even being discussed is a national disgrace.

[Argus]

Kirby & Keon's solution will only make health care worse and why their ideas are even being discussed is a national disgrace.

Gee, maybe because health care continues to deteriorate, and the only ideas coming from the left are "Spend more money! No, no, more! NO! MORE! No, STILL MORE!"

[maplesyrup]

There has not been one legitimate study that shows competition will be good for medicare.

What makes you think competition is a good thing? Perhaps it is a bad thing. The business community's mantra is so boring, always the same old, same old.

Yes, business probably should be allowed to exist, but because of the greed and corruption factors (see Conrad Black, Enron, etc.), it need to be kept on a very short leash by our governments.

[Hugo]

There has not been one legitimate study that shows competition will be good for medicare.

No, because it's a priori knowledge. You might as well do a study on whether the sun rises in the morning. A free market basically means that the consumers get what they want. The company that offers X better or cheaper or better and cheaper will get the business and the profit motive allows the consumer to reign supreme, to decide which products they like and which they do not and to decide what they want to buy and how much they want to pay for it.

Publicly funded healthcare cannot succeed because lowering the price increases demand, and an infinitely low price (i.e. free) will produce infinite demand, therefore, you will always have more patients than you can satisfy.

Furthermore, even if the healthcare system was not in the mess that it is in now, the fact remains that under a state-run system it is the government, not the patients, who gets to decide what is important in terms of healthcare provision. For example, governments are likely to waste a lot of resources treating the "disease of the month" or a politically important disease that can be used as an electoral platform when the vast majority of healthcare consumers may well prefer treatment of more prevalent diseases such as heart disease and cancer.

To summarise, state-run healthcare amounts to "you'll get whatever healthcare quality and quantity we decide you are entitled to, and we will pay ourselves whatever we think is appropriate for providing this service."

Free-market healthcare amounts to "make it known what healthcare you want, the quality that you demand, and how much you want to pay, and it will happen."

Yes, business probably should be allowed to exist, but because of the greed and corruption factors (see Conrad Black, Enron, etc.), it need to be kept on a very short leash by our governments.

What a ridiculous thing to say. You take the worst excesses of businessmen and say that because of this, all business must be kept on a "short leash."

So here's my riposte, which is your argument with different terminology:

"Government probably should be allowed to exist, but because of the slaughter and warmongering factors (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc) it needs to be kept on a very short leash by our citizens."

Of course, I don't grant that government should be allowed to exist at all, but I merely wrote that to show you the utter folly of your argument.

[I miss Reagan]

I heard the Liberals are now praising and talking about adopting some of Alberta's ideas for health care. Has anyone else heard this? How can this be? Isn't this how they won the election, by vilifying Alberta and scaring the public into thinking Canada might become Albertitized.

[maplesyrup]

I doubt there are any Canadians that really expected PM Martin to live up to any promise he made during the election campaign. Maybe Canadian's low opinion of politicians is their security blanket, so they won't be too disappointed by the actual results.

[maplesyrup]

If our state run health care is so bad why is it that your average American desparately wants our system, while your average Canadian wants nothing to do with the for profit Ameican system?

This is what I mean - your arguments don't stand up to the litmus test, the consumer.

Common sense says if it is private profits will be flowing out. Canadians have said no thanks to that, very unfair, decent coverage only for the wealthy, system.

[maplesyrup]

I can almost guarantee you if nurses were put in charge of the health care system it would be fair, everyone would have coverage, and it would operate smoothly.

But no, doctors know better. Horseshit they do!

Who gave doctors these special powers, eh?

Give us all a break.

[Hugo]

If our state run health care is so bad why is it that your average American desparately wants our system, while your average Canadian wants nothing to do with the for profit Ameican system?

The same reason why socialism is still popular. If you promise people the impossible, they won't necessarily realise it is impossible. Of course, when you yourself realise it is impossible you'll run into problems - as Canadian healthcare has - and then the people will start to wonder why you promised the impossible in the first place, and grow restless and upset - as the Canadian people are.

Canadians have said no thanks to that, very unfair, decent coverage only for the wealthy, system.

No, actually Canadians have inadvertently said "yes" to that "decent coverage only for the wealthy" system. Canadian healthcare is lousy. Those who have money go south of the border and pay for "decent coverage."

What we have done is, basically, outsource our healthcare. I thought you didn't like outsourcing, Maplesyrup?

This is what I mean - your arguments don't stand up to the litmus test, the consumer.

The consumer is not the litmus test of logic. I don't know who told you that, but they were wrong.

[I miss Reagan]

If our state run health care is so bad why is it that your average American desparately wants our system, while your average Canadian wants nothing to do with the for profit Ameican system?

This is what I mean - your arguments don't stand up to the litmus test, the consumer.

Common sense says if it is private profits will be flowing out. Canadians have said no thanks to that, very unfair, decent coverage only for the wealthy, system.

Actually the average American doesn't want socialized medicine this became evident when they rejected Bill and Hilary's health care reform. I think people down there realize that if the choice is between being broke or being dead, they'll choose the former. I personally would choose neither. I believe we all should have access to affordable health care. Unfortunately both systems have some serious problems. Alberta seems to be the only province open minded enough to try and adopt the benefits of both systems rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water merely because the advantages have a US label on them.

[maplesyrup]

That's nonsense to say Americans rejected the Clinton medicare proposal. Corporate lobbyists secretly influencing Congress I think is more like it. Since when does joe average get represented in politics?

[I miss Reagan]

That's nonsense to say Americans rejected the Clinton medicare proposal. Corporate lobbyists secretly influencing Congress I think is more like it. Since when does joe average get represented in politics?

Always a conspiracy eh

[Cartman]

Liberal health care policy = let's watch the health care system deteriorate, but accumulate a huge surplus.

[Argus]

If our state run health care is so bad why is it that your average American desparately wants our system, while your average Canadian wants nothing to do with the for profit Ameican system?

I could ask why no one in Europe wants our health system. Why do you fixate on the Americans? The Europeans have better health care than we do, and every one of them has a mix of public and private health care.

[caesar]

Since we keep being told that one of our big problems is a lack of enough doctors; where are these private care doctors coming from???? Why did our provincial government give doctors a huge average 50 thousand a year raise while cutting wages or jobs for other medical workers????? Sounds like a good way to create a bad atmosphere in the workplace and slow down things.

Alberta is not the only province that has snuck in private health care; we have that here in BC too. We keep our mouths shut as some day we may need to break the bank to save our life using the private system.

I think a lot of the problems with health care is caused by the games played between provincial and federal governments. Provincial governments can't try to put the squeeze on Ottawa for more money if things are running well. So where is the incentive for them to do so?

For this reason I would like to see our national health care managed and paid for by one central government.

[maplesyrup]

We already have a mix right now but I have never seen any concrete research that suggests going private will help to make things better overall.

It is not in the public interest to go private.

It is like the idea of privatizing our road system. How long would it take before bridges started to collapse, because private businesses would cut corners on safety and maintenance?

[JWayne625]

I would like to see our national health care managed and paid for by one central government.

I too would like to see this caeser, as it is the only way we will ever be able to attain a seamless healthcare program right across Canada.

Last year for instance when Chretien gave extra money earmarked specifically for the purchase of diagnostic equipment, the Health Corporation where I live in Saint John, NB spent this money on the purchase of new ride-on lawnmowers, photocopiers, and paper-shredders. And our Premier defended this expenditure saying it was equipment they needed. I hardly call those types of equipment medical diagnostic equipment, but the again maybe that is why Premier Lord continues to maintain a policy put in place by the Liberal, Frand McKenna before him, which was to disallow Medical Doctors from serving on the healthcare corporation Boards. We have accountants and other business types deciding what medical services are a priority, and whether closing beds is feasable in order to save money. Go figure!

[Guest eureka]

What a load of codswallop! There is no comparison to be made between healthcare and consumer goods. Health is health and sickness is sickness. Would you take a second helping of chicken pox merely because the treatment was cheaper.

There is not the slightest doubt that public health systems are cheaper and more efficient than private. The figures are available to everyone and have been presented ad nauseam. The mix of public and private has more to do with doctor's practices than any actual private component.

The comparisons with the US are the only valid ones in the developed world because the US is the only state without the largest component being public. The USA has higher death rates within hospital care; higher infant mortality; lower life expectancy and costs for everyon. It also has 45 million people who do not have access to healthcare except on a charitable basis that is no access at all other than in emergency.

The best of healthcare in the US is the best in the world but only the top quintile in wealth can afford it. For everyone else, the US system is one of the world's worst.

The US even has less doctors per capita than Europe or Russia. Why? To keep up the monopoly earnings.

[theloniusfleabag]

I am a socialist, no doubt, but I believe a two-tiered health system is the way to go. It would be a win-win for both the people and the doctors.

Totally private health care means that those who can afford it get the best of the best, while the workers in their stores and factories will get 'Dr. Nick Riviera"(from the Simpsons).

Totally public health care means that those who can afford it go elsewhere (like the states) to avoid waiting in line. Good for them, that is their right.

A two tiered system means that more of those that cannot afford insurance or specialists in the US and elsewhere can access healthcare easier, and those than can afford it have the option to choose.

[caesar]

I completely disagree that a two tiered system would work better or shorten waiting times. There is still the same number of doctors. If necessary, I would prefer a small user pay fee to offset costs. That may make some who run to the doctor for non important items to have a second thought. We already have many services that are basically privatized in BC. Dental, eye check ups, chiropractors, physiotherapy. I think these doctors use this high cost for physiotherapy to have patients agree to pay for their own MRIs; cheaper than the hundred dollars a week for physio. (We do have private MRIs with the loophole that you pay for the use of the clinic not the MRI. Waiting times are used to persuade the patient to pay for his own MRI. Whether the government pays them for the procedure; I am not sure. Technically, if it is necessary, you are only paying for the use of the clinic.

[Hugo]

We already have a mix right now but I have never seen any concrete research that suggests going private will help to make things better overall.

Then follow this link.

It is like the idea of privatizing our road system. How long would it take before bridges started to collapse, because private businesses would cut corners on safety and maintenance?

Why don't you ask the users of the 407 ETR?

What a load of codswallop! There is no comparison to be made between healthcare and consumer goods.

Healthcare is a commodity. A commodity is any good or service that has value.

There is not the slightest doubt that public health systems are cheaper and more efficient than private. The figures are available to everyone and have been presented ad nauseam.

I'd ask you to back that up, but it's Eureka, who never backs anything up and never has any facts behind his arguments. Why bother?

The USA has higher death rates within hospital care; higher infant mortality; lower life expectancy and costs for everyon.

The Canadian association of cardiologists complains that American heart attack sufferers have shorter life expectancies and lower quality of life in Canada than in the US. The Canadian council of radiology urges all patients to go to the US, wherever possible, because Canadian radiology is in such a poor state. There's more.

Once again, there's no point asking you to back up your claims, you won't.

Totally private health care means that those who can afford it get the best of the best, while the workers in their stores and factories will get 'Dr. Nick Riviera"(from the Simpsons).

Tell me, how is your car? Do you hand-crank it? Does it make 30hp with 5mpg? What about your TV? Is it a goldfish-bowl tube with rabbit-ear antennae that you bought 2 years ago? What about the computer you're using? Is it no more powerful than home computers 20 years ago?

I mention these examples because they show how the free market works. A new product is introduced and over time, the quality increases and the price decreases until everybody has one, and a good one, too. 97% of poor people in America have a TV, and about 75% of poor people have a car. 30% have more than one. Your car is a massive improvement on the kind of car only the very rich could afford 50 years ago. Your TV probably uses technology that only NASA could afford 30 years ago. Your computer has more processing power than any mainframe of 20 years ago.

So it will go with private healthcare. What is expensive now will come down in price and go up in quality. Under a private system we will all have top-quality and dirt-cheap healthcare in 20-30 years time. With public healthcare, we'll either have very little healthcare at all of much the same quality we have today, or we'll all be paying 80% income tax rates to be able to have what a free market would have delivered to us at one-hundredth the cost.

[Guest eureka]

Healthcare is not a commodity. No service is a commodity and only an obsessive who thinks evrything is about money and markets could make such a foolish claim.

As for backing up the comparative figures, you really ought not to need it. One who claims to post with authority should have read the occasional newspaper. You will find much of the information in the article that I wrote of some time ago and that MS reproduced.

The rest, Life expectancies, etc. is common knowledge amongst those who have knowledge. You will even find it in discussions and papers around the Romanow Report.

I assume that your "American heart attack sufferers in Canada" citation was a mistake since it does not make sense. It makes less sense if you are talking of heart attack sufferers who die in greater proportion in the USA.

Have you read the news of the number of surgical instruments left inside patients in the US. I don't know where I read that or I would give you the figures. It was astounding and a reflection of the poor quality of care for the not so wealthy.

[Hugo]

Your response can be summed up thus:

"I think you're wrong. I have no evidence or sources but I seem to remember reading some newspapers that said you were wrong. I also feel that economists are all wrong in their definition of "commodity". I don't have any credentials or experience in economics, but I still think that I know more about economics than Nobel laureate economists."

Can you give me a single good reason why I should respond to your empty waffling?

[JWayne625]

Quebec's Health Minister's revelation about not putting all upcoming federal healthcare dollars into healthcare highlights the need for Ottawa to demand accountability for taxpayer's money before they hand over one red cent to the Provinces. I'm not so sure that other's aren't thinking of using the money for other things as well, but do not have the ball's to say so.

We need to have accountability otherwise we will always have a piecemeal healthcare system in Canada, even though we are supposed to have a portable seamless system right across this country. Quebec nor any other Province can be allowed to spend the money as they see fit, otherwise in New Brunswick we just may end up with hospital lawns nicely kept with brand new ride-on mowers, but no patient's in the building because healthcare professional's have exited stage left.