Heath Care too expensive?

[bush_cheney2004]

9 minutes ago, Machjo said:

.... If a politician insists on comparing Canada to the US, the other could challenge his US-centric views. Politically, this might wake the public up to realizing just how US-centric we really are in our health-care system in that it seems more like an irrational reaction to the US one than an actual attempt to create a better system.

 

He/she would do so at great political peril, so ingrained are the rote comparisons to only the United States. 

The evils of "American style" health care have been pounded into the heads of politicians and their constituents for decades.

[Zeitgeist]

I agree that we should look more closely at countries like France for our health care, as they actually spend less of their GDP on it than we do for better outcomes.  I would say though that once any real health concerns are flagged in triage (not common colds/flus or superficial boo-boo injuries), the wait times decrease.  You are ranked according to need/type of problem.  The waits are long for small concerns, which is why these should go to the family doctor or walk-in clinic instead of hospitals.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Machjo said:

Agreed. Perhaps it takes a politician who could galvanize voters by pointing out how Morocco's system surpasses Canada's, how Canada's sits thirtieth on the scale, and how all of the superior systems are more open mixed systems and how Canada's more closely resembles the US system than it does the others.

The problem is the solution has to come from the Conservatives. It is never going to come from the Left. They are committed to the idea of health care as a service, and disdain the profit motive. Which do you think would infuriate the Liberal or NDP caucus faster, suggesting the introduction of private, for-profit health care, or suggesting we ban abortions and Muslims? I'm betting the health care suggestion would infuriate them faster. And that's saying something, since you're not even allowed to be IN those caucuses if you don't love abortions and Muslims with all your heart.

But the first bold idea Scheer has will be the first he's ever had, and it will likely die of loneliness. He is not a guy who is going to try anything big. He'll consult the polls, and make various policy proposals for small, targeted ideas aimed at this or that electoral group. He's not a big idea guy and not a risk taker.

Remember that pathetic fool Stockwell Day, forced to  hold up a little sign at the leadership debate promising no private health care? The Tories will not come out with anything the media will hammer them on, and any suggestion of private health care support will cause the mainstream media to go apeshit. They're all socialists and they hate the profit motive as much as the NDP caucus does.

And in the minds of the dullard voters, private for profit health care = American style. And nobody sane wants to move towards their bloated, inefficient, expensive, heartless mess of a system.

 

 

Edited October 14, 2018 by Argus

[Zeitgeist]

I feel like you’re holding back. 

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, Argus said:

1. No politician, fringe or otherwise, has said refugees are ruining Canada. We don't allow fringe politicians in Canada anyway.

 2. I honestly think that the Tories could rouse the public and win the next election by proposing massive changes to our health care system to emulate the best of Europe, but that would require at least a middling degree of bravery, and that's not something we've seen from them since Mulroney.

1. How about Faith Goldy ?

2. It would require vision, and competence.  The time is here to get political leaders from business again.  It shouldn't be verboten to do this.  Most of what government means to Canadians is services and we need to have better services at a better price.  And I'm convinced any one of the big three parties could work it into their platform if they got such a person.

[Hal 9000]

Would any of you give up universal health care if we got rid of GST and gas was reduced by half?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Would any of you give up universal health care if we got rid of GST and gas was reduced by half?

Certainly not. 

I bet there are a lot of Americans who would love to pay more for gas and also pay a shopping tax if that was all they had to do in order to be covered.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Would any of you give up universal health care if we got rid of GST and gas was reduced by half?

American health care costs are estimated at $25K annually. Do you spend $500 a week on GST and gas ?

[Hal 9000]

Really, they pay $2000+ per month for health care, really?  WoW!

[August1991]

16 hours ago, Carbon882 said:

Free Health care is currently benefiting me and some members pretty well. It does have its downsides and people use that (Including Trump) to bash on it. FreeHealth care happens to have very slow and congested service and people talk about how they waited months for it while they could have just payed for it and got it done right away.

The problem I have with Privatised heathcare is that f you can't afford it you are pretty much dead.

 I think we should either mix our Healthcare system or cut it and increase social welfare funding. I believe welfare is more cost effective at getting people what they need rather than running a whole heathcare service.

 

Imagine Free Health care, across the world: 7 billion people.

I reckon that your "Free Health care" idea only works with a "Nation State".

[bush_cheney2004]

52 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Really, they pay $2000+ per month for health care, really?  WoW!

 

No...not really....about half that, much of it provided as a non-taxable employment benefit.

[GostHacked]

On 10/14/2018 at 7:35 AM, Carbon882 said:

Free Health care is currently benefiting me and some members pretty well. It does have its downsides and people use that (Including Trump) to bash on it. FreeHealth care happens to have very slow and congested service and people talk about how they waited months for it while they could have just payed for it and got it done right away.

The problem I have with Privatised heathcare is that f you can't afford it you are pretty much dead.

 I think we should either mix our Healthcare system or cut it and increase social welfare funding. I believe welfare is more cost effective at getting people what they need rather than running a whole heathcare service.

 

Our health care system is not free. We pay for it via taxes. I wish that this notion of 'free health care' would die.

[Machjo]

19 hours ago, Argus said:

The problem is the solution has to come from the Conservatives. It is never going to come from the Left. They are committed to the idea of health care as a service, and disdain the profit motive. Which do you think would infuriate the Liberal or NDP caucus faster, suggesting the introduction of private, for-profit health care, or suggesting we ban abortions and Muslims? I'm betting the health care suggestion would infuriate them faster. And that's saying something, since you're not even allowed to be IN those caucuses if you don't love abortions and Muslims with all your heart.

But the first bold idea Scheer has will be the first he's ever had, and it will likely die of loneliness. He is not a guy who is going to try anything big. He'll consult the polls, and make various policy proposals for small, targeted ideas aimed at this or that electoral group. He's not a big idea guy and not a risk taker.

Remember that pathetic fool Stockwell Day, forced to  hold up a little sign at the leadership debate promising no private health care? The Tories will not come out with anything the media will hammer them on, and any suggestion of private health care support will cause the mainstream media to go apeshit. They're all socialists and they hate the profit motive as much as the NDP caucus does.

And in the minds of the dullard voters, private for profit health care = American style. And nobody sane wants to move towards their bloated, inefficient, expensive, heartless mess of a system.

 

 

I'm not too sure about that. The NDP was a champion of official bilingualism until one of its MPs, Romeo Saganash, decided to break rank and point out some of the problems associated with it. Now Jagmeet Singh still doesn't seem to know where to stand on the matter. Sometimes it's just a matter of pointing out some facts. A member of any party can do that. With his own party now divided on the matter, I'm curious to see how Jagmeet Singh will handle this come next election.

 

In some respects, Bernier is to the Conservative Party what Saganash is to the NDP: a challenger from within of the party's established dogma.

Edited October 15, 2018 by Machjo

[Argus]

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. How about Faith Goldy ?

A third rate internet media performer with zero chance of being elected to anything.

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. It would require vision, and competence.  

Like I said, not going to happen.

[turningrite]

On 10/14/2018 at 12:37 PM, Argus said:

No politician, fringe or otherwise, has said refugees are ruining Canada. We don't allow fringe politicians in Canada anyway. You have to be a duly registered and accepted member of one of the few political parties. And once ensconced there you may not speak your opinion, but may only regurgitate the party's positions. And the parties are not interested in health care in large measure because no one is forcing them to be interested. I think this is largely a case where the public has given up, reconciling themselves to the fact nothing is going to be done anyway.

I honestly think that the Tories could rouse the public and win the next election by proposing massive changes to our health care system to emulate the best of Europe, but that would require at least a middling degree of bravery, and that's not something we've seen from them since Mulroney.

Here in Ontario, each year we're adding tens of thousands of new users, many of whom have never paid taxes in this country, to an already overburdened system. This is simply not sustainable. Which party has the guts to address the actual roots of this problem, including large-scale immigration? Among the traditional mainstream parties, which form a cartel of sorts, I don't see any hope for reform. If Bernier's party can open up this debate, I believe Canadians will be well-served. Otherwise, we're doomed to putting up with an increasingly inadequate and dysfunctional health care system. 

[turningrite]

14 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

Would any of you give up universal health care if we got rid of GST and gas was reduced by half?

More realistically, we need to move to a system where the extent of eligibility is based on formula calibrated on length of residency and contributions to the system. Those who've already paid taxes for years should be credited with "deemed" contributions and going forward all adults over the age of 20 should have to contribute. Otherwise, "universal" coverage should be afforded only to those 20 years of age and younger.

[turningrite]

On 10/14/2018 at 9:24 AM, cannuck said:

All of the other former G7 countries EXCEPT the US have fully socialized medical insurance,  but no restriction on who (public or private) can deliver services.   We already have a "mixed" system, except the problem is that legislation gives government monopolies on service delivery.   STUPID, IMHO.  I should be able to take what is covered by our government's sick care insurance and get it payment to ANYONE who is qualified to deliver.  Similarly, I should be able to elect to cue jump by just paying whoever is willing to deliver that service in MY timeframe and at my expense.

The model Canada has developed is one of the worst in the developed West. Until we admit this and start to make necessary changes, the system will not improve.

[Machjo]

18 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Here in Ontario, each year we're adding tens of thousands of new users, many of whom have never paid taxes in this country, to an already overburdened system. This is simply not sustainable. Which party has the guts to address the actual roots of this problem, including large-scale immigration? Among the traditional mainstream parties, which form a cartel of sorts, I don't see any hope for reform. If Bernier's party can open up this debate, I believe Canadians will be well-served. Otherwise, we're doomed to putting up with an increasingly inadequate and dysfunctional health care system. 

I don't think the problem is with immigration but rather with easy access to social assistance. If an immigrant had get his own private health care, had no access to social assistance (other than a one-way ticket home), etc., then I don't see how immigration would then be a problem.

[turningrite]

11 minutes ago, Machjo said:

I don't think the problem is with immigration but rather with easy access to social assistance. If an immigrant had get his own private health care, had no access to social assistance (other than a one-way ticket home), etc., then I don't see how immigration would then be a problem.

You are probably correct in this. But one can't disconnect the current large-scale immigration program from access to social benefits as the right to such for immigrants has been won in the courts. Thus, to effectively reform the system we'll have to transform the system for everybody, and attach benefits eligibility, including for health care, to a contributory formula. Discrimination can't be argued to apply where everybody is subjected to the same criteria. Otherwise, effective reform will require the application of the notwithstanding clause, which can easily be withdrawn by a subsequent government.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Machjo said:

I don't think the problem is with immigration but rather with easy access to social assistance. If an immigrant had get his own private health care, had no access to social assistance (other than a one-way ticket home), etc., then I don't see how immigration would then be a problem.

An immigrant or refugee who comes to Canada with a non working wife and 3 kids will get $1,975 a month from the government, tax free. Just to start. If he worked and managed to make, say $30,000 - about minimum wage, he would pay no income taxes on that money. So he would have a net income of about $52,000 a year. Plus of course, free health care.

Why in the hell would anyone from the third world NOT want to come here, even without welfare?!

Edited October 15, 2018 by Argus

[Machjo]

29 minutes ago, Argus said:

An immigrant or refugee who comes to Canada with a non working wife and 3 kids will get $1,975 a month from the government, tax free. Just to start. If he worked and managed to make, say $30,000 - about minimum wage, he would pay no income taxes on that money. So he would have a net income of about $52,000 a year. Plus of course, free health care.

Why in the hell would anyone from the third world NOT want to come here, even without welfare?!

Bear in mind that life is more expensive here too, which is why some people return to their home country. For example, I used to work in Montreal and later Toronto. Though I earned less in Montreal than in Toronto, my pay after expenses was higher in Montreal just because of the lower overall cost of living. In other words, moving to Toronto was a mistake. At least that's how it was at the time. I imagine that at least some immigrants likewise soon discover that they need to consider not only how much they can earn in Canada compared to abroad, but also how much they'll spend here compared to there too.

 

That said, I agree that genuine refugees aside, we need to cut all access to social services. We also need to make taxes more user-pay, such as a carbon tax to ensure everyone pays for the roads they use. permanent residency should be more difficult to obtain, but working in Canada visa-free should be easier, but they shouldn't get any GST, carbon, or any other credit from the government. In other words, they must support themselves and be self-sufficient.

 

That's one thing I like about Hong Kong's and Singapore's immigration systems: it's easy to immigrate there but it's not easy to receive social assistance there. It's like saying let the market take care of it.

Edited October 15, 2018 by Machjo

[Michael Hardner]

19 hours ago, August1991 said:

Imagine Free Health care, across the world: 7 billion people.

I reckon that your "Free Health care" idea only works with a "Nation State".

You seem to think health is a zero sum game.

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, turningrite said:

More realistically, we need to move to a system where the extent of eligibility is based on formula calibrated on length of residency and contributions to the system.  

This is the natural end game of libertarianism: large players control the 'free' market, lower wages to nothing... squeeze out the poor who can't pay for anything, and eventually sell themselves willingly and freely into slavery.

I used to play monopoly with my sister that way, but she had the choice to quit the game.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

 Why in the hell would anyone from the third world NOT want to come here, even without welfare?!

The thing is - in the 1970s and 1980s when people were arguing for higher wages conservatives pushed back.  Why are you people switching teams now ?

[Guest]

I've always been in favour of higher wages.  It's one of the reasons I was happy to get out from working under the yoke of a union.  They kept my pay down for years.