Jump to content

Would a mixture of public and private health care solve the health care crisis?


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, blackbird said:

If the system is not changed, you will be stuck with a failing health care system.  You are living under an  illusion if you think it is fair to make people who need urgent care to not get it in a timely fashion.  Many people suffer serious consequences for not being treated in a timely manner.  People getting proper timely treatment is hit and miss now in the public health care system.

It is a Socialist lie to claim everyone is being treated equally under the present system.  That is not how it is working.  The system is failing.  Millions don't even have a family doctor.  If you have one, it is just by accident.  Many do not.  That is not equitable health care.  So clinging to the present failing system is not sensible.  

Do you have a better solution on how to fix the failing health care system?

What is hilarious about this post, is the United States health care system is the worst in the World, and completely capitalist. The leading cause of bankruptcies by far, in the United States, is health care billing. It should be noted that the per-capita expenditure for health care in America is over $11,000 per person, and about $5,000 in Canada, so there is no excuse not to have universal health care in the US. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote

This article presents an analysis of recent changes in the public-private mix in health care in eight European countries. The leading question is to what extent a process of privatization in health care can be observed. The framework for the analysis of privatization draws on the idea that there are multiple public/private boundaries in health care. The overall picture that emerges from our analysis is diverse, but there is evidence that health care in Europe has become somewhat more private. The growth of the public fraction in health care spending has come to an end since the 1980s, and in a few countries the private fraction even increased substantially. We also found some evidence for a shift from public to private in health care provision. Furthermore, there are signs of privatization in health care management and operations, as well as investments. Specific attention is spent on the identification of factors that push privatization forward and factors that work as a barrier to privatization.    unquote

The privatization of health care in Europe: an eight-country analysis - PubMed (nih.gov)

The health care system in the U.S. is unique in the world and has its own problems.

Just because the Canadian health care system is failing, doesn't mean Canada needs to adopt the U.S. system.  That is not what I am suggesting.  But it certainly doesn't mean we have to maintain a failing system in this country.  There are many different countries in the world with their own health care systems.  The goal of a country should be to provide the best health care it can for its people.  The question is how can that best be achieved.  The present system in Canada is failing and harming a lot of people.  Canada must find solutions to fix the system.  I don't really see any hope for the existing system as it is.  Canada has had years to improve it but it is just getting worse.  I see the problem as rooted in Socialism and it being run by politicians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

there is no excuse not to have universal health care in the US. 

I just noticed on wikipedia that there is a major difference between eastern Europe's health care systems and western Europe's systems.  It says western Europe's life expectancy is increasing while in eastern Europe's former Soviet Socialist countries life expectancy is getting shorter.  To me this indicates that Socialist countries health care systems are failing and causing life expectancy to become shorter.  Be careful what you wish for.  Do we want to keep a universal health care system that is failing and possibly shortening life expectancy for many people?  That seems to be the consequence of a Socialist system in eastern Europe.

Healthcare in Europe - Wikipedia

quote

Healthcare in Europe is provided through a wide range of different systems run at individual national levels. Most European countries have a system of tightly regulated, competing private health insurance companies, with government subsidies available for citizens who cannot afford coverage.[1][2] Many European countries (and all European Union countries) offer their citizens a European Health Insurance Card which, on a reciprocal basis, provides insurance for emergency medical treatment insurance when visiting other participating European countries.[3]

European health[edit]

EU countries with the highest life expectancy (2019)[4]

World
RankEU
RankCountryLife expectancy
at birth (years)

5.1.Spain83.4

6.2.Italy83.4

11.3.Sweden82.7

12.4.France82.5

13.5.Malta82.4

16.6.Ireland82.1

17.7.Netherlands82.1

19.8.Luxembourg82.1

20.9.Greece82.1

The World Health Organization has listed 53 countries as comprising the European region. Health outcomes vary greatly by country. Countries in western Europe have had a significant increase in life expectancy since World War II, while most of eastern Europe and the former Soviet countries have experienced a decrease in life expectancy.[5]

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Former USSR countries in eastern Europe, which presumably still have Socialist or completely public health care systems are experiencing statistical shorter life spans than western European countries which have mixed public, private systems.  This would seem to indicate that countries must be capable of adaptation and change to maintain good health care for its people.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

I just noticed on wikipedia that there is a major difference between eastern Europe's health care systems and western Europe's systems.  It says western Europe's life expectancy is increasing while in eastern Europe's former Soviet Socialist countries life expectancy is getting shorter.  To me this indicates that Socialist countries health care systems are failing and causing life expectancy to become shorter.  Be careful what you wish for.  Do we want to keep a universal health care system that is failing and possibly shortening life expectancy for many people?  That seems to be the consequence of a Socialist system in eastern Europe.

Have you been in a coma for 35 years? The Iron Curtain came down in 1989, and with it, every Eastern European nation got rid of Socialism. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Have you been in a coma for 35 years? The Iron Curtain came down in 1989, and with it, every Eastern European nation got rid of Socialism. 

That did not change the health care systems in eastern European countries overnight.  It has been an ongoing struggle.  There are a number of factors that affect the health care systems.

The article I quoted above says their life expectancy rates are getting shorter.   I have no reason to disbelieve that.  There may be a correlation of general improving health care in countries with greater or increasing private care and lessening of public health care.  Public health care systems may not be providing the best outcome for the countries where they are the only system or nearly the only systems.  We are witnessing major failures in the public system in Canada.

quote

Though generally behind their counterparts in central Europe (the Country Focus in our previous issue), significant developments are also underway in the healthcare systems in eastern Europe (Bulgaria, Lithuania, Romania, Serbia and Ukraine). As in central Europe, a major driver is the impact of transition from the Communistera systems inherited by each country and the priority given to health care by national governments.

In principle, most countries in the region have transited from an era of ‘free’ care to one modelled on the mixed, social insurance systems of their counterparts in western Europe. Membership in the European Union by Bulgaria, Lithuania and Romania has clearly helped, and is likely to stretch the gap vis-à-vis the other two, Serbia and Ukraine.

Nevertheless, many challenges remain to be overcome by all five countries – not least that of access to financing resources from a relatively weak economic base.

The growth of private hospitals and practices is relatively slow (and in Ukraine’s case, non-existent). This, in turn, has impacted downstream on engendering efficiency in healthcare financing – although many countries have begun assessing DRG-like schemes. Ironically, partial transformation of the healthcare delivery system has, in some cases, led to a spike in in-patient admissions.

Given below is an overview of the healthcare system in each of the five eastern European countries.

Bulgaria

Bulgaria witnessed dramatic changes to its health care system over a very brief period of time in the late 1990s, and then followup efforts to fine tune the first burst to later realities.

Like other transitional countries in the region, the passage of a new Health Insurance Act in 1998 set the legal basis for both compulsory and voluntary health insurance in Bulgaria.

The new system was financed by payroll contributions (6% of monthly wages, shared in a 1-4 ratio between the employee and employer – with a target 50-50 split by 2009). Meanwhile, the role of the State (at both federal and local government levels) was circumscribed to coverage of retired citizens and lower-income groups.

In tandem, a National Framework Contract laid down a basic benefits package.

Structurally, the key goal of the reforms has been to separate healthcare financing from provision. 28 regional insurance funds currently reimburse both public and private facilities on a contractual basis.

Seven years before the Health Insurance Act, the government had already moved to legalize private practice in the healthcare area (labs, clinics, surgeries and pharmacies), and begun to reorganize government health facilities.   unquote

For the whole article:

Healthcare in Eastern Europe (healthmanagement.org)

 

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

The Iron Curtain came down in 1989, and with it, every Eastern European nation got rid of Socialism.

Romania is a case in point.  Like other former Communist countries Romania is struggling to improve their health care system.  Changes to health care cannot be done overnight because of the complexity and other factors.  It takes many years for things to change.

quote

Nevertheless, the system remains in a state of transition. Out-of-pocket payment levels remain significant (for services beyond the statutory minimum package) and taxes continue to account for about one-sixth of health spending, principally capital spending by hospitals.

The overall health status in the country also remains below the European average, with life expectancy of 73 years as against 79, and – in spite of reductions - a persisting high rate of both infant and maternal mortality (about 14 and 15.5 per 100,000 births, respectively).  unquote

Healthcare in Eastern Europe (healthmanagement.org)

According to this website and the other one I quoted, the life expectancy in Romania is ten years less than western Europe.

 

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A book has been written:  Welfare, Choice, and Solidarity in Transition: Reforming the Health Sector in Eastern Europe 
 by Janos Kornai and Karen Eggleston
 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 365 pp., $69.95 (cloth), $24.95 (paper)

There are probably lots of lesson we can learn from studying material like this and various other articles.

The book says in part:

"The book advocates the establishment of supplementary insurance markets. The authors wonder why such a market has not yet taken hold in most of Eastern Europe. The answer appears to have both a demand- and a supply-side dimension: Private insurers want a piece of the entire health insurance pie and are lobbying policymakers to introduce a lucrative private health insurance market. On the other hand, there is little consumer demand for supplementary insurance (requiring regular premium payments) in an environment where a reasonable under-the-table payment gets you the same level of service in case you need it (without monthly premiums)."

In Canada, if politicians want to reform the health care system, they probably realize they would be entering a political minefield.  Half of Canada are Socialist-minded and expect government to be their paternal father and take care of them from cradle to grave.  Surprisingly or not so surprisingly, these same people oppose paying anything more for health care and likely oppose supplementary insurance that would require regular payments.  Unfortunately there is no such thing as a free lunch and that clearly applies to health care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I don't know that I did that. I did blame the culture though.

The management culture, whatever that means.  Maybe I misunderstood.  I think it's worth considering what it would be like to work in management for a militant public sector unionized workforce.  You get your marching orders from the Ministry or whoever, and then you deliver them to a workforce that has little/no reason to take you seriously and has no incentive to do anything but the bare minimum the job requires.  This is a toxic dynamic that reinforces poor outcomes, and that's unlikely to attract our best and brightest.  

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Really not too much controversy in what you posted there. What did you mean? Responsibility flows up? You mean that the deputy ministers... People who have never generally worked in a real organization, who have massive amounts of power and are unknown to the public May be an issue?

I'm saying that the issue and the culture has little to do specifically with management.  This is a political problem - one where the priorities and Raisons d'Êtres of the Public Service have taken a backseat to the entitlement of its union members, and the governments that grant them in exchange for a huge bloc of unwavering election support.

This is a poisonous relationship, and one that Canadians need to recognize and reject.  Having 1/4 of our workforce employed and grossly overpaid in the Public Service is one of the primary reasons why not only is our productivity stagnating and falling behind, but also why we have a gaping and growing hole in our public finances.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

1.  I think it's worth considering what it would be like to work in management for a militant public sector unionized workforce.  You get your marching orders from the Ministry or whoever, and then you deliver them to a workforce that has little/no reason to take you seriously and has no incentive to do anything but the bare minimum the job requires.  This is a toxic dynamic that reinforces poor outcomes, and that's unlikely to attract our best and brightest.  

2. I'm saying that the issue and the culture has little to do specifically with management. 

3. This is a poisonous relationship, and one that Canadians need to recognize and reject.  Having 1/4 of our workforce employed and grossly overpaid in the Public Service is one of the primary reasons why not only is our productivity stagnating and falling behind, but also why we have a gaping and growing hole in our public finances.   

1. Yes, All of this is part of the culture.
2. Well, it you are thinking I'm blaming individuals then I agree with you.  But it's all management culture.
3. Good points.  I think there's an opportunity to change all that, for leadership with imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chew on this for just a second..

If I give a healthy person not in dire need of surgery $250,000, what will they buy? Housing, cars, consumption goods, food, etc. Will they spend their money on health care? Unlikely. We mostly are trying to avoid spending money on health care. It is not really a "good".. because increases in income do not result in predictable increases in health care spending. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes, All of this is part of the culture.
2. Well, it you are thinking I'm blaming individuals then I agree with you.  But it's all management culture.

I don't see how it can have much of anything to do with management.  If you agree that the unionized public sector is not incentivized to either perform or listen to management, and the managers (at any level) are not empowered to do anything about it, how is this a management culture problem?  

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. Good points.  I think there's an opportunity to change all that, for leadership with imagination.

This doesn't require a lot of imagination.  The vacancy rates for public sector positions are near-zero despite the ballooning numbers of positions.  They're overpaid by any objective measurement and the culture of entitlement has been enabled and encouraged by Liberal government leadership.  Canadian taxpayers have been bullied and pushed around by public sector labor monopolies and the Liberals cynically giving them sweetheart deals for too long.  It's (unfortunately) come to the point where a harsh reversal is required.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

1. I don't see how it can have much of anything to do with management.  If you agree that the unionized public sector is not incentivized to either perform or listen to management, and the managers (at any level) are not empowered to do anything about it, how is this a management culture problem?  

2.  Canadian taxpayers have been bullied and pushed around by public sector labor monopolies and the Liberals cynically giving them sweetheart deals for too long.  It's (unfortunately) come to the point where a harsh reversal is required.   

 

1. Management, from the lowest supervisor to the Deputy Minister is charged with solving problems.  There are plenty of unionized places that don't have these problems.  Maybe some of this is informed by me dealing with said management, and knowing some people on the inside.  It seems like a horrible environment for all involved.

2.  Well Poilievre would be the guy to change things but ... war with the union isn't very creative and probably won't change things much in the long term.  I do appreciate that leadership of management and union sometimes take a war footing.  But the cost to both workers and management of perpetual stasis is great IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2024 at 3:50 PM, Moonbox said:

We have a bloated, ineffective and overpaid public sector that views the perpetuation of this arrangement as its primary goal, rather than the delivery of services to Canadians. 

And I would say this is the case at the provincial and municipal and school board levels, too. We are drowning in bureaucracy and are so over-regulated it takes forever to get anything done at any level and usually winds up costing twice as much as it should.

Why do the heads of hospitals, colleges and universities earn such high salaries? These are not specialized jobs that require massive education and experience. The head of one of Ottawa's hospitals was a former municipal councilor. The head of the University of Ottawa was the minister of Justice before being appointed to the job. If politicians can do it then why are the salaries approaching half a million a year, or in some cases passing that mark?

Because when the boss makes $500k, the deputies have to be making close to $400k right? And then everyone around them gets slightly less munificent salaries. How many non-teachers at universities are pulling in considerably more than $100k? The administrative ranks have exploded at post-secondary institutions. And I see far too many at school boards, too.

We need a guy with something like a hard-assed Mike Harris mentality that will go in and start laying people off and freezing promotions and hiring. Not to mention eliminating all those high-priced consultants.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

 

16 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

We need a guy with something like a hard-assed Mike Harris mentality that will go in and start laying people off and freezing promotions and hiring. Not to mention eliminating all those high-priced consultants.

Well.  Yes and no.  We need someone with a large business background to restructure.  All Harris did was hold things back until later.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Management, from the lowest supervisor to the Deputy Minister is charged with solving problems.  There are plenty of unionized places that don't have these problems. 

Charging them with solving problems is a very different thing than empowering them to do so.  You can mandate whatever you want to the managers, but if they're not empowered to get it done and they're cucked from the start by a sweetheart CBA deal, they're nothing more than frustrated talking heads.  

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Maybe some of this is informed by me dealing with said management, and knowing some people on the inside.  It seems like a horrible environment for all involved.

There are horrible managers everywhere.  I suspect even more so in the public sector than in the private, with much of it having to do with what's described above.  Trying to motivate and get the most out of people who have no incentive to do anything but the literal bare minimum is a Sysyphean task that most ambitious and capable people would avoid.  

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2.  Well Poilievre would be the guy to change things but ... war with the union isn't very creative and probably won't change things much in the long term.  I do appreciate that leadership of management and union sometimes take a war footing.  But the cost to both workers and management of perpetual stasis is great IMO.

Creativity isn't required for uncomplicated problems.  Messaging and getting the public on your side is more important.  It's not like disgruntled public sector unions are going to perform their jobs worse than fat and coddled ones.  Mike Harris and Jean Chretien were able to bring things back on-side.  Though painful, it was necessary, and only made that way by the pandering largesse of previous governments.

Our CBA dealings with public sector unions need to be in-line with supply for workers.  If we're short on nurses, sweeten the deal.  That's how it should work, but it's not how it is.  Overall, the public sector has near-zero vacancy despite its ballooning size whilst the private sector has spent the last couple years struggling to find workers.  That tells us everything we need to know.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well.  Yes and no.  We need someone with a large business background to restructure.  All Harris did was hold things back until later.

Do you seriously think just restructuring a failing health care system would fix the problems?

Eastern Europe had a Socialist health care system and after the USSR collapsed beginning about 1989, they have been struggling for decades to try to repair the health care system.  One website reports the lifespan of people in Romania is about 73 while western Europe, which has varying degrees of private health care and public health care combined, has an average lifespan of about 83 years.  That is the average person in western Europe is living ten years longer than people in Romania.  Likely the same scenario in other eastern European countries that are struggling to break free of government controlled everything.

My own personal experience with care in the ER when I had a heart attack tells me our system is a disaster in some cases.  It may have taken many years off my life.  It has left a huge negative impact on my life.  Sometimes supposedly medical professionals are in critical positions that should not be there.  We the public are paying the price.  

In a private health care system, I believe people are expected to produce good results and the bad apples may be more easily removed or kept out of the critical positions.  I think you should consider that and don't stick with Socialist ideology just for the sake of ideology.  We should have a system that produces the best results for the people, not the best for the bureaucracy or staff as far as shielding poor performance.

In public systems, I believe staff and people in critical positions have less scrutiny and have too much job protection no matter if they are not qualified for the job.  I suspect private systems have more freedom to move people out of jobs they are not suited for.

I see unions and associations as a serious threat to health care in public systems if they call the shots for everything and cannot be controlled.  Perhaps private systems with no union or very limited power for associations would be much better for the patients or public.  Unions and professional associations have their place, but when they essentially control the system, then we should realize they are not there for the best interests of the patients, but are putting their own members first in every way.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

1. Do you seriously think just restructuring a failing health care system would fix the problems?

 

2. I see unions and associations as a serious threat to health care in public systems if they call the shots for everything and cannot be controlled.   

1. Yes.

2. The examples that people bring up include mostly socialized medical systems. Some are two-tier. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes.

1.  The government and health authorities have had years to re-structure the system and don't appear to have done so.  So why would they change now?  The failing system will continue to fail.

2.  You have not answered the point I made that unions and associations have too much power.  I went into great detail.  The associations protect and keep unqualified people in critical positions.  The system is set up to protect the workers and professionals, not the patients.  The government allows this.  "nothing to see here folks" would be the standard answer.

You like to answer with number and often a curt, meaningless reply as in your number 1. yes.

So you basically just write off the failed health care system and have no solutions that anybody will take seriously.  Restructure is not solution.  There is no proof it will change anything.  A bureaucracy with inherent flaws is still bureaucracy with inherent flaws after you restructure it, whatever that is supposed to mean.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

1.  The government and health authorities have had years to re-structure the system and don't appear to have done so.  So why would they change now?  The failing system will continue to fail.

2.  You have not answered the point I made that unions and associations have too much power.  

3.You like to answer with number and often a curt, meaningless reply.

1. You have changed the question to "will restructuring happen" ?  That's not what you asked before.
2. They have these things in all health jurisdictions that I have seen.  How can that be the root cause of the problems then 3. Not true.  Sometimes I don't reply at all.  If I think it's a waste of time then I won't.  Until then, be thankful for my time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. You have changed the question to "will restructuring happen" ?  That's not what you asked before.

1.  No, I did not change the question.  You just introduced a new subject, restructuring.  I am simply replying that I don't see how that will make a difference.

The subject is will a mixture of public and private health care make a difference,  not, will restructuring make a difference.

Restructuring is just tinkering with a failed system.

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Until then, be thankful for my time.

Yes, thank you for your time.  It would be nice if you were able to see my point of view sometimes.  But I think you are biased somewhat.

You sound like you are a knowledgeable person.  But the question is why do you trust a Socialist, public system that has proven a failure?   

Surely you understand private systems, without the powerful unions ruling the workplace, would run much more efficiently.  Private systems can hire professionals and should be able to fire people who are not doing the job adequately.  Do you think people should be fired who are not really up to the job?

Public systems are bureaucratic and protect the workers first, not the people they are supposed to be serving.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe employees or professionals who are not up to the job, after a reasonable period under supervision, should be fired and not protected by their unions or associations.

That is one of the problems.  These are essential services that the public depend on.  Organizations such as the police or health care.  The public and patients should always come first.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, I am Groot said:

We need a guy with something like a hard-assed Mike Harris mentality that will go in and start laying people off and freezing promotions and hiring.

We do, but the most important thing is getting the public to understand.  For the last 10-15 years, the public sector unions have done a better job building their narrative and driving the story.  Tone-deaf buffoons like Tim Hudak were easy targets for the Teacher's Unions etc to make them out as villains.  

15 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Not to mention eliminating all those high-priced consultants.

 

This is also a problem, but I suspect small potatoes.  Part of the problem is nepotism, where contracts are getting awarded to friends and acquaintances with little oversight, the other side of it is that the public service is full of mediocre to useless people who are incapable of doing the work themselves.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, blackbird said:

1.  No, I did not change the question.  You just introduced a new subject, restructuring.  I am simply replying that I don't see how that will make a difference.

2. The subject is will a mixture of public and private health care make a difference,  not, will restructuring make a difference.

3. Restructuring is just tinkering with a failed system.

4. Yes, thank you for your time.  

5. Surely you understand private systems, without the powerful unions ruling the workplace, would run much more efficiently.  Private systems can hire professionals and should be able to fire people who are not doing the job adequately.  Do you think people should be fired who are not really up to the job?

Public systems are bureaucratic and protect the workers first, not the people they are supposed to be serving.

1. Question from 3 hours ago:
"Do you seriously think just restructuring a failing health care system would fix the problems?"
Question from 11 minutes ago:
"The government and health authorities have had years to re-structure the system and don't appear to have done so.  So why would they change now?"

Can you not see how these are different questions ?  Are you the kind of person who hates being questioned and/or corrected ?

2. You can ask that directly.  I think that we would do well with two-tier if we had a public more akin to France's with respect to inspecting/monitoring services.

3. There's restructuring and then there's RESTRUCTURING.

4. And thanks for yours too.  Believe it or not, I think we're more close than apart on these things.

5. Yes, I think people should be fired for not doing their jobs.  I also think culture makes workplaces terrible and that's the hardest thing to fix.  A manager who has only worked in a bad environment can't be expected to fix things on their own.  Working productively and challenging yourself can be fun - whether there are unions there or not.  I could run a team with union members, and have revived the careers of more than one so-called useless employee. 

-----

Religious rant:
Despite what the unions say, people want to work.  And if you provide a good environment you will get good results.  Money actually adds fog to the issue as you end up getting people who hate their jobs but can't quit.  The best thing that happened to my general happiness was when my field (IT) got globalized and I went from making 6 figures as a young man to not being able to find clients.  This happened years before the web became a thing...

Eventually "the market" found me again and I work to better myself and make the environment challenging and productive.  If it turns bad, I can quit and get a new job right away.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

CTV news just reported half of Canadians are living from pay cheque to pay cheque.  Many are facing difficult decisions because they can't make the rent payments or mortgage payments.

The health care system is in a crisis and needs major changes to vastly improve the service.

One way to do that is to increase private participation because a large enough private contribution and participation would bring in a lot money.  Medical insurance for people who could afford it could make a major contribution to improving the health care system.  We need to remember the people with more money would be contributing to the overall health care by taking the burden off the public system. 

Lots of people are listening to the leftists who are driven by failed Socialist ideology and for that reason they oppose allowing private health care to join in.  They don't realize a private system would be contributing a lot of money to provide health for Canadians who could afford it.  This would make far more sense than watching people with a lot of money fly off to other countries to obtain urgent health care.  The money would be better spend in Canada and would contribute to the overall improvement of private and public health care by taking the pressure off the public system.  It would speed up the provision of urgent care for people and hopefully reduce or completely eliminate waiting times and lists.  That should be one of the goals.  This could also lengthen the average lifespan of Canadians.

We need to kick Jagmeet Singh's butt down the road.  He is obsessed with Socialist ideology and that is all he cares about.  He has no practical or real ideas to improve the health care system.  He is also beholden to the big unions that make it very difficult to improve the health care system.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,753
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Matthew
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Venandi earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • DUI_Offender went up a rank
      Proficient
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...