Inequality not growing, median incomes up

Michael Hardner · December 17, 2012

I think it's only natural to use other systems for comparison. You could use the US system as a grossly inefficient and expensive one, and several in Europe as solid, efficient and effective ones, and us in the middle.

You can do so to an extent if you're comparing service levels, but it never gets to that. They just compare private vs public care and call it a day.

A system as huge as ours deserves better public discussion than it gets.

Canuckistani · December 17, 2012

You can do so to an extent if you're comparing service levels, but it never gets to that. They just compare private vs public care and call it a day.

A system as huge as ours deserves better public discussion than it gets.

We can't have that conversation with the elephant sitting right next door. Too many people, like myself, worry about allowing the nose of the camel in the tent. With our dear leader bleating on about Canada being a second rate socialist country, it doesn't really inspire confidence.

bush_cheney2004 · December 17, 2012

We can't have that conversation with the elephant sitting right next door. Too many people, like myself, worry about allowing the nose of the camel in the tent. With our dear leader bleating on about Canada being a second rate socialist country, it doesn't really inspire confidence.

That is not an adequate excuse for not having comprehensive baseline data for Canadian federal, provincial, and local affairs. Resources spent worrying about the elephant could be used on the "mouse".

cybercoma · December 17, 2012

You can do so to an extent if you're comparing service levels, but it never gets to that. They just compare private vs public care and call it a day.

A system as huge as ours deserves better public discussion than it gets.

People don't understand our healthcare systems anyway. It's not a private vs public debate and end of discussion. Otherwise, you would be talking about the US (private) system vs the UK (public) system. Ours is neither. It's a private-delivery, public-payer system.

Michael Hardner · December 17, 2012

We can't have that conversation with the elephant sitting right next door. Too many people, like myself, worry about allowing the nose of the camel in the tent. With our dear leader bleating on about Canada being a second rate socialist country, it doesn't really inspire confidence.

So, you're basically guaranteeing that the only option being discussed is the American one vs the Canadian one. The Canadian one will eventually break, since it's not being discussed in any depth leaving one other option on the table.

Canuckistani · December 17, 2012

People don't understand our healthcare systems anyway. It's not a private vs public debate and end of discussion. Otherwise, you would be talking about the US (private) system vs the UK (public) system. Ours is neither. It's a private-delivery, public-payer system.

Our system is 70 percent public, the US is 50% public (medicare, medicaid, military). Britain has a strong private component to their system as well, so I doubt they are so much different.

Michael Hardner · December 17, 2012

People don't understand our healthcare systems anyway.

There are likely enough people who do understand it to set up a public forum for discussion. Otherwise, we have an imbalance - a lot of proxies for large stakeholder groups talking to each other with little public understanding of the issues.

Now, there are allegations of queue-jumping. How can that happen if the system is designed so well, and well understood by the public ?

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=ca&tbm=nws&q=queue+jumping+&oq=queue+jumping+&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i400.2543.4966.0.5760.14.4.0.10.0.0.83.282.4.4.0...0.0...1ac.1.uAsqehvWoW8

cybercoma · December 17, 2012

Our system is 70 percent public, the US is 50% public (medicare, medicaid, military). Britain has a strong private component to their system as well, so I doubt they are so much different.

70% of the funding is public, but that's not what I was talking about. I said it's public payer (even though as you point out there's still elements that are paid for privately) and private delivery. That's a fact.

cybercoma · December 17, 2012

Otherwise, we have an imbalance - a lot of proxies for large stakeholder groups talking to each other with little public understanding of the issues.

With such low voter turnouts and political engagement, this is exactly what politics have become in Canada. Proxies talking to past each other with little public understanding of the issues.

Michael Hardner · December 17, 2012

With such low voter turnouts and political engagement, this is exactly what politics have become in Canada. Proxies talking to past each other with little public understanding of the issues.

Nonymous web meetings, in-person meetings, and productive one-on-one discussions are entirely achievable and lend themselves to productive, positive, progressive dialogues between fair-minded adversaries.

Argus · December 18, 2012

You can do so to an extent if you're comparing service levels, but it never gets to that. They just compare private vs public care and call it a day.

A system as huge as ours deserves better public discussion than it gets.

What they see about the US private, multi-payer model is how grossly inefficient it is, how expensive it is, and how many can't afford it. All of that is implicit whenever anyone mentions the us private system.

nimiru · December 18, 2012

There's no such thing as income inequality, because there's no such thing as income equality. People earn different incomes based on many things, such as type of job, type of industry a job is in, where they live, how many hours they work, etc.

I'm older now and I can only say that my wages have definitely not kept up with prices.If this is any indication of the problem we are discussing on this thread I am glad to contribute. Back in the sixtes it would take four years gross wages to pay for a home now it is( oh my god) unimaginiable. And since the late seventies my wages haven't really improved much. Sadly the same can't be said about prices. Prices go up regardless. Some reason is always given but never understood but wages unfortunately don't follow. The same is not true for the rich. And that is where the problem arises. Rich gets richer and poor get poorer. That is what was the catalyst for the communist revolution and sooner or later it will create another opportunity for an uprising. When is enough, enough?

nimiru · December 18, 2012

I'm older now and I can only say that my wages have definitely not kept up with prices.If this is any indication of the problem we are discussing on this thread I am glad to contribute. Back in the sixtes it would take four years gross wages to pay for a home now it is( oh my god) unimaginiable. And since the late seventies my wages haven't really improved much. Sadly the same can't be said about prices. Prices go up regardless. Some reason is always given but never understood but wages unfortunately don't follow. The same is not true for the rich. And that is where the problem arises. Rich gets richer and poor get poorer. That is what was the catalyst for the communist revolution and sooner or later it will create another opportunity for an uprising. When is enough, enough?

That is just about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. So let me see if I have this right. If you have no education you shouldn't get paid a wage that is enough to live on. Is that right? And if you have parents that have money and can afford to send you fn ass off to a higher edcucation you should expect to earn a nice income? Otherwise relegate yourself to serfdom. You fn idiot.

bush_cheney2004 · December 18, 2012

That is just about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. So let me see if I have this right. If you have no education you shouldn't get paid a wage that is enough to live on. Is that right? And if you have parents that have money and can afford to send you fn ass off to a higher edcucation you should expect to earn a nice income? Otherwise relegate yourself to serfdom. You fn idiot.

Dude...you quoted your own post and said it was stupid. This has got to be a MLW first.

nimiru · December 18, 2012

But you just did it yourself.....not only putting spin on US circumstances, but comparing it to Canada. Is it ever possible to have such a data discussion without invoking the United States as the benchmark?

Is there any better way to see what is the wrong way? They after all are the fn leaders in that. I fail to see your problem with this. It has been this way through time and will likely be this way forever..

nimiru · December 18, 2012

Is there any better way to see what is the wrong way? They after all are the fn leaders in that. I fail to see your problem with this. It has been this way through time and will likely be this way forever..

PS move

Michael Hardner · December 18, 2012

What they see about the US private, multi-payer model is how grossly inefficient it is, how expensive it is, and how many can't afford it. All of that is implicit whenever anyone mentions the us private system.

Of course. But our system requires us to pay much more attention to it than that. There's no competition between providers to keep costs down, so we the people have to pay attention to services and costs. It's our duty to do so.

Comparing our system to the American model is an abrogation of our responsibilities to ourselves.

Argus · December 18, 2012

That is just about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. So let me see if I have this right. If you have no education you shouldn't get paid a wage that is enough to live on. Is that right? And if you have parents that have money and can afford to send you fn ass off to a higher edcucation you should expect to earn a nice income? Otherwise relegate yourself to serfdom. You fn idiot.

Why are you quoting yourself and calling your words stupid?

Canuckistani · December 18, 2012

Of course. But our system requires us to pay much more attention to it than that. There's no competition between providers to keep costs down, so we the people have to pay attention to services and costs. It's our duty to do so.

Comparing our system to the American model is an abrogation of our responsibilities to ourselves.

You're claiming that there is competition between providers in the US to keep costs down?

All our doctors are private providers. I see no competition among them to keep costs down.

Michael Hardner · December 18, 2012

You're claiming that there is competition between providers in the US to keep costs down?

All our doctors are private providers. I see no competition among them to keep costs down.

Yes, exactly - there is no competition.

Canuckistani · December 18, 2012

Yes, exactly - there is no competition.

No competition among insurers and providers in the US? Yet they have far higher costs than we do. I'm not sure I want docs competing who can help me the cheapest, turn it into Jiffy Lube and Medical Service. I have no problem with for profit providers as long as good standards are maintained. For profit insurers I think is just insane.

bush_cheney2004 · December 18, 2012

No competition among insurers and providers in the US? Yet they have far higher costs than we do.

The US maintains excess capacity and that costs more. Canadian provinces take advantage of this by sending patients across the border for procedures. Provincially funded care forces rationing.

Michael Hardner · December 18, 2012

No competition among insurers and providers in the US? Yet they have far higher costs than we do.

I'm not sure I want docs competing who can help me the cheapest, turn it into Jiffy Lube and Medical Service. I have no problem with for profit providers as long as good standards are maintained. For profit insurers I think is just insane.

I don't want competition between doctors either. There is competition among insurers in the US but they provide a middle layer that we don't have.

Competition between hospitals may provide something. They are bad a managing things IMO.

cybercoma · December 18, 2012

Comparing our system to the American model is an abrogation of our responsibilities to ourselves.

If you don't compare the system to another nation's, taking into consideration the similarities and differences, how do you know whether or not we're getting our money's worth?

Michael Hardner · December 18, 2012

If you don't compare the system to another nation's, taking into consideration the similarities and differences, how do you know whether or not we're getting our money's worth?

We need more than a top line comparison between us and the US - so much more, as I pointed out, because we don't have a profit motive. People should be engaged and working with service providers to ensure quality service at a reasonable cost. Instead we have the same "take it or leave it" model that we get with Rogers, Bell and so on.