The health care system is failing; give us choice.

[Gaétan]

It's surprising that we survive with all the products that we allow in food. That's why people are becoming impotent and why health care is so expensive, what food companies do to increase their profits is making people sick and causing health care and costs to skyrocket. The Minister of Health, who knows nothing, lets this happen.

💥 9936 chemicals discovered in a single plastic food packaging (techno-science.net)

 The capitalists will all end up killing us

 

 

[Dougie93]

13 hours ago, suds said:

I suppose, but one thing covid taught us is that they have to do some real serious money printing to make inflation a serious problem. On the other hand, if we were all forced to pay a percentage of the doctor's bill (depending on income) out of pocket as an extra, then that could be seen as a pay increase. No? Obviously, if we want to see more doctors get involved with family medicine then we have to pay them more, some way. some how. There's no other way around it.

but the debt based economy is like a Ponzi scheme, in that you need constant growth to prop it up

so that's going be approaching a million immigrants a year

thus any solution which is based on constraining resources is going to backfire

at  the end of the day, you need the profit motive to generate the needed expansion

Canada's misguided archaic socialism is the barrier which is causing the choke points in the system

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Venandi said:

 

Imagine a world where people voted on policy as opposed to narrative and the sort of political dogma that rivals the best on offer from religious zealots. 

 

 

Or take it out of the political process, mandate service levels, and hire managers to run things instead of doctors ?

There are lot of ideas out there...

[blackbird]

Reports say Norway has the best healthcare system in the world.  

One reason might be because Norway is a small country with one central government.  That is not like Canada which is a confederation.  Canada's governing system is far more complex.  Plus you have different political factions in every province and in the federal government.  The complexity of Canada's governing system makes it difficult to come to any agreement on how medical care should be provided.

In Norway:

"However, treatment is not free. Norwegian residents pay for healthcare services at the point of service. That being said, fees are subsidised and there is an annual limit on how much any one individual has to pay for healthcare. So, how does it work?"

Healthcare in Norway - Life in Norway

This might be worth examining closely to see how Norway is a leading health care country.

Herbie and Black Dog should read this.  They seem to think the system we have is fine.  People that say things like that and/or oppose change are more than likely not suffering any serious health care problems or have never experienced poor health care treatment.  The attitude is I'm ok, to heck with everyone else.

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Or take it out of the political process, mandate service levels, and hire managers to run things instead of doctors ?

There are lot of ideas out there...

Maybe read my link on the Norway health care system.

Everyone pays something up front when they access health care, but there is an annual maximum that everyone pays.  The Norway health care system is heavily subsidized but has the best health care system in the world reportedly.

Healthcare in Norway - Life in Norway

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 

Maybe read my link on the Norway health care system.

Everyone pays something up front when they access health care, but there is an annual maximum that everyone pays.  The Norway health care system is heavily subsidized but has the best health care system in the world reportedly.

Healthcare in Norway - Life in Norway

I have got pretty busy lately so I don't have enough time for the board.

But I lived in France and their system was 2-tier and worked well.  

The thing we have never done well is manage public services.  I think it's a culture thing and don't have answers.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Venandi said:

And incredibly, it's not the talk of the town.

Actually I'm in awe... during an acknowledged shortage of healthcare workers, POOF 2,500 of them gonzo in one fell swoop. It weighs heavy on the attrition side of an already grossly unbalanced manning equation with (seemingly) no consideration of the opportunity cost associated.

It was insane and so was the public reaction. There were literally large numbers of people posting on social media at the time that they would rather see innocent people die than be treated by people who refused Covid vaccines. This wasn't even just at the beginning, this was after omicron when we knew very well that the vaccines did nothing to prevent transmission for that variant. And well after we had tests capable of determining whether or not someone had covid. 

I was absolutely flabbergasted at the time. Mind you, this is a society that reacted to a possible worldwide shutdown of the supply chain and a horribly deadly transmittable illness by hoarding toilet paper. 

 

4 hours ago, Venandi said:

I've been wondering how this action got (and continues to get) by BC voters... how is it they aren't utterly outraged about the cost they're paying? Where are the protests and occupations?

In times of crisis people go bat crap crazy. They will do things as a group that absolutely nobody would consider saying or reasonable ordinarily. People often ask how it was possible for it Hitler to rise to power, or how he was able to convince people to capturing the Jews was fair. Or any other of a dozen examples in history.

 

It's an important lesson. During times of Crisis people lose their crap. If people are scared or concerned they can be talked into anything. Even things that are obviously harmful we'll see perfectly normal under such circumstances.

That's why the left has a saying that no good crisis should go to waste. They frequently use any crisis to try and pass laws or the like that they would never get through in normal circumstances

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Venandi said:

I understand what you're saying and tend to agree, the madness (I referred to above) even  supports that view until you begin to associate what's happening with other examples of agenda driven insanity (I'm thinking religious zealots here).

No sure what agenda driven insanity you are referring to or what you mean by religious zealots.  Maybe you could elaborate.

I am not sure what that has to do with the catastrophe of a failing health care system.   Everyone who develops medical problems could die early because of a failing health care system regardless of their religious beliefs.  Everyone has a different view of life and the world. 

We will never be able to help rectify the problems such as a failing health care system if we are preoccupied or obsessed with difference of political, religious, or ideology.  That is the problem with many politicians.  The NDP is obsessed with having Socialism and can't hear anything anyone else says.

[Venandi]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

No sure what agenda driven insanity

And here's your answer... one of several I could offer up but I think this poster knows exactly what I'm talking about:

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

The NDP is obsessed with having Socialism and can't hear anything anyone else says.

 

Edited May 17 by Venandi

[Venandi]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

There are lot of ideas out there...

But they all require the support of voters to implement... no?

I think any fix ultimately requires a level of voter engagement, that means paying attention, demanding policy that makes sense, and voting for the people willing to provide it regardless of political stripe.

I say that as a confirmed political agnostic, just imagine what could be accomplished if people voted based on policy rather than political affiliation. The notion that "elections are not the time to discuss policy" seems silly to me. 

Out and gone for a bit so the last word is yours. Cheers

 

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

31 minutes ago, Venandi said:

But they all require the support of voters to implement... no?

I think any fix ultimately requires a level of voter engagement, that means paying attention, demanding policy that makes sense, and voting for the people willing to provide it regardless of political stripe.

I say that as a confirmed political agnostic, just imagine what could be accomplished if people voted based on policy rather than political affiliation. The notion that "elections are not the time to discuss policy" seems silly to me. 

Out and gone for a bit so the last word is yours. Cheers

All ?  No.  Support ?  It depends.  You're working on a mass model here - ie. political polling ie. "How do you FEEL about the changes the government is making to healthcare ?  1- Strongly Agree 2- Agree 3- Neutral 4- Disagree 5- Strongly Disagree"  

That means that the communication is managed as always.  

But that also means that you still have the opportunity in there to make things better and educate the public and make the engagement model stronger.

The biggest problem, imo, is that we don't know how to run services.  Mostly public, but basically service delivery is terrible in Canada almost across the board.  Top-down management is the order of the day, and customer response, innovation, improvement ... all of these things suffer.

[ExFlyer]

24 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

All ?  No.  Support ?  It depends.  You're working on a mass model here - ie. political polling ie. "How do you FEEL about the changes the government is making to healthcare ?  1- Strongly Agree 2- Agree 3- Neutral 4- Disagree 5- Strongly Disagree"  

That means that the communication is managed as always.  

But that also means that you still have the opportunity in there to make things better and educate the public and make the engagement model stronger.

The biggest problem, imo, is that we don't know how to run services.  Mostly public, but basically service delivery is terrible in Canada almost across the board.  Top-down management is the order of the day, and customer response, innovation, improvement ... all of these things suffer.

I actually think we do know how to run services.

I think the problem is people think they should or deserve more and more  and there is no end to what they want. Hence, complaints about services....all services.

There are finite resources and hence, finite services. Like a wise person once said, and it is so true "The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else"

They also said "You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving." That is my take on guaranteed income ....sorry for the off topic

 

 

[blackbird]

Funny how some seem to think that people dying on waiting lists is ok,  as long as it's not them of course.

[Michael Hardner]

22 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

1. I actually think we do know how to run services.

2. I think the problem is people think they should or deserve more and more  and there is no end to what they want. Hence, complaints about services....all services.

3. There are finite resources and hence, finite services.

4. Like a wise person once said, and it is so true "The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else"

5. They also said "You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving." That is my take on guaranteed income ....sorry for the off topic

1. I'm surprised to read this.
2. Mostly I hear about long wait times for public services, and bad service from our private monopolies.  I'll admit it's anecdotal but can anyone really defend CRA wait times (called in a few weeks ago, 2 hours) hospital wait times etc ?
3. Very simple but if wait times lengthen resources and services were finite before that situation and after also.
4. Sometimes wisdom is obvious, other times it is trite I guess.
5. Do you think that the government should be managing the economy ?  If not, who ?

[ExFlyer]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I'm surprised to read this.
2. Mostly I hear about long wait times for public services, and bad service from our private monopolies.  I'll admit it's anecdotal but can anyone really defend CRA wait times (called in a few weeks ago, 2 hours) hospital wait times etc ?
3. Very simple but if wait times lengthen resources and services were finite before that situation and after also.
4. Sometimes wisdom is obvious, other times it is trite I guess.
5. Do you think that the government should be managing the economy ?  If not, who ?

Surprised at what?

 My comment is based on your statement "The biggest problem, imo, is that we don't know how to run services. "

My response is that there is only so much social money to go around and unless you take from someone or something, you cannot give to other people or things. Is that wrong?

Actually, resources are far more strained now than before and services have increased a lot more than before covid.

Wait lists are with every organization and company in Canada. I waited for over an hour for CAA insurance and then they said they will callback....never did. I waited on Air Canada for so long , I gave up. I expected more from them but, hey, never happens. Maybe those people from CRA were working from home were actually not "working" and you had to wait for the ones that were?

Hospitals are a different issue. Really, when it comes down to it, how can you force doctors to work anywhere or nurses? If they do not like where they work , so be it but that is not the governments fault (provincial governments).  I need to get regular infusions and go to an office that has 5 to 6 nurses working there. I ask why they are there and they say it is straight  days and do not like shift work. Not a government services fault.

The government is managed by the people in the end. They do what you want them to do. You want more, they give you more. until they have nothing to give. You want services, transparency, more services more transparency to the point many workers are just spending time answering complaints and questions and pointing out and to the enormous volumes of manuals and policies. Every department has many many people just responding to questions and really get nothing moving forward. I had the misfortune of having to do time in the ATI office in my department. Hundreds of ATI's per month.Anybody and everybody  pay $5 and gets to ask questions and demand answers. And that is not including the thousands of daily phone calls.Often, directing them to a website is the answer but, other times it takes telling them over and over again and they still do not get it. It all takes people and time.

As for being managed by the economy? Michael, you are a smart guy and you know where that would end.

Edited May 17 by ExFlyer

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I actually think we do know how to run services.

I think the problem is people think they should or deserve more and more  and there is no end to what they want. Hence, complaints about services....all services.

There are finite resources and hence, finite services. Like a wise person once said, and it is so true "The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else"

They also said "You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving." That is my take on guaranteed income ....sorry for the off topic

I have to say this is one of those rare times when i would tend to agree with you overall. 

I think that no matter how you slice it, it's the public that either holds up the current model as being a near religious artifact even when the professionals and politicians want to make even a small change to make it work better, and i think the public wants 40,000 services and they should all run perfect but my taxes are too high so don't raise them.  And i think you can't really do both. 

[suds]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Or take it out of the political process, mandate service levels, and hire managers to run things instead of doctors ?

There are lot of ideas out there...

If that's the case, why not just simply privatize the entire healthcare system, let capitalism work its magic, and then regulate the hell out of them like they do the telecoms?

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, suds said:

If that's the case, why not just simply privatize the entire healthcare system, let capitalism work its magic, and then regulate the hell out of them like they do the telecoms?

No 

[ExFlyer]

16 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I have to say this is one of those rare times when i would tend to agree with you overall. 

I think that no matter how you slice it, it's the public that either holds up the current model as being a near religious artifact even when the professionals and politicians want to make even a small change to make it work better, and i think the public wants 40,000 services and they should all run perfect but my taxes are too high so don't raise them.  And i think you can't really do both. 

Be still my F'n heart LOL

[suds]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No 

You, yourself, has stated that government does a poor job at running services. If that's the case, then why not let amazon (for example) take a crack at it? Can it be any worse?? So what's Trudeau's plan other than throwing another $200 billion into healthcare over the next 10 years?

[-TSS-]

It kind of makes one wonder are Americans brainwashed into believing that publicly funded health care is socialism and therefore something to be opposed.

Or is it us Europeans who have been brainwashed into believing that only the government can cure us if we get sick.

[taxme]

On 5/16/2024 at 1:44 PM, I am Groot said:

Clearly, the problem, you silly twat, is that there are still a lot of restrictions on what services can be legally offered in Canada for fees. Like most surgeries. The far left (that's you) who have no understanding of money or economics, think its somehow better for these individuals to take their money and pay exorbitant fees to American hospitals to do surgeries. Some Canadian provinces even pay the US fees for surgeries rather than allow surgeries to be bought and paid for here.

This leads to one more downgrading of Canadians' quality of life, along with flooding our streets with drugged-out criminals, flooding our cities with foreigners, many of whom can barely gobble a word of English, to lower wages and increase housing costs, subsidizing and protecting oligopolies so we have the most expensive services in the world, and imposing a massive regulatory burden on private industry, especially the natural resources industry. All while imposing high taxes on everyone to support all of the above. 

Groot, trying to make a black dog understand English is nearly impossible. Try barking to him in woof-woof. 🤣

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Be still my F'n heart LOL

Ohh i suspect your heart has been still for quite some time   

LOL yeash - i disagree and its butt porn.  I agree and you're STILL upset about it   You need to seriously consider anger management therapy  

But i stand by what i said, you were correct, it is a problem. 

2 hours ago, -TSS- said:

It kind of makes one wonder are Americans brainwashed into believing that publicly funded health care is socialism and therefore something to be opposed.

Or is it us Europeans who have been brainwashed into believing that only the government can cure us if we get sick.

The europeans sure aren't -  most of them have a blend of private and public, with much more private than our system. And it works - france is comfortably considerd to be one of the worlds best, far better than ours and they have a public private mix. 

I think the us is convinced any public is bad and we're convinced any private is bad and we're both being boneheads about it. 

[suds]

43 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Ohh i suspect your heart has been still for quite some time   

LOL yeash - i disagree and its butt porn.  I agree and you're STILL upset about it   You need to seriously consider anger management therapy  

But i stand by what i said, you were correct, it is a problem. 

The europeans sure aren't -  most of them have a blend of private and public, with much more private than our system. And it works - france is comfortably considerd to be one of the worlds best, far better than ours and they have a public private mix. 

I think the us is convinced any public is bad and we're convinced any private is bad and we're both being boneheads about it. 

Under France's plan everyone must pay compulsory health insurance which is 5.25% of earned income. It also includes dental. After paying a doctor or dentist's fee you get back a reimbursement from the government of 70% but it could be 100% for long term illnesses. For example, you pay for a root canal you get back 70%, but with long term cancer treatments you get back 100%. There's more to it than that but that's basically it. I like the idea that everything is not free and that it includes dental. I wonder how it would go over if we introduced a similar system here?

Edited May 18 by suds

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, suds said:

Under France's plan everyone must pay compulsory health insurance which is 5.25% of earned income. It also includes dental. After paying a doctor or dentist's fee you get back a reimbursement from the government of 70% but it could be 100% for long term illnesses. For example, you pay for a root canal you get back 70%, but with long term cancer treatments you get back 100%. There's more to it than that but that's basically it. I like the idea that everything is not free and that it includes dental. I wonder how it would go over if we introduced a similar system here?

If we actually introduced it it would probably go very well. I say that because they did introduce it there and it's going very well.

There are three problems standing in the way of anything like that ever happening.

First, the left and all left leaning Canadians have been sold a complete lie that only an absolute 100% public health care should ever even be considered, and anyone who suggests otherwise is basically all the bad things about the Nazis and America rolled into one. So politically it's death for any government to put forward.

Secondly is taxes. The federal government introduced this idea for tax reasons. Remember that almost all provinces had Public health care before it was brought in nationally. The idea of doing it nationally was that the federal government would collect tax money and then dish it out per person so that every province would be on the same footing more or less when it came to healthcare funding.

That means the feds would tax more and then give the money back. Sound familiar? And the government did tax more and for a short time they gave it back. But nowadays they don't. They give back a much lower portion, they are supposed to be sharing in 50% of the costs. Under Trudeau they dropped to I believe 26 before slightly improving and Trudeau Pockets the extra money.

The other issue is unions. They are not going to be excited about this idea at all.

So you have three very powerful groups, left-wing Brainwashed voters, the federal government protective of its tax revenue, and unions. All of which will move heaven and earth to avoid this kind of change. It would take a politician with balls of steel and provinces willing to listen to even attempt it. And they would likely get thrown out of government even though it was the right thing to do 

[suds]

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If we actually introduced it it would probably go very well. I say that because they did introduce it there and it's going very well.

There are three problems standing in the way of anything like that ever happening.

First, the left and all left leaning Canadians have been sold a complete lie that only an absolute 100% public health care should ever even be considered, and anyone who suggests otherwise is basically all the bad things about the Nazis and America rolled into one. So politically it's death for any government to put forward.

Secondly is taxes. The federal government introduced this idea for tax reasons. Remember that almost all provinces had Public health care before it was brought in nationally. The idea of doing it nationally was that the federal government would collect tax money and then dish it out per person so that every province would be on the same footing more or less when it came to healthcare funding.

That means the feds would tax more and then give the money back. Sound familiar? And the government did tax more and for a short time they gave it back. But nowadays they don't. They give back a much lower portion, they are supposed to be sharing in 50% of the costs. Under Trudeau they dropped to I believe 26 before slightly improving and Trudeau Pockets the extra money.

The other issue is unions. They are not going to be excited about this idea at all.

So you have three very powerful groups, left-wing Brainwashed voters, the federal government protective of its tax revenue, and unions. All of which will move heaven and earth to avoid this kind of change. It would take a politician with balls of steel and provinces willing to listen to even attempt it. And they would likely get thrown out of government even though it was the right thing to do 

Great. So we're stuck with an expensive mediocre healthcare system with a severe doctor shortage that's only going to get worse.  And there's nothing we can do about it except throw more and more money at it.