Healthcare talks

[Smallc]

13 minutes ago, Argus said:

I reject the notion of geography to begin with. I've seen no evidence it costs more here because of geography, nor evidence very small geographical areas like Switzerland, say, pay less because of that. But in any case, if you support user fees then you have to also agree the Canada Health Act, which bans user fees, would have to be amended.

I would agree with amending the act, but not doing away with it.

And of course geography matters.  Manitoba now owns a plane just to get people to regular appointments in Winnipeg when they're in hospital elsewhere, not to mention the need for many more road ambulances than population would dictate (and by extension paramedics) as well as propeller, jet, and rotary ambulances that wouldn't be necessary in the multiples they are.

I live near a city of 10K.  It has a regional health centre - they have trouble attracting full time technicians (ultrasound especially) without offering bonuses, and often have to settle paying someone to come intermittently from another facility to provide services.  It's even worse when you're talking about remote cities and towns in the north.

Most of our population is urban in Canada, but our money is less able to be used effectively because of having to cover small populations in large geographical areas. 

Edited December 20, 2016 by Smallc

[?Impact]

Ok, let's follow the European model. It should take about 10 years investment in education first in order to have graduates that are not burdened by huge debt and we can start paying them less to provide health care. Lets put the horse before the cart, not the cart of private health insurance and practitioners first to empty the treasury and make themselves rich. 

[Rue]

The Liberals tried to be cute recycling the Tory health care program with more cuts and it didn't work.

The baffle gab they tried to engage in was insulting.

Also I loved how Trudeau Mr. Phot-oop, Mr. Never Met An Opportunity Not To Pose and Prance, left his Finance MNR and Health MNR to spit out the bad news.

Bottom line is this. Trudeau opened his big mouth and promised billions in spending because he has no concept of money. He lives off a trust fund and no one has ever said no to Justin.

He lives in a sheltered world with no limits. The problem is Canada like any state or province has limits. Health care is a huge pressing expense because the baby boomer generation is all hitting the death years at once and something has to give in government spending and this government has to set priorities and those should be no.1 health, no.2 the military and no.3 reducing government spending.

Trudeau has zero vision for that. He's a prancing puppet.

Bottom line. There will be tax increases and the governments whether provincial or federal  will waste more money instead of allocating it to health care that's being properly managed to avoid redundancy and fraud and promote proactive preventative health care models not just reactionary stop gap ones.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 20, 2016 by Rue

[Omni]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

I reject the notion of geography to begin with. I've seen no evidence it costs more here because of geography, nor evidence very small geographical areas like Switzerland, say, pay less because of that. But in any case, if you support user fees then you have to also agree the Canada Health Act, which bans user fees, would have to be amended.

If you have to fly a patient from Inuvik to say Edmonton for care they can't get at home, that adds a lot of cost. And I don't think doctors are lining up to go live and work in Inuvik. 

[poochy]

16 hours ago, Omni said:

The previous conservative government simply chose to cut back on transfers to healthcare. That's tough on an ageing population. At least the current federal government doesn't mind to sit down with the premiers, unlike Harper. It may take more meetings than one. 

O look, an outright lie, from that poster?  Nah, couldn't be, there should be some moderation effort to remove posts that easily verifiable as false.

[poochy]

5 hours ago, Omni said:

I'll be happy to explain basic math to you some time, but for now just try to understand that when you cut an increase in half, that is a decrease.

I have to ask, what's it like living your life without honor or any sort of ethical code?

[Omni]

1 minute ago, poochy said:

I have to ask, what's it like living your life without honor or any sort of ethical code?

No idea. I suspect you are a lot more qualified to answer that.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Smallc said:

I would agree with amending the act, but not doing away with it.

And of course geography matters.  Manitoba now owns a plane just to get people to regular appointments in Winnipeg when they're in hospital elsewhere, not to mention the need for many more road ambulances than population would dictate (and by extension paramedics) as well as propeller, jet, and rotary ambulances that wouldn't be necessary in the multiples they are.

We have a shortage of people in various parts of the country due to the incompetence of our governmental officials in restricting the number of doctors through various means, or permitting them to be restricted. This is not related to the size of the country.

[Rue]

30 minutes ago, poochy said:

O look, an outright lie, from that poster?  Nah, couldn't be, there should be some moderation effort to remove posts that easily verifiable as false.

Look I don't agree with Omni on some things but I don't get the animosity against his recent comment. Harper did cut back on medical care costs? Are you saying he didn't? 

I am arguing Trudeau is now just trying to recycle what Harper policy was doing. In fact that is why the provinces were at odds with Harper and now Trudeau.

The only difference is Harper didn't couch his words. He didn't play semantics games as Trudeau has which were insulting.

Now if the federal government argues it can't afford more, I could accept that if it wasn't so hell spent on wasting tax payer's money on other programs. Since he's been in office Trudeau has engaged in out of control spending and now he says, oops there's no money for health care? For me its priorities.

I see Trudeau as failing to understand our no.1 pressing issue is health care, then 2. the military, then 3. cutting excess federal spending and redundancy between federal and provincial governments overlapping while providing the same services.

I also personally do not placing the country in a long term disasterous debt it can't pay back to get short term patronage jobs supposedly stimulating economci growth. I think that is a failed policy and been proved to fail no matter where its been used.

Since when does spending money one does not have and saddling future generations with run away inflation from the interest rates that escalate and become uncontrollable a way to build a stable nation?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Smallc]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

We have a shortage of people in various parts of the country due to the incompetence of our governmental officials in restricting the number of doctors through various means, or permitting them to be restricted. This is not related to the size of the country.

The situation is far worse in smaller centres, because people don't want to live there.

[Argus]

3 minutes ago, Smallc said:

The situation is far worse in smaller centres, because people don't want to live there.

It would be fairly easy to offer up economic incentives to see to it that they did, especially given the cost of medical degrees.

[Smallc]

Just now, Argus said:

It would be fairly easy to offer up economic incentives to see to it that they did, especially given the cost of medical degrees.

Hence my point that it increases cost.

[Argus]

1 minute ago, Smallc said:

Hence my point that it increases cost.

Do you think these problems don't exist in countries like Germany too? Who wants to practice in some small farming area when you could be in the bright lights of Berlin or Bonn?

[Smallc]

There are a lot more small farming areas here.  Why do you feel you need to deny the reality of our geography?

[Argus]

26 minutes ago, Smallc said:

There are a lot more small farming areas here.  Why do you feel you need to deny the reality of our geography?

Why do you feel the need to pretend that the problems of small Canadian towns are any different than small German or French towns?

82% of Canadians are urban wheras only 80% of French and 75% of Germans are.

[Smallc]

How many fly in communities are there in Germany?  How many 1200km ambulance trips in the same province?

[Argus]

Just now, Smallc said:

How many fly in communities are there in Germany?  How many 1200km ambulance trips in the same province?

I don't know, but anything more than a rare 1200km ambulance trip is likely due to incompetence on the part of the government.

[Smallc]

Sometimes it's the only or most efficient way to do things.  A flight isn't any less expensive.

[?Impact]

6 minutes ago, Argus said:

Do you think these problems don't exist in countries like Germany too? Who wants to practice in some small farming area when you could be in the bright lights of Berlin or Bonn?

While that is certainly true to an extent, Canada is quite unique in the world of having very high focus on large urbanization. Perhaps it has more to do with population density, but I have seen far more developed rural communities in Europe and even the US compared to Canada. We tend to concentrate industry in major centers, and there does not seem to be any effort to reverse that trend. It was not always so in Canada, follow any of the old waterways like the Rideau canal and see how many once thriving communities have dwindled away. Renfrew Ontario used to be a major concern, it even had a hockey team in the National Hockey Association (precursor to the NHL that included the Montreal Canadiens and Toronto Blueshirts which became the Leafs.) but you hear little about Renfrew today. In Europe these small communities are thriving, but here they are dying.

I believe that mass transit has a lot to do with it. At one time that meant waterways, and then rail, and now it is either planes or bus/subway in large metropolitan areas. Europe and the US managed to maintain rail transit in more rural areas, but we quickly divested and that caused these communities to stagnate. Health care professionals see these communities as dying out and that is why they don't want to be caught there. In Europe, there are still many smaller communities that host world renowned medical research where here it is concentrated in the few major urban areas. Even those doctors that just focus on patient care want to be involved in a growing are and not just preside over the demise where a larger and larger percentage of their patients are retired; nothing wrong with that by itself, but they want a wider cross section.

[eyeball]

12 hours ago, Argus said:

user fees help discourage that small group of hypochondriacs responsible for a vastly disproportionate share of expenses.

Would somebody please ask Argus for a study or cite to back up this assertion that a: small group of hypochondriacs responsible for a vastly disproportionate share of expenses.  Exactly how few hypochondriacs, where they live, how vastly disproportionate etc.

Thanks and sorry but Argus appears to be frightened of speaking to me directly me so the only way to communicate with him is by third party.

Edited December 21, 2016 by eyeball

[Omni]

6 hours ago, Argus said:

Why do you feel the need to pretend that the problems of small Canadian towns are any different than small German or French towns?

82% of Canadians are urban wheras only 80% of French and 75% of Germans are.

Do you not have any comprehension of how big the geography of Canada is, how relatively small the population is, and how spread out they are? Jesus Christ man pick up an atlas.

 

[Bryan]

2 hours ago, Omni said:

Do you not have any comprehension of how big the geography of Canada is, how relatively small the population is, and how spread out they are? Jesus Christ man pick up an atlas.

Indeed. Germany is more than double the population of Canada, yet in terms of area it is smaller than Newfoundland. It is population density on an entirely different scale.

[TimG]

8 hours ago, Omni said:

Do you not have any comprehension of how big the geography of Canada is, how relatively small the population is, and how spread out they are? Jesus Christ man pick up an atlas.

80% of Canadians live in urban centers close to the US border. The cost of delivering services to the remaining 20% is not likely to be a major factor. If you wish to claim it is a major factor please provide some numbers to back it up.

[Omni]

1 hour ago, TimG said:

80% of Canadians live in urban centers close to the US border. The cost of delivering services to the remaining 20% is not likely to be a major factor. If you wish to claim it is a major factor please provide some numbers to back it up.

Take a look at what Bryan just posted. We have about one half the population of Germany spread over more than 25 times the area. Proximity to the US border has little to do with anything.

[Argus]

9 hours ago, Omni said:

Do you not have any comprehension of how big the geography of Canada is, how relatively small the population is, and how spread out they are? Jesus Christ man pick up an atlas.

Canada is a vast empty land, but the great majority of the people live in a narrow strip of territory about 100 miles wide along the US border with Ontario and Quebec, and another strip of land along the US border between BC and Winnipeg. So in that sense it's not that big.