Who will get 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination?

[Bob Macadoo]

As I said earlier, you take what you can get, presuming you can get one. And if you don't like your doctor. that's too bad. You can contact this government site, in Ontario anyway, to list yourself and search for another doctor, but it can take a while. And the catch is you have to end your relationship with your doctor before you can list yourself and search for another one.

http://health.gov.on.ca/en/ms/healthcareconnect/public/

.....or you could do as I did. Got a doctor.......then upgraded as more became available.....and not in a large metropolis like Shady.

[Michael Hardner]

No, "your system" offers fewer choices for all, unless long wait times are very desirable.

Wait times are an ER issue. In theory and in practice, a public system offers better choices for people who need a doctor.

[Michael Hardner]

Yep. Michael's comment is pretty scary. It illustrates a blind devotion to a particular idea, no matter what the evidence indicates.

The evidence of uninsured people with no care ? The numbers are still pretty high in the market-based system, although Obama's new system is reducing those numbers all the time at a lower cost than projected...

[Argus]

The evidence of uninsured people with no care ? The numbers are still pretty high in the market-based system, although Obama's new system is reducing those numbers all the time at a lower cost than projected...

You are falling into the same trap so many defenders of the current system land in. You are presuming there are only two systems in the world, being ours and the Americans'.

[Michael Hardner]

You are falling into the same trap so many defenders of the current system land in. You are presuming there are only two systems in the world, being ours and the Americans'.

Actually, this is another argument pivot.

The original comment was from August about "our State-organized health care system"... I do think other systems are good, including mixed private/public options.

[bush_cheney2004]

Wait times are an ER issue. In theory and in practice, a public system offers better choices for people who need a doctor.

No...wait times are fundamental to a system that rations care and choices based on medical urgency. The U.S. system rations more choices and faster access based on ability to pay (public and private).

[Michael Hardner]

No...wait times are fundamental...

It's an ER issue. Here's something that you can ask your local candidate about at the barn raisin'...

https://projects.propublica.org/emergency/

[Smallc]

A public system with private hospitals and clinics that would compete for money would be best (it already works this way for doctors, but not hospitals. A user fee, as found in many European countries, would also solve many of the structural problems (dissuading casual use and injecting more money into the system).

[bush_cheney2004]

It's an ER issue.....

It is more than an ER issue.....Canadians wait longer for basic medical procedures and testing by design. Discussed here many times over....

[On Guard for Thee]

It is more than an ER issue.....Canadians wait longer for basic medical procedures and testing by design. Discussed here many times over....

Fortunately for us ( I dont mean to brag) our system continues to be ranked much higher, even with the wait times.

[Smallc]

Fortunately for us ( I dont mean to brag) our system continues to be ranked much higher, even with the wait times.

Yes, for all it's failings, the Canadian system is one of the best in the world at preventing death. The problem of course, of Canada, unlike any other country, is that our vast distances and small populations really cost in terms of logistics compared to other countries.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes, for all it's failings, the Canadian system is one of the best in the world at preventing death. The problem of course, of Canada, unlike any other country, is that our vast distances and small populations really cost in terms of logistics compared to other countries.

That certainly does factor in. I used to be involved with a provincial air ambulance program which of course was used to span those distances and at a high financial cost. But those costs were of course shared by the taxpayer, not the patient, and it wasnt making some private insurance company rich. Air ambulance in the states is pretty much set up to get you into their place so they can start billig your private insures, assuming you have one. In essence the aircraft are nothing more than profit centers.

[Shady]

A public system with private hospitals and clinics that would compete for money would be best (it already works this way for doctors, but not hospitals. A user fee, as found in many European countries, would also solve many of the structural problems (dissuading casual use and injecting more money into the system).

All perfectly sensible ideas.

[Shady]

You are falling into the same trap so many defenders of the current system land in. You are presuming there are only two systems in the world, being ours and the Americans'.

I think its purposely done. Because considering other systems, like Germany's hybrid public/private system would make much of their argument moot.

[Michael Hardner]

I think its purposely done. Because considering other systems, like Germany's hybrid public/private system would make much of their argument moot.

Not me: "I do think other systems are good, including mixed private/public options. "

If you want left-of-centre people (presumably like me) to openly discuss options, then people like you and August have to also drop the propaganda language, like saying there's no choice in our system. I think the healthcare question needs to have people from both sides drop the rhetoric.

[Argus]

Yes, for all it's failings, the Canadian system is one of the best in the world at preventing death. The problem of course, of Canada, unlike any other country, is that our vast distances and small populations really cost in terms of logistics compared to other countries.

We don't have a small population. And most Canadian live in large, urban centres anyway.

[Argus]

If you want left-of-centre people (presumably like me) to openly discuss options, then people like you and August have to also drop the propaganda language, like saying there's no choice in our system. I think the healthcare question needs to have people from both sides drop the rhetoric.

But we often DON'T have a choice. We take whatever doctor we can get, presuming we can even get one. And when they send us to a specialist, we have no choice but to go to THAT specialist. Because we have no access to specialists except through our family doctor's referral.

[Michael Hardner]

We take whatever doctor we can get, presuming we can even get one. And when they send us to a specialist, we have no choice but to go to THAT specialist. Because we have no access to specialists except through our family doctor's referral.

I don't know what you're talking about. My GP refers me to a specialist, and if I don't like that person I can change.

[On Guard for Thee]

We don't have a small population. And most Canadian live in large, urban centres anyway.

Our population density is less than a tenth that of the US and we are just as far flung.

[Smallc]

We don't have a small population. And most Canadian live in large, urban centres anyway.

Wouldn't you agree though, that servicing Northern Ontario, for example, very much takes away from funding that's needed in denser urban areas? Flying helicopters and planes and sending road ambulances on transfers that can last more than a day can be very expensive. Add to that small underutilizes facilities being kept open and we're talking real money. Most other countries don't have those problems to the same degree.

[kimmy]

Doctors know that they can make a lot more money in big cities than in remote rural communities. This is the same in Canada and the US. The government-intervention solution involves shanghaiing doctors to work in rural locations (a la Dr Joel Fleischman in Northern Exposure...) I don't see a free-market solution at all. Not sure what this has to do with the next GOP nominee for President. All the GOP nominees are in agreement that Obamacare must be repealed and replaced with a solution that is Market Centered ™, Patient Focused ™, and Empowers Individuals ™. There's no disagreement among any of them.

I have been reading that Carli Fiorina wants to run for the GOP nomination. The name might ring a bell; she was CEO of Hewlett-Packard about 10 years ago, leading the company through a run of thorough mediocrity. Perhaps her campaign slogan could be "I didn't build this, I just ran it for a few years. At least it didn't go bankrupt." I think most Presidents can sum up their legacy about the same way.

-k

[The_Squid]

What does healthcare in Canada have to do with the Republican presidential nomination?

[bush_cheney2004]

Nothing, but it is another chance for some Canadians to feed their "free health care" neurosis.

[guyser]

Guyser2, did you freely choose your MD?

Or rather, did you get a name from a list - the next available MD?

Freely chose. The very same as everyone else in this country, including you.

[Argus]

I don't know what you're talking about. My GP refers me to a specialist, and if I don't like that person I can change.

Not unless your doctor wants you to.