Target & Canada's Health System

[August1991]

The simple story here is not about CEO compensation, or graft in hospital construction projects. It's not even about how Canada and the US are different.

It's a story asking the question: "When to pull the plug?"

Target is a private enterprise, answerable to shareholders. It pulls the plug soon.

Canada's health system works differently. Managers don't know where to pull the plug and if they know, they can't. Inefficient, wasteful hospitals, clinics continue to operate for years. And new hospitals, clinics can't get financing.

Canada's health system is rife with Target stores - but no CEO pulls the plug.

=====

What is the key difference between Target and a Canadian hospital?

I reckon that this is the key difference: for Target, the money coming in is connected to the money going out. For Canadian hospitals, there is no connection between the money coming in and the money going out.

Edited January 24, 2015 by August1991

[On Guard for Thee]

How long did it take you to come to that conclusion?

Edited January 24, 2015 by Charles Anthony
deleted quote of OP

[WIP]

It's a shame we don't have a low cost efficient health care system like they have in the U.S.........no, wait a minute.....................

[August1991]

It's a shame we don't have a low cost efficient health care system like they have in the U.S.........no, wait a minute.....................

WIP, have you ever been to a US hospital?

In Canada's health system, we have a Venezuelan grocery system: wait, and you'll maybe get care/food. If you don't know someone connected or understand the system, that's life.

WIP, you remind me of Soviet apologists. Heck, the French and German health systems are better than Canada's health system.

=======

But that's not the point of my OP.

Target pulled the plug soon because it didn't have the money.

I fear that government systems (eg inefficient hospitals) must eventually "pull the plug" - but they do it much later, if at all.

Edited January 24, 2015 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

But that's not the point of my OP.

Target pulled the plug soon because it didn't have the money.

I fear that government systems must eventually "pull the plug" - but much later.

Yes..this is why the new CEO is being praised. He pulled the plug early on a dying patient before it cost more billions with little hope for profitabilty.

He had the courage to admit that Target Canada failed, but didn't have to die a slow death. Meanwhile, U.S. based Targets are doing just fine.

[Michael Hardner]

The health care system in Canada is not for-profit, so the "when to pull the plug" question is a non-sequitur - let's leave that alone.

I think the correct assertion is that in an open system stakeholders have an effect, and the program is responsive. The Canadian healthcare system - like so many other Canadian entities - is not centred around the user, but instead the politican, the administrators and the voters.

[Topaz]

Target failed because it couldn't deliver on its promises. It should have start out slowly like most US companies do but Target had too many stores and could keep the shelves stocked or prices promised.

[jacee]

Yes..this is why the new CEO is being praised. He pulled the plug early on a dying patient before it cost more billions with little hope for profitabilty.

He had the courage to admit that Target Canada failed, but didn't have to die a slow death. Meanwhile, U.S. based Targets are doing just fine.

Do you think he designed the whole mess to scoop his payout and split?

.

[Ash74]

I am a hard core conservative but you cant use a business model health care like they did at target.

With health care you want less customers needing less product. That is why all the commercials about healthy living. The States have a much better health care available if you can pay. The last thing as Canadians we want is the U.S. to have a health care like ours because they are at the very front of research that our health care uses but could never afford to pay to research.

[WIP]

WIP, have you ever been to a US hospital?

No, but then again, the last time I was in a Canadian hospital for a reason other than visiting was when I received burns from an industrial accident back in 1980.....so, it's been awhile!

In Canada's health system, we have a Venezuelan grocery system: wait, and you'll maybe get care/food. If you don't know someone connected or understand the system, that's life.

WIP, you remind me of Soviet apologists. Heck, the French and German health systems are better than Canada's health system.

If I was looking at medicine and health from a purely selfish or self-interested perspective, I could say that I could have saved a lot of money over the years under a ruthlessly capitalistic, survival of the fittest system....like they have in the U.S.! Because for me personally, I have been in optimal health and attention to fitness and proper nutrition etc., has been my personal primary health plan. Now, I have to admit that I am married and have now grown children, so I would have had to buy health insurance at some point in my life if I was living in the U.S.

Nevertheless, the main problems we have with our health and medical systems is that we have an aging and increasingly unhealthy population. And on that count I blame your kind of capitalism for much of our problems today! Since it is so expensive and difficult to buy decent food if you live in a city (it's the one thing I really miss about living in the country), and so many people don't have the luxury I have of providing a modest living from 40 hrs of work per week, and have to take on 2nd and 3rd jobs to pay for all the garbage they have been brainwashed into buying for themselves. So, they are stressed out by their jobs and their debts and their lack of time to enjoy life. That is the basic synopsis apparently of why self-reporting data on personal happiness and wellbeing peaked in the 1950's and has been in decline ever since!

All of these factors put increasing burdens on medical systems that cannot be fully solved by either public or private initiatives. My personal choice is that health and medical spending should be prioritized on the basis of need/ not how much people can afford to pay for it! And....this is going to be difficult for aging narcissists to deal with, but as I grow older, I still believe that there should be cutoff points on expensive treatments based on age and expected quality of life after treatment.

In the old days, this is something that many from previous generations took upon themselves. So, 15 years ago, when my father was in his mid-80's and had a mild stroke caused by an aneurism; he went through the operation, but a couple of years later, when informed that he had another even larger aneurism, the question he wanted answered was 'was that it, or would more operations for more repairs be needed?' When he didn't get the prognosis he wanted, he informed the specialist that he would not have that operation, but continue on living without it. As it turned out, about a year and a half later, he collapsed from internal bleeding and suffered a stroke, dying almost immediately. But that's the way he wanted to go....not living in a hospital bed or convalescent home for his remaining years. And I think I will make the same sort of choice when the time comes! Too much is spent for too little value today on extending life. If you can't have the quality of life you desire, why bother? Now, that we have so much expensive medical technology, a lot more people are going to have to make these quality of life choices, or the system will be bankrupt however its run!

But that's not the point of my OP.

Target pulled the plug soon because it didn't have the money.

I fear that government systems (eg inefficient hospitals) must eventually "pull the plug" - but they do it much later, if at all.

Latest news is that Target only has severance money for management. So that CEO pig got the lion's share and way down the line, the store managers get about $11,000....not much, but better than hourly employees got - NOTHING! To me, that's the greatest indictment of the basics of capitalism. Capitalist economics is a system of slavery dressed up as free choice. The owners of capital in a non-union environment, have dictatorial powers over their workers, if unemployment is high...and it usually is. Most people don't have much power to negotiate better earnings and working conditions on their own. And the basic framework of capitalism, is that every worker on down the line, has provide a surplus value from their work to give to that owner....not much different than slavery, at least in principle.

Capitalist systems try everything in their power to stop cooperative manufacturing and commercial operations from getting established. Seems that a cooperative movement would allow most people to get a better return for their work, even out inequalities, and eliminate the need for an adversarial union representation system in the first place.

[Moonbox]

Target failed because it couldn't deliver on its promises. It should have start out slowly like most US companies do but Target had too many stores and could keep the shelves stocked or prices promised.

Target Canada failed because it was incompetently launched. As for promises, what promises does the Canadian Healthcare system have to keep? Not really any. Things obviously aren't good as they stand, nor are they likely to improve anytime soon, but costs will continue to increase.

[bush_cheney2004]

Agreed....health care is not a right in Canada, and neither is shopping at Target.

[August1991]

The health care system in Canada is not for-profit, so the "when to pull the plug" question is a non-sequitur - let's leave that alone.

Non-sequitur?

Michael, some bureaucrat in some ministry of health in some provincial capital today made a decision to approve/refuse money/budget to some health clinic somewhere in the province. The bureaucrat made the decision, "pulled the plug" (or more likely left it in to draw more power ftom the public grid), on arbitrary grounds.

The CEO of Target saw the numbers clearly, and made a decision.

=====

You are sadly mistaken if you believe that the State can somehow change basic accounting and ignore, by whim, the question of whether benefit is greater than cost.

The Soviets, the Maoists and even some European Socialists in the 1960s and 1970s tried your "not-for-profit" accounting scheme. To use a 21st century word to describe their attempts, they were not sustainable.

Edited January 26, 2015 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

Non-sequitur?

Michael, some bureaucrat in some ministry of health in some provincial capital today made a decision to approve/refuse money/budget to some health clinic somewhere in the province. The bureaucrat made the decision, "pulled the plug" (or more likely left it in to draw more power ftom the public grid), on arbitrary grounds.

Ok, I guess it makes sense in the context of shutting down/restructuring some operations, but not - as with Target - in the context of not making money and shutting down entirely.

You are sadly mistaken if you believe that the State can somehow change basic accounting and ignore, by whim, the question of whether benefit is greater than cost.

The Soviets, the Maoists and even some European Socialists in the 1960s and 1970s tried your "not-for-profit" accounting scheme. To use a 21st century word to describe their attempts, they were not sustainable.

There are other examples of things that are run as not-for-profit, that continue to this day - like education. The idea that everything is going to be run for profit is actually declining in acceptance IMO.

[guyser]

In Canada's health system, we have a Venezuelan grocery system: wait, and you'll maybe get care/food.

There are armed guards around the toilet paper at hospitals in Canada? (they do in Vzla)

Where? Got any pictures ?

WIP, you remind me of Soviet apologists. Heck, the French and German health systems are better than Canada's health system.

Germany is a huge country, good comparison....lets see, Germany 357,000Sq Km's , Pop 82M versus Canada 9,984,000 and 34M Pop.....Hmmmm....we are 28 times the size and less than half the pop.

Ontario alone ...almost three times the size.

Um....yeah....lets stop there.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Guyser2

[PIK]

Moonbox is right about target and the fact there is not enough of us in this country, to support all these huge stores. All they do is hurt the little guy and send all the money to the states.

[August1991]

Moonbox is right about target and the fact there is not enough of us in this country, to support all these huge stores. All they do is hurt the little guy and send all the money to the states.

WTF?

PIK, I think you have a wrong view of powerful, huge, small, rich, poor, little.

Canadian banks are among the largest banks on the planet.

And of the 10 richest countries on the planet (GDP per capita), 9 are countries with small populations.

====

For the record, I suspect that "huge stores" has little to do with Target's failure in Canada (but what do I know about retail).

Edited February 4, 2015 by August1991

[On Guard for Thee]

Agreed....health care is not a right in Canada, and neither is shopping at Target.

Its a hell of a lot closer to a right in Canada then where u live. But then ur still trying to comprehend the difference between gov funding and control of CBC, so I dont want to rush you.

[jacee]

Moonbox is right about target and the fact there is not enough of us in this country, to support all these huge stores. All they do is hurt the little guy and send all the money to the states.

There were lots of people wanting to shop there. They didn't have enough merchandise.

.

[PIK]

And the people wanting to shop there , had shopped some where else. So somebody loses and as I said we are not big enough for all these retail centres.