Healthcare talks

[Omni]

1 minute ago, Bryan said:

They only know if the service they are getting is up to their expectations. If they have ever received privately delivered care, then they certainly would see a stark difference in efficiency.

As an example, one of my favourite sports medicine clinics* used to be privately owned and run, but it was bought out by the province and is now entirely public. Two things were apparent to the user: 1) Substantially more money was being spent (renovations, expansions, new furniture, more staff, etc) and 2) The efficiency and quality of the service provided dropped off a cliff.

* when you and your kids all play and coach contact sports, you tend to see sports medicine specialists regularly enough to be able to see the difference in the facilities.

But people won't go belly up using it.

[Bryan]

2 minutes ago, Omni said:

But people won't go belly up using it.

No one went belly up when the clinic was privately run either. They just got better health care.

[Omni]

3 minutes ago, Bryan said:

No one went belly up when the clinic was privately run either. They just got better health care.

Just look south of the border and see how often they do..

[Bryan]

Just now, Omni said:

Just look south of the border and see how often they do..

We aren't south of the border. 

[Omni]

3 minutes ago, Bryan said:

We aren't south of the border. 

Correct, and therefore we have socialized health care to depend on.

[Bryan]

3 minutes ago, Omni said:

Correct, and therefore we have socialized health care to depend on.

The post you responded to was my account of the difference between private and  public delivery in Canada. 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Bryan said:

The post you responded to was my account of the difference between private and  public delivery in Canada. 

 

Yes...ultimately it comes down to level of funding either way as you pointed out.   Money doesn't know the difference.

[Bryan]

10 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Yes...ultimately it comes down to level of funding either way as you pointed out.   Money doesn't know the difference.

It's almost the opposite in this case though. The massive increase in government funding has been accompanied by reduced efficiency and hindered access to care.

[poochy]

4 hours ago, Bryan said:

The post you responded to was my account of the difference between private and  public delivery in Canada. 

That, new member.., never actually answers a question that was asked, they invent another argument for you, then answer it,..never seen that before.

[Omni]

4 hours ago, Bryan said:

It's almost the opposite in this case though. The massive increase in government funding has been accompanied by reduced efficiency and hindered access to care.

What massive increase?

[cybercoma]

The 6% provincial increases were never meant to be a permanent solution and that's according to Paul Martin himself. That accord was always meant to be renegotiated. Now, I question the wisdom of reducing funding increases to healthcare when we have an aging population that's ramping up healthcare usage. However, it's not a cut; it's a smaller "raise" than the provinces were expecting and perhaps smaller than what they need for an adequate standard of care. The federal government is still increasing funding.

[Omni]

6 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

The 6% provincial increases were never meant to be a permanent solution and that's according to Paul Martin himself. That accord was always meant to be renegotiated. Now, I question the wisdom of reducing funding increases to healthcare when we have an aging population that's ramping up healthcare usage. However, it's not a cut; it's a smaller "raise" than the provinces were expecting and perhaps smaller than what they need for an adequate standard of care. The federal government is still increasing funding.

That's right and why Martin put it in place with a 10 year mandate, which of course Harper increased. But yes less federal money in a generally aging population will erode the service. Hopefully the provinces can find some ways to improve efficiency to get more bang out of the reduced bucks.

[Argus]

19 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Then  create more "public" operating rooms and staff

Why? According to the cite there are operating rooms all across the country which are dark and quiet much of the time because of a lack of funding.

[Argus]

17 hours ago, Omni said:

Correct, and therefore we have socialized health care to depend on.

So does Sweden. So does Germany. They still have private health care.

[Argus]

10 hours ago, Omni said:

That's right and why Martin put it in place with a 10 year mandate,

And said health care was fixed for a generation...

[Argus]

One thing nobody has mentioned, perhaps because they didn't read the cite, is the possibility of actually bringing in new money into the system with private clinics.

Also, if additional operating rooms were opened and run on a 24/7 basis, then a major source of potential revenue would open up – namely performing elective surgery on American and other foreign patients.

The cost of a knee replacement ranges up to $69,600 US in New York City and a hip replacement up to $74,000 US in Boston. Meanwhile, the private Montreal orthopedic clinic charges between $18,000 and $19,000 for each procedure.

With a rapidly rising demand for joint replacements, new Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price – an Atlanta orthopedic surgeon – will be looking for cost-cutting measures for medicare patients, as will private U.S. insurance companies. With a 75-cent Canadian dollar, a brief stay in a Canadian hospital for elective surgery would be particularly attractive

[Bryan]

13 hours ago, Omni said:

What massive increase?

Overall, twice as much money is being put in to healthcare as there was a decade ago, and the clinic I was specifically referring to has made a public show of regular announcements of all the money they are spending. 

[Bryan]

19 minutes ago, Argus said:

One thing nobody has mentioned, perhaps because they didn't read the cite, is the possibility of actually bringing in new money into the system with private clinics.

More money, and more help for the public system. Look at the two-for-one deal Saskatchewan has for private MRIs. Sell all the cash-only MRIs you want, but for each one you do, you have to provide a slot for the public system to use at no charge. More people get what they need, and it costs them less.