Guessing game

[The Terrible Sweal]

What's the difference between a Regular Canadian and a Rich Canadian? The Regular Canadian wants more health care, the Rich Canadian wants more health care -- than you.

[takeanumber]

LMAO.

It's SOOO TRUE.

That's exactly IT.

[Argus]

LMAO.

It's SOOO TRUE.

That's exactly IT.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rich Canadians already have more health care than ordinary Canadians. The thing you people on the left seem incapable of understanding is that the public health care system is neither of any use nor an impediment to them getting instant treatment for any imagined illness. They always have, still do, and always will get better treatment here than ordinary Canadians.

That is why the likes of Chretien, Martin - or Stronach, don't care if the public health care system rots away. They and their families and friends are all rich enough to not care.

It's almost like there are masses of idiotic little people out there envious of the better lives the rich lead, and determined to somehow teach them a lesson by denying them better health care treatment. I can see them now, waiting ten hours in line to see a doctor, but grimly satisfied that however miserable the system is, it forces rich people have to wait the same ten hours.

Except, of course, they don't. Never have. Never will.

[takeanumber]

So long as both the rich person and the poor person gets to meet the same quality of doctor at the end of the line.

Moreover, equalizing the system gives the rich incentive to fix it. As it is now, many of them whining to get out of it.

You raise an important dimension, but you're missing one other dimension.

[daniel]

...That is why the likes of Chretien, Martin - or Stronach, don't care if the public health care system rots away. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And you think Harper cares more?

[RightWinger]

LMAO.

It's SOOO TRUE.

That's exactly IT.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rich Canadians already have more health care than ordinary Canadians. The thing you people on the left seem incapable of understanding is that the public health care system is neither of any use nor an impediment to them getting instant treatment for any imagined illness. They always have, still do, and always will get better treatment here than ordinary Canadians.

That is why the likes of Chretien, Martin - or Stronach, don't care if the public health care system rots away. They and their families and friends are all rich enough to not care.

It's almost like there are masses of idiotic little people out there envious of the better lives the rich lead, and determined to somehow teach them a lesson by denying them better health care treatment. I can see them now, waiting ten hours in line to see a doctor, but grimly satisfied that however miserable the system is, it forces rich people have to wait the same ten hours.

Except, of course, they don't. Never have. Never will.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here here!!

Argus, I highly doubt that Jack Layton has waited in line for healthcare either, even as strong an advocate he is for more!

In fact, not too many politicians have to wait in line for healthcare.

Our healthcare system is in the shitter for sure and although they all talk about it, none of them have to deal with it.

Here in Alberta we have the highest paid nurses in Canada and we still have shitty service and long lines. I think that is why the two tier system was talked about. I know many will say it serves only the rich, but what it does it shortens the lines for everyone. I am not defending a two tier system, but our healthcare system needs revamping bigtime!

As much money as Albertan hospital workers make, we still have very poor service and they want you to complain, because everytime you do, they get a raise. It is true corruption and will never get better unless something is done to our unions!

My wife was hospitalized last year for what turned out to be a ruptured appendix while 3 months pregnant. For two weeks, I had to try to maintain a job and care for her in the hospital. She could not walk herself to the bathroom and not one nurse would lift a hand to help. I helped with everything and I definitely was not getting paid by the nurses union $40+ an hour!! I was so pissed off at the treatment that our tax dollars are supposed to provide and she was left to suffer. I have no respect for the nurses union after that experience and that is why I want a change in government or at least a change in our healthcare. I will operate on myself or go to the states for treatment, but these fucks in Canadian hospitals will never have to worry about me in their waiting line.

Pure corruption!!!

RW

[Argus]

...That is why the likes of Chretien, Martin - or Stronach, don't care if the public health care system rots away. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And you think Harper cares more?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unlike Chretien, Martin and Stronach, Harper is not a multi millionaire nor is his family well-off.

[Melanie_]

Rightwinger, I hope your wife recovered and she and the baby are well. Its too bad that she had such a bad experience with nurses; after I had an unpleasant stay in the hospital myself last year I came to the conclusion that it is all about the nurse's attitude. However, whether the system is public or private the actual practitioners won't change, and the union will be a part of either system. Everyone deserves to be treated with compassion and respect when they are ill, regardless of their ability to pay; that is what our tax dollars should be ensuring.

[Argus]

So long as both the rich person and the poor person gets to meet the same quality of doctor at the end of the line.

Don't be absurd. Poor people get whoever they can, often some guy barely out of medical school working extra hours in a clinic. The rich get the top of the line experienced people with the highest skill levels.

Moreover, equalizing the system gives the rich incentive to fix it.

What incentive? They already go to the head of the line, or simply skip the line and go to the US for instant service.

Let me give you an example. My uncle is not rich, but he is reasonably well-off, and after a lifetime of experience in the higher ranks (not the highest ranks) of the civil service, he knows a lot of people. He's nothing like the rich, the Stronachs or Martins or Blacks or such, but he does know some people. A couple of years ago he had to have an operation. He was told he'd have to wait a year. That didn't happen. He got on the phone and started making calls, bitching, demanding better service. He wound up getting his operation in five weeks.

Now when someone like Martin or Stronach - or Desmarais or Thompson or Weston or Asper - wants an operation, their lawyer or personal assistant makes a few phone calls and that's it. They walk into the hospital a couple of days later and it's done. Anyone who doesn't recognize that is an utter fool. Anyone who thinks they're going to be sitting in an ER waiting room for hours on end next to the likes of Martin or Stronach or Irving or Rogers is out of their freaking mind.

[takeanumber]

It's wrong that some politicians use their influence to get better service.

Totally horrible.

IT's equally horrible that some well-connected people do the same thing.

Totally horrible.

However, to argue that this horrible practice should be institutionalized instead of fought is just bad public policy.

[RightWinger]

Rightwinger, I hope your wife recovered and she and the baby are well. Its too bad that she had such a bad experience with nurses; after I had an unpleasant stay in the hospital myself last year I came to the conclusion that it is all about the nurse's attitude. However, whether the system is public or private the actual practitioners won't change, and the union will be a part of either system. Everyone deserves to be treated with compassion and respect when they are ill, regardless of their ability to pay; that is what our tax dollars should be ensuring.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed Melanie.

And yes my wife & daughter are doing great! We did have one hell of a good doctor and support crew in the L&D.

That doctor retired from his practice, which is too bad.

It just saddens me to see how poorly something can run even after they win their arbitration. I have no faith in the current system. It was truly pityful while she was in the hospital, I literally did everything for her except give her meds and insert the IV's, which I wish I could have because the of newbie nurses they sent us to put in the IV's. It makes me sick.

[Riverwind]

So long as both the rich person and the poor person gets to meet the same quality of doctor at the end of the line.

Don't be absurd. Poor people get whoever they can, often some guy barely out of medical school working extra hours in a clinic. The rich get the top of the line experienced people with the highest skill levels.

I have agree with Argus. The 'single' tier system in Canada is a useless myth that makes it impossible to introduce any meaningful reforms. Every other industrialized country with a publically funded health care system allows people who have money to pay for service. The way these countries ensure that the rich are 'engaged' in the health care system is to make basic coverage universal and mandatory. This has the effect of reducing the insurance costs of the rich even if they have to pay for additional coverage.

The argument that doctors would leave the public system for private pratice is also make no sense because doctors that are so inclined move the US today. If anything allowing people to pay for services privately would bring some of these doctors back home.

[August1991]

Something I have become aware of recently is the number of people in large cities, often immigrants, who have no family doctor at all. Most clinics in Montreal now refuse new patients. People are forced to go to hospital emergency rooms for what would normally be a visit to a GP. Here in Quebec, there are CLSC - community clinics which sort of take up the slack. These clinics require long waits and people see the doctor on duty.

Finding a doctor has become a very real problem for a great number of our friends and neighbours. Today, one million Ontarians are without access to timely and necessary physician services. That means roughly one in ten of us don't have a doctor to count on for necessary medical care.

Some doctor speech

In Barrie, Ontario according to Gary there are approximately 20,000 people without a family doctor. There are approximately 103,715 people residing in the City of Barrie, so approximately one-fifth of the people that live here have no access to a family doctor.

Some website

"We need more doctors," Patel told reporters Tuesday, noting that the most acute shortage is among general practitioners, leaving an estimated four million Canadians without a family doctor of their own.

CP

[Argus]

It's wrong that some politicians use their influence to get better service.

Totally horrible.

IT's equally horrible that some well-connected people do the same thing.

Totally horrible.

However, to argue that this horrible practice should be institutionalized instead of fought is just bad public policy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do you find this horrible? Do you find it horrible that rich people have bigger and better houses than others? Better food? Better transportation? Better clothes? Nicer summer homes? Bigger and better electronics and consumer goods?

That's life. Deal with it. It wasn't any different in the Soviet Union.

There seem to be masses of people out there who are determined to stick to our present failing system, no matter what, out of some kind of bizarre sense of envy and resentment towards the rich - as if our system is all designed to put those rich bastards in their place somehow. Well it doesn't work. It never worked. It will never work. You're cutting off your nose to spite your face. The rich don't care if you keep this screwed up system because they are above it. The only people being hurt are the rest of us.

A change in the system to allow for more private funding of health care is not going to make the rich heave a great sigh of relief that they no longer have to wait two years for a hip operation, okay? They are indifferent to the waits because they aren't affected by them. So this wierd sense of vengeance agaisnt the rich is pointless and self defeating. Let's change the system and hope we can make it better.

Or, like Paul Martin, do you believe health care is "fixed for a generation"?

[Guest eureka]

So now it is the nurses who are to be vilified. The overworked, overstressed nurses. God some of you so called "Right Wingers" are pathetic.

What we do need is more doctors and more nurses but you who defend the rich are the problem since it is you who cry that you are overtaxed.

I think it is your sense of fairness that is overtaxed since it was miniscule to begin with.

Canada,s healthcare system is not "falling apart" It does need a swing back from the "Right" in public awareness and public policy.

What we do see, in Hugo's terms I would think, is the "market" at work. Unfortunately, the self-regulating "market" is a myth as it always has been. Without regulation it will always suffer distortions that do not favour the weaker.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Why do you find this horrible?

It may be hard for tories to grasp this, but many people think allowing someone to suffer or die simply because they don't have a lot of money is not fair or desireable.

Do you find it horrible that rich people have bigger and better houses than others?

Maybe not horrible, but certainly objectionable if the rich person has done nothing to merit the benefits.

There seem to be masses of people out there who are determined to stick to our present failing system, no matter what, out of some kind of bizarre sense of envy and resentment towards the rich -

Doesn't it seem about 100% more likely that they think that way out of a desire to ensure care for themselves and loved ones? Why must you impute 'envy' were sensible self-interest is a sufficient explanation?

[Melanie_]

Eureka - I have no intention of vilifying all nurses. I know many nurses, and they work hard to provide good care. I am simply stating that the quality of the patient's care has a great deal to do with the nurses' attitudes. I saw a doctor twice in a five day hospital stay, but the nurses were there the whole time. When a nurse is having a bad shift, or is burnt out, it is obvious to the people s/he is caring for. I agree that they are overworked, and we need more nurses. However, those that are there also need to recognize the impact they have on their patients; surgery is unpleasant enough without being made to feel like a burden to the people caring for you.

[kimmy]

I have agree with Argus. The 'single' tier system in Canada is a useless myth that makes it impossible to introduce any meaningful reforms. Every other industrialized country with a publically funded health care system allows people who have money to pay for service. The way these countries ensure that the rich are 'engaged' in the health care system is to make basic coverage universal and mandatory. This has the effect of reducing the insurance costs of the rich even if they have to pay for additional coverage.

The argument that doctors would leave the public system for private pratice is also make no sense because doctors that are so inclined move the US today. If anything allowing people to pay for services privately would bring some of these doctors back home.

Thanks so much, Sparhawk. It's nice to see a Liberal supporter who's willing to look beyond the partisan bickering to take a broader look at the issue.

A lot of the discussion in this thread reminds me of the 2000 election, when Chretien, Clark, and McDonough were blasting at Day over 2-tier health... it came out in the press that Clark and McDonough had both sent relatives for expensive (but prompt!) treatment in the US, while Chretien had jumped weeks of waiting-lists by receiving next-day treatment at a Canadian Forces hospital.

It may be hard for tories to grasp this, but many people think allowing someone to suffer or die simply because they don't have a lot of money is not fair or desireable.

I don't think anybody intends to collapse the public healthcare system. Your phrasing it in such terms is just cheap melodramatics.

Something I have become aware of recently is the number of people in large cities, often immigrants, who have no family doctor at all. Most clinics in Montreal now refuse new patients. People are forced to go to hospital emergency rooms for what would normally be a visit to a GP. Here in Quebec, there are CLSC - community clinics which sort of take up the slack. These clinics require long waits and people see the doctor on duty.

I can vouch for this from personal experience. When my family returned from Ottawa, there were few physicians taking new patients. My options were either a doctor in the far north end of Edmonton, or one in Leduc. Leduc is closer... so if I want to visit my doctor, I go for a 45 minute bike ride down Highway 2.

-k

[Guest eureka]

Canada has as much private care now as many countries. I once posted some figures for the percentages of health costs that were public and private in Canada and several European countries. They range between 70/90% and Canada is at the lower end of public expenditure.

The difference is simply in what areas are covered by the treasury.

Most countries have the same or similar problems as Canada. he USA has worse since it is just about the lowest ranked health system in the advanced world - 37th. It just, as Sweal brings to the case - and rightly so - a matter of who is left to die.

Whether anyone wants to collapse the publis system is a good question. I have repeatedly referred to the Reform Party Caucus statement of 1988, written by Harper, in which he proposes something quite close to that. He may have softened his rhetoric since appearing on the federal scheme but I am willing to bet that he has not changed his views.

That is his hidden agenda though it is not hidden from any who wants to see.

[Riverwind]

Canada has as much private care now as many countries. I once posted some figures for the percentages of health costs that were public and private in Canada and several European countries. They range between 70/90% and Canada is at the lower end of public expenditure.

Yes, but other countries cover a much broader range of services - like dental care. They also allow citizens to pay for services privately if they want to. Preventing people from paying for their own care is the rediculous part of the Canadian system that has to go.

[Guest eureka]

Why is it ridiculous and why does it have to go? I happen to think that the preservation of life and care for health are rights that are held equally by all and that they are absolute.

I can see possible exception for things like sports injuries but nothing much else comes to mind.

[Riverwind]

Why is it ridiculous and why does it have to go?  I happen to think that the preservation of life and care for health are rights that are held equally by all and that they are absolute.

I can see possible exception for things like sports injuries but nothing much else comes to mind.

The gov't cannot fund the system to ensure that any possible surgery can be done in a reasonable period of time. Preventing people from paying for their own care sooner makes many people suffer.

For example, a carpenter who hurts his knee on the job is covered by workers compensation. Workers compensation is allowed to pay for his surgury in a private clinic because it is cheaper than paying benefits for 2 years while he is on the waiting list.

That same carpenter hurts his knee in his house has to wait two years and goes bankrupt in the meantime because he can't work. Or he could go to the US and pay $50K for an operation that would only cost $20K in Canada - if he was allowed.

I cannot understand why anyone thinks the ban on private health care is fair.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Why is it ridiculous and why does it have to go?  I happen to think that the preservation of life and care for health are rights that are held equally by all and that they are absolute.

I can see possible exception for things like sports injuries but nothing much else comes to mind.

The gov't cannot fund the system to ensure that any possible surgery can be done in a reasonable period of time. Preventing people from paying for their own care sooner makes many people suffer.

For example, a carpenter who hurts his knee on the job is covered by workers compensation. Workers compensation is allowed to pay for his surgury in a private clinic because it is cheaper than paying benefits for 2 years while he is on the waiting list.

That same carpenter hurts his knee in his house has to wait two years and goes bankrupt in the meantime because he can't work. Or he could go to the US and pay $50K for an operation that would only cost $20K in Canada - if he was allowed.

I cannot understand why anyone thinks the ban on private health care is fair.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Fair", eh? Now there is a loaded word. Is it fair that Michael Jackson can pay to have his face ruined with equipment that could be saving a life?

There are a couple of important points to remember in this analysis. If you consider 'health care' to be an insurance system, the least expensive way to provide that would be that coverage be universal as this lowers administrative redundancy and shares risk widest. If you consider health care to be a 'public good', economics tells us it will never be adequatley provided by the market alone. If you consider health care a scarce resource, you face the question: is it OK to our society that wealth should decide who lives comfortably and who dies in agony?

Now, it may be beneficial to try business strategies to seek efficencies in heatlh care. But anyone who wants to move away from a single-payer, universal coverage system needs to answer these issues.

[Riverwind]

If you consider health care to be a 'public good', economics tells us it will never be adequatley provided by the market alone.  If you consider health care a scarce resource, you face the question: is it OK to our society that wealth should decide who lives comfortably and who dies in agony?

I gave you an example of how our healthcare system is completely betraying the public good and making people suffer needlessly who cannot afford to pay for care in the US. Our society is already making arbitrary decisions about who lives comfortably and who lives in agony.

I am not advocating getting rid of the single payer system - I am just saying get rid of the restristriction that prevents Canadians from buying health services from other Canadians. Note that no other industrialized country except Canada does does.

There are businesses starting up that sell vacation and surgury packages at hospital/resorts in India where the staff and equipment are up to western standards but at a fraction of the cost. The 'single' tier system is a myth - the sooner we Canadians bury it the sooner we can fix the healthcare system.

[August1991]

"Fair", eh? Now there is a loaded word. Is it fair that Michael Jackson can pay to have his face ruined with equipment that could be saving a life?

That is evidence of zero-sum thinking because you assume that if Michael Jackson did not use the equipment, it would be available to save a life. It ain't necessarily so.

If you consider 'health care' to be an insurance system, the least expensive way to provide that would be that coverage be universal as this lowers administrative redundancy and shares risk widest.

I doubt the benefits come from administrative saving (think gun registry) or sharing risks. The benefits accrue from various forms of assymetrical information.

If you consider health care to be a 'public good', economics tells us it will never be adequatley provided by the market alone.

Health care is a private good. We cannot simultaneously see the same doctor.

If you consider health care a scarce resource, you face the question: is it OK to our society that wealth should decide who lives comfortably and who dies in agony?

If we worried a little bit less about the injustices of health care reforms and worried a little bit more about not wasting resources, we may well be surprised to find that our health care system will be more equitable.

----

Sparhawk, you make good points.