Let's put nurses in charge of fixin' healthcare?

mirror · August 20, 2005

We have just started to put money back into healthcare. Give it a dozen years or so to offset the major withdrawals it had while PM Martin was Finance Minister and he forced all the provinces to make major right wing cutbacks.

err · August 20, 2005

We have never put more money into health care than we do now. To blame our health care problems on "conservative arguments" is singularly lame. It's like blaming the newspaper for the bad weather.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We've never paid as much for a litre of milk as we do now either. If you adjust for inflation, etc.. (or % of GNP...) you'll find that we actually don't spend as much on health care as we used to...

Even the Ontario Tories desperate last minute attempts to say that they spent more on health care than any previous Ontario government is a joke... but not a funny one... Construction of hospitals, wings of hospitals, tearing down wings of hospitals... all money that went to "Tory friendly" construction companies.... That isn't what I call "health-care spending"....

BTW - I don't just blame Tory governments, I blame Tory fiscal policy, implemented by Paul Martin as well....

err · August 20, 2005

The correct analogy would be me, still waiting for the bus, while the rich are already driving by in limousines. But I can't buy a Toyota Echo.

Exactly... that's why we have to pressure the government to FIX THE BUS !!!!!

Argus · August 20, 2005

The correct analogy would be me, still waiting for the bus, while the rich are already driving by in limousines. But I can't buy a Toyota Echo.

Exactly... that's why we have to pressure the government to FIX THE BUS !!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unfortunately, you need a mechanic to fix the bus, and the only people in the government are theoeticians who only have academic ideas about how to fix the bus, but don't know how to impliment them in the real world. By contrast, the NDP merely has artists who can draw pictures of the bus, and philosophers who can suggest that a higher plane of humanity must exist if only the bus were in the proper frame of mental reference.

Neither is likely to fix the bus any time in the near future.

Argus · August 20, 2005

Prompt and effective medical care is sought by the wealthy and poor alike. We have a system (a bus) that once was the best in the world.

According to its proponents and nobody else.

Over the years, conservative arguments have said "we can't afford this" (free care for the poor).. And they have contiually plundered the system...

Plundered it by pouring more and more money into it, you mean? It isn't that the system was "plundered" it's that health care costs rose enormously, far beyond what governments could accomodate without drastic raises in income taxes (uh oh, all the lefties just had an orgasm). Doctors and nurses and all health care workers down to the level of cafeteria staff and cleaners now make very big salaries and those salaries have been escalating far above the rate of inflation. That is what really drains the system. That and bad management, of course.

Now, if our medical care system was as good as it once was, nobody would be seeking private care, would they... So why don't we expand our analogy... We have a run-down bus that works... Rich people take private limosines.... So do we fix the bus, or do we continue to run a bus service with a poor bus, and also publicly pay for a private taxi system for when our bus is broken down... I don't think you need an economics degree for this one.... Let's fix the bus...

Okay, by all means, fix the bus. Unfortunately, you can't. Your mind is incapable of even imagining how a bus might be fixed other than pouring more and more money into its fuel tank in hopes that somehow will encourage the bus to work better. Ontario recently pumped billions into its health care sector, but most of it just went to increased wages.

The NDP, the "middle class" is made up of anyone who makes more than minimum wage, while the "rich" is anyone who can afford their own home.
You're showing your ignorance, big time....

Don't think so. Let me give you an orgasm... tax increases! Tax increases! Big tax increases! There. Was it good for you?

The most equitable system, however, would be that the second hospital, since it serves taxpayers, is funded exactly like the first hospital. However, it would be able to charge fees to cover an improvement in services.
Wow... So the public purse should pay for two sets of doctors, two sets of nurses, two sets of administrative services, two sets of maintenance staff, two heating bills, two air conditioning bills... and I suppose the "profit" is the pay-for part of the bill with your idea.... ???

Except we have several hospitals anyway. The number of hospitals will be governed by how many people need treatment, no more, no less. If a lot of people get treated at the private hospital you won't need as many public hospitals. And since those people who want to get treated privately are taxpayers, there's no reason the government should not fund their health care treatment to exactly the same degree, no more/no less, that it does every other taxpayer. If they want better service they are then free to add to that funding out of their own excess income.

err · August 21, 2005

Over the years, conservative arguments have said "we can't afford this" (free care for the poor).. And they have contiually plundered the system...
Plundered it by pouring more and more money into it, you mean? It isn't that the system was "plundered" it's that health care costs rose enormously, far beyond what governments could accomodate without drastic raises in income taxes (uh oh, all the lefties just had an orgasm).

Did you mean "were willing to accomodate" at the same time that they were cutting the tax base. (ie. Tax breaks for corporate Canada and the wealthiest is more important than health care for all)

Doctors and nurses and all health care workers down to the level of cafeteria staff and cleaners now make very big salaries and those salaries have been escalating far above the rate of inflation. That is what really drains the system. That and bad management, of course.

Doctors salaries are too high ???? I don't know if you pay attention to these things, or just like to try to talk authoratatively and bluff the other people who don't know... Doctor's salaries are probably a little too low... hence the shortage of doctors... the slow service, etc...

... I don't think you need an economics degree for this one.... Let's fix the bus...

Okay, by all means, fix the bus. Unfortunately, you can't. Your mind is incapable of even imagining how a bus might be fixed other than pouring more and more money into its fuel tank in hopes that somehow will encourage the bus to work better. Ontario recently pumped billions into its health care sector, but most of it just went to increased wages.

... and buildings.... I think that they've realized that the Tory strategy of severely cutting health care budgets did not cause a significant improvement in medical care in Ontario. They're trying a new approach.... financing it....

The NDP, the "middle class" is made up of anyone who makes more than minimum wage, while the "rich" is anyone who can afford their own home.
You're showing your ignorance, big time....

Don't think so. Let me give you an orgasm... tax increases! Tax increases! Big tax increases! There. Was it good for you?

I don't think that I need argue too much... You're doing a great job of making yourself look _______ (fill in the blank yourself).

If a lot of people get treated at the private hospital you won't need as many public hospitals. And since those people who want to get treated privately are taxpayers, there's no reason the government should not fund their health care treatment to exactly the same degree, no more/no less, that it does every other taxpayer.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You seem to be having a difficult time understanding the difference between public an private, so I'll type "real slow" for you. Maybe we should use a simple analogy.

Suppose your dad owns a candy store. He says that you can get free candy from the "family store", but if you want to go to the competitor's candy store, you'll have to pay for it yourself. Using your logic, you think that you should be able to go to the competitor's candy store and charge it to your family's candy store....

Argus · August 21, 2005

Over the years, conservative arguments have said "we can't afford this" (free care for the poor).. And they have contiually plundered the system...
Plundered it by pouring more and more money into it, you mean? It isn't that the system was "plundered" it's that health care costs rose enormously, far beyond what governments could accomodate without drastic raises in income taxes (uh oh, all the lefties just had an orgasm).
Did you mean "were willing to accomodate" at the same time that they were cutting the tax base. (ie. Tax breaks for corporate Canada and the wealthiest is more important than health care for all)

Tax cuts have been minimal. The yearly surpluses are far higher than the amounts lost through tax cuts. At least at the federal level. At the provincial level things are different, but even there tax cuts have been minimal.

Doctors and nurses and all health care workers down to the level of cafeteria staff and cleaners now make very big salaries and those salaries have been escalating far above the rate of inflation. That is what really drains the system. That and bad management, of course.
Doctors salaries are too high ???? I don't know if you pay attention to these things, or just like to try to talk authoratatively and bluff the other people who don't know... Doctor's salaries are probably a little too low... hence the shortage of doctors... the slow service, etc...

We have a shortage of doctors not because of low salaries but because of deliberate governmental actions to lower the number of medical school vacancies in order to restrict the number of doctors. Yes, that's correct. That was government policy, to restrict both the number of doctors and the number of nurses, in order to save money, and because they stupidly did not foresee that an aging population, not to mention an increasing population due to immigration, would require more doctores and nurses. But doctors are handsomely rewarded for their time and education. A GP makes an average salary (in Ontario) of $165,000 per year. Yes, he is educated. Yes, he works hard. but compare that to, for example, my boss's boss's boss. He controls a budget of some $200 million and has 300 direct employees who oversee, adjust and redesign taxation programs and policies which affect Canadians from coast to coast. He has a masters degree and twoscore years experience and he doesn't make as much as a GP. I believe doctors in Canada make more than anywhere in the world except the United States. Quite a bit more, in most cases.

I think that they've realized that the Tory strategy of severely cutting health care budgets did not cause a significant improvement in medical care in Ontario. They're trying a new approach.... financing it....

Would you care to cite the cuts made to health care? In round figures, please. How many billions did the Ontario Tories take out of the system? Oh, right, they never actually cut it at all. They actually increased funding by a very substantial amount even while the federal Liberals were slashing health care transfers. People like you never understood that it wasn't the Harris tories who were responsible for health care problems which were nationwide. The only real cuts came from the Liberals - from Paul Martin, in fact.

If a lot of people get treated at the private hospital you won't need as many public hospitals. And since those people who want to get treated privately are taxpayers, there's no reason the government should not fund their health care treatment to exactly the same degree, no more/no less, that it does every other taxpayer.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You seem to be having a difficult time understanding the difference between public an private, so I'll type "real slow" for you. Maybe we should use a simple analogy.
Suppose your dad owns a candy store. He says that you can get free candy from the "family store", but if you want to go to the competitor's candy store, you'll have to pay for it yourself. Using your logic, you think that you should be able to go to the competitor's candy store and charge it to your family's candy store....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your analogies continue to be quite "simple" or perhaps "simplistic" would be a better term, and highly innacurate. We're not talking about my "dad", were talking about government money, much of it contributed by me. I contributed more, I'm guessing, than you did. The middle class overall contributes substantially to the tax coffers. What you're saying is that even if we have more money we should either stick with your failing system, or go our own way without the government which we fund contributing anything. That would only be fair if we got to deduct 100% of the taxes we pay which goes towards your health care.

Again, there is no logic behind your argument, just resentment towards those more economically successful than you.

Let's even take out the additional hospital concept since that proved too difficult for you. Imagine that a hospital has just one doctor on duty every night - which most do. If you go there at midnight you wait six hours for treatment. Now imagine that hospital was permitted to charge additional fees on top of what it gets from the government. Because it is primarily funded by government these fees need not be onerous, just enough to allow them to pay for a second doctor to work overnight. Say, ten dollars per visitor. Now I don't know about you, but if a second doctor would lower my wait from 6 hrs to 3hrs I'd certainly pay it. Most of us 'rich people" would.

err · August 21, 2005

Tax cuts have been minimal. The yearly surpluses are far higher than the amounts lost through tax cuts. At least at the federal level. At the provincial level things are different, but even there tax cuts have been minimal.

Maybe to your paycheque.... but Martin's cut $100 Billion in corporate taxes.... that's not much ??? Harris cut Ontario's taxes by over $14 Billion, creating a deficit greater than $5 Billion.... That's not much ???? Your assertion that these cuts are minimal demonstrates clearly that you are not in tune with the realities of the situation...

I think that they've realized that the Tory strategy of severely cutting health care budgets did not cause a significant improvement in medical care in Ontario. They're trying a new approach.... financing it....

Would you care to cite the cuts made to health care? In round figures, please.

How about 8000 nurses in Ontario... (or was it more .. Quebec cut 13,000 nursing jobs)... 14 hospitals in the GTA... plus, plus, plus...

How many billions did the Ontario Tories take out of the system? Oh, right, they never actually cut it at all. They actually increased funding by a very substantial amount even while the federal Liberals were slashing health care transfers. People like you never understood that it wasn't the Harris tories who were responsible for health care problems which were nationwide. The only real cuts came from the Liberals - from Paul Martin, in fact.

Paul Martin is a Tory, disguised as a liberal... His fiscal policies should make that obvious to you....

You say that the Tories actually increased health-care spending. Giving construction contracts to Tory-friendly construction companies to tear down a wing of a hospital here and there, build another few hospitals... and at the same time cutting real health-care services -- that is not increasing real health-care spending... Harris's actions should be punishable by jail time - padding your friends' pockets with public money is wrong.

Suppose your dad owns a candy store. He says that you can get free candy from the "family store", but if you want to go to the competitor's candy store, you'll have to pay for it yourself. Using your logic, you think that you should be able to go to the competitor's candy store and charge it to your family's candy store....

Your analogies continue to be quite "simple" or perhaps "simplistic" would be a better term, and highly innacurate.

I'm trying to use "simple" language so you understand it...

We're not talking about my "dad", were talking about government money, much of it contributed by me. I contributed more, I'm guessing, than you did. The middle class overall contributes substantially to the tax coffers. What you're saying is that even if we have more money we should either stick with your failing system, or go our own way without the government which we fund contributing anything. That would only be fair if we got to deduct 100% of the taxes we pay which goes towards your health care.
Again, there is no logic behind your argument, just resentment towards those more economically successful than you.

Your assumption is probably as wrong as your argument. Just because someone is left of centre, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are poor. These kinds of assumptions in your arguments show the limitations in your perception. You have indicated that you are a public employee, fourth down on the chain..... From this, I highly doubt that I could be jealous of your financial position....

Let's even take out the additional hospital concept since that proved too difficult for you. Imagine that a hospital has just one doctor on duty every night - which most do. If you go there at midnight you wait six hours for treatment. Now imagine that hospital was permitted to charge additional fees on top of what it gets from the government. Because it is primarily funded by government these fees need not be onerous, just enough to allow them to pay for a second doctor to work overnight. Say, ten dollars per visitor. Now I don't know about you, but if a second doctor would lower my wait from 6 hrs to 3hrs I'd certainly pay it. Most of us 'rich people" would.

Following your argument, why don't we just pay the extra $10/visitor to our public hospital.... If $10/visit will do the trick, then lets pay for it (through our taxes)... because it will probably be a lot cheaper than your idea of paying for 2 entire systems..... plus the $10.

Riverwind · August 21, 2005

Now I don't know about you, but if a second doctor would lower my wait from 6 hrs to 3hrs I'd certainly pay it. Most of us 'rich people" would.
Following your argument, why don't we just pay the extra $10/visitor to our public hospital.... If $10/visit will do the trick, then lets pay for it (through our taxes)... because it will probably be a lot cheaper than your idea of paying for 2 entire systems..... plus the $10.

What you do not seem to understand is that there is not an infinite amount of money to pay for public healthcare therefore the system must restrict access to control costs. For example, it is perfectly rational for the gov't to say a 6 hour waiting time is perfectly acceptable by looking at statistics and other aggregate measures of healthcare quality. However, an individual who is faced with a choice between a 6 hours and 3 hour waiting time will almost always say that 3 hours is better - no matter what the science may say. This puts the public healthcare system in a difficult situation where it must either 1) lecture people about healthcare statistics and try to convince them that their suffering is for the public good 2) pay extra for services that are not needed according to the science and try to convince tax payers that donating 50%+ of their income to pay for health care is good value 3) allow individuals to make and pay for their own choices.

3) is the only rational choice for people that believe in preserving an effective public healthcare system.

Argus · August 21, 2005

but Martin's cut $100 Billion in corporate taxes.... that's not much ???

Over how many years?

Would you care to cite the cuts made to health care? In round figures, please.
How about 8000 nurses in Ontario... (or was it more .. Quebec cut 13,000 nursing jobs)... 14 hospitals in the GTA... plus, plus, plus...

Those are not round enough. I'd like more precise figures, ie, dollar values, please. Harris' claim was always that he would cut here and add there, in order to shift money to where it was needed more.

You say that the Tories actually increased health-care spending.

And you're not denying it.

Giving construction contracts to Tory-friendly construction companies to tear down a wing of a hospital here and there, build another few hospitals... and at the same time cutting real health-care services -- that is not increasing real health-care spending... Harris's actions should be punishable by jail time - padding your friends' pockets with public money is wrong.

I don't disagree, but if we did that all politicians would be in jail except the unsuccesful ones - and they'd stay out of jail only until they became succesful.

We're not talking about my "dad", were talking about government money, much of it contributed by me. I contributed more, I'm guessing, than you did. The middle class overall contributes substantially to the tax coffers. What you're saying is that even if we have more money we should either stick with your failing system, or go our own way without the government which we fund contributing anything. That would only be fair if we got to deduct 100% of the taxes we pay which goes towards your health care.
Again, there is no logic behind your argument, just resentment towards those more economically successful than you.

Your assumption is probably as wrong as your argument. Just because someone is left of centre, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are poor.

True. Some are simply uhm, those people referenced in 2 Corinthians 11:19.

These kinds of assumptions in your arguments show the limitations in your perception. You have indicated that you are a public employee, fourth down on the chain..... From this, I highly doubt that I could be jealous of your financial position....

Ah, but I have outside income - and a brand new 50 inch TV!! Yaaayyyy!

Let's even take out the additional hospital concept since that proved too difficult for you. Imagine that a hospital has just one doctor on duty every night - which most do. If you go there at midnight you wait six hours for treatment. Now imagine that hospital was permitted to charge additional fees on top of what it gets from the government. Because it is primarily funded by government these fees need not be onerous, just enough to allow them to pay for a second doctor to work overnight. Say, ten dollars per visitor. Now I don't know about you, but if a second doctor would lower my wait from 6 hrs to 3hrs I'd certainly pay it. Most of us 'rich people" would.
Following your argument, why don't we just pay the extra $10/visitor to our public hospital.... If $10/visit will do the trick, then lets pay for it (through our taxes)... because it will probably be a lot cheaper than your idea of paying for 2 entire systems..... plus the $10.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Problem with that is the money would go through channels and wind up sticking to the fingers of every layer of bureacracy between the hospital and the deputy minister leaving just about nothing to hire another doctor. Also, being public, the hospital has no particular reason to seek efficiencies. A privately operated hospital, on the other hand, would operate for less, and be able to turn a profit even while providing better service.

err · August 21, 2005

These kinds of assumptions in your arguments show the limitations in your perception. You have indicated that you are a public employee, fourth down on the chain..... From this, I highly doubt that I could be jealous of your financial position....

Ah, but I have outside income - and a brand new 50 inch TV!! Yaaayyyy!

I bet "survivor" and "fear factor" look really good on that set....

Problem with that is the money would go through channels and wind up sticking to the fingers of every layer of bureacracy between the hospital and the deputy minister leaving just about nothing to hire another doctor. Also, being public, the hospital has no particular reason to seek efficiencies. A privately operated hospital, on the other hand, would operate for less, and be able to turn a profit even while providing better service.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, your defeatist attitude shows through.... I think that you should read one of my previous posts comparing efficiency in the American vs. Canadian systems.... Comparison of Efficiencies of Private vs. Public

Riverwind · August 21, 2005

Again, your defeatist attitude shows through.... I think that you should read one of my previous posts comparing efficiency in the American vs. Canadian systems....

You just don't get it. This is not about providing the most 'effcient' healthcare, it is about recognizing that the state has no business telling people what they should be allowed to spend thier money on when it comes to their own health. Any state funded system will work on percentages, statistics and 'acceptable losses'. These statistics mean nothing to an indvidual happens to be the one who ends up on the losing end. therefore, it is necessary to give people to choice of purchasing their own care in order to be fair. You cannot make a system 'fair' by forcing the middle class and wealthy to use a system that is only cabable of delivering care that the poor can afford.

mirror · August 21, 2005

err....your research is fantastic. That was an excellent post comparing the US and Canadian systems.

I don't understand why some people think that it is OK for rich people to have better health care than the poor. That is not what Canada is all about. And I think the Layton New Democrats have a golden oportunity to exploit this during the coming national election.

Riverwind · August 21, 2005

I don't understand why some people think that it is OK for rich people to have better health care than the poor. That is not what Canada is all about. And I think the Layton New Democrats have a golden oportunity to exploit this during the coming national election.

Why is it ok for rich people to live in nicer homes, eat better food and drive nicer cars? Communism is a discredited economic system yet you seem to insist that it is a perfectly viable way to run a health care system.

mirror · August 21, 2005

I don't understand why some people think that it is OK for rich people to have better health care than the poor. That is not what Canada is all about. And I think the Layton New Democrats have a golden oportunity to exploit this during the coming national election.
Why is it ok for rich people to live in nicer homes, eat better food and drive nicer cars? Communism is a discredited economic system yet you seem to insist that it is a perfectly viable way to run a health care system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your sluring comments about communism are totally unfounded.

As well our moderator has asked us not to use that kind of terminology and I believe we should all try to respt his wishes.

Canadian values dictate that the rich have a lot of privileges but the one privilege they don't have is going to the front of the line when it comes to health care. In Canada's health care system we are all treated equally. The rich are in the process of destroying our public school systems. We don't need to add health care to the list.

Riverwind · August 21, 2005

Canadian values dictate that the rich have a lot of privileges but the one privilege they don't have is going to the front of the line when it comes to health care.

This is the 'logic' behind communism - i.e. people who are 'rich' don't deserve to have 'better' things. Communist thinking goes on to claim that it is much more efficient for the gov't to control all production of society and distribute it equally to everyone instead of allowing private for profit enterprises to deliver the production. Just substitute 'healthcare' for 'production' and you have your argument for preserving the status quo.

Comparing our current health care model to communism it is not a slur: it is a simply a fact that supporters of the current health care system want to conveniently ignore.

Look at education. The rich have always had the option of sending their kids to private schools yet no one seems to think that it is necessary to ban private schools in order to preserve the public education system. Why the inconsistency? What is it about healthcare where we are willing to put up with the hypocrisy of the super elite/rich going to the US for healthcare while denying the same privilege to the middle class who could afford private care in Canada if it was allowed.

mirror · August 21, 2005

I think a lot of people are being misled about what the Supreme Court was on about. This is nonsense to think or to suggest we are going to have two parallel health care systems in Canada - one for the rich and one for the poor. Please move to the US or elsewhere if that's what you want.

I am looking forward to the next election campaign because health care will be the number one issue upon which people will be deciding who to vote for. Things are looking better and better ever day for the Layton New Democrats.

Groups vow to fight private health

"We now need political leadership to protect our public health care system from the elites in Canada who are trying to take it away," he warned in an interview from his office in Ottawa.
McBane argued that supporting a parallel, private health system has little to do with cutting wait times and a lot to do with lining doctors' pockets.

"It seems to me they're putting their economic interests ahead of their patients because all the evidence shows that the two-tiered system that they're advocating actually produces longer wait times," he said.

The federal government should strictly enforce the Canada Health Act and make doctors either opt in or out of the publicly funded health care system, said McBane, so physicians can't double-dip.

Other groups predicted the decision will create a controversy that could catapult health care onto the main stage for the next federal election.

"If we thought health care was the number 1 priority last federal election, this winter we'll see an even stronger stand," said Linda Silas, president of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions.

mirror · August 21, 2005

Health Minister Dosanjh delivers ultimatum to provinces and a big screw you to the recent Supreme Court decision:

Holding our feet to fire on health

Ujjal Dosanjh says all governments must deliver on pledge to cut wait times
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most of the media commentary in the wake of the Supreme Court's Chaouilli decision and last week's conference of the Canadian Medical Association has focused on philosophical debate on the issue of establishing a private, parallel system of health care in Canada.

Our government's position is a matter of public record. We are committed to the principles of a single-tier, publicly funded health-care system, one in which Canadians get the care they need when they need it, without regard to their ability to pay.

But lofty rhetoric about values is cold comfort to Canadians who are stuck on long wait lists. We have to give concrete meaning to our values with a plan to organize and manage the health system to assure Canadians timely access to appropriate care; a plan that demonstrates our public system can re-engineer and reform itself, that it is flexible enough to change with the times while remaining true to unchanging values.

Above all, Canadians need to see results. They need to see governments living up to their word, meeting the deadlines they set for themselves and delivering on their commitments.

Fortunately, we have a plan. Last September, Prime Minister Paul Martin and the provincial leaders agreed on a 10-year plan to strengthen health care. Under the plan, the federal government will invest more than $41 billion over 10 years in health care, including a $5.5 billion fund to enable all jurisdictions to address wait times.

More fundamentally, the plan is about buying real reform and lasting results that will reduce wait times.

This objective was reinforced by a willingness among first ministers to hold their own feet to the fire, by agreeing both to specific deadlines to report progress to Canadians, as well as to targets to achieve meaningful change.

The first of these is a pledge to establish benchmarks for medically acceptable wait times by Dec. 31. These deadlines must be met.

It is important to note the real progress being made in reducing wait times.

In Alberta, the number of people waiting for open-heart surgery has decreased by 55 per cent over the past two years.

In Manitoba, since 1998, wait times for radiation therapy have dropped from six weeks to one for most cancers.

In the Saskatoon health region, waiting lists for MRI tests have been cut by 45 per cent over the past year.

And in Ontario, the University Health Network has seen wait times for elective procedures fall from 12 months a year ago to four weeks today.

While such results are heartening, there remains much to be done.

We face complex challenges, entailing strategic investments in areas such as: recruiting more doctors and nurses and other health-care professionals; effective community-based services, including home care; a pharmaceuticals strategy; and effective health promotion and disease prevention.

We also need to develop systems to measure system performance, something that has never before existed.

It was precisely in recognition of this complexity that the prime minister and I appointed Dr. Brian Postl to serve as the Federal Advisor on Wait Times.

In that role, he will facilitate dialogue and work with the provinces, territories and others to realize the commitments first ministers made in the 10-year plan.

But let's be clear — all governments have to meet their commitment to provide timely access to care, when patients need it. Canadians' patience is wearing thin. They will not accept complexity as a reason for delay. And they will rightly have some tough questions for any government that fails to deliver on their commitments.

Canadians saw $41 billion of their money invested in reducing wait times. They are holding our feet to the fire. They have a right to expect results.

mirror · August 21, 2005

So there you have it folks, three of the four national political parties in Canada are committed to the principles of a single-tier, publicly funded health-care system.

Once again the Conservatives are the odd person out, and people wonder why they are sinking in the polls. I don't. :rolleyes:

shoop · August 21, 2005

So there you have it folks, three of the four national political parties in Canada are committed to the principles of a single-tier, publicly funded health-care system.
Once again the Conservatives are the odd person out, and people wonder why they are sinking in the polls. I don't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Quit lying!

err · August 22, 2005

So there you have it folks, three of the four national political parties in Canada are committed to the principles of a single-tier, publicly funded health-care system.
Once again the Conservatives are the odd person out, and people wonder why they are sinking in the polls. I don't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Quit lying!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Could you please elaborate on what the lie is.... Let's here the truth, according to shoop....

shoop · August 22, 2005

Could you please elaborate on what the lie is.... Let's here the truth, according to shoop....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The CPC is committed to single tier health care. www.conservatives.ca

August 22, 2005

I doubt that Communisn has been discredited as an economic system It has not been discredited for the simple reason that it has never been tested. One can hypothesize that it would fail since there are sound arguments against its dogma.

However, I would suggest that the only thing proven so far is that the dark side of human nature will always trump ethical and moral considerations when self-interest is involved.

Argus · August 22, 2005

So there you have it folks, three of the four national political parties in Canada are committed to the principles of a single-tier, publicly funded health-care system.
Once again the Conservatives are the odd person out, and people wonder why they are sinking in the polls. I don't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And yet, the people of Canada don't want your single tier system. The majority want to allow private medical care.

But screw them, right?

Argus · August 22, 2005

Problem with that is the money would go through channels and wind up sticking to the fingers of every layer of bureacracy between the hospital and the deputy minister leaving just about nothing to hire another doctor. Also, being public, the hospital has no particular reason to seek efficiencies. A privately operated hospital, on the other hand, would operate for less, and be able to turn a profit even while providing better service.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, your defeatist attitude shows through.... I think that you should read one of my previous posts comparing efficiency in the American vs. Canadian systems.... Comparison of Efficiencies of Private vs. Public

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't regard such a study as holding any real value. Of course no one wants 1500 private insurance plans here. No one has suggested we go the American route. As far as comparing blue cross with the BC health system I'm betting that the work done by a significant portion of those blue cross workers is done in BC, but by other government employees.