Public healthcare

[scribblet]

Because people who can't afford to go to the U.S. (travel hotel etc. etc.) might be able to do something for themselves or their families if it were available here.

I see no reason for not allowing private clinics and diagnostic procedures alongside our public healthcare, and I'll never understand why people are against other people spending their money as they see fit.

[geoffrey]

I don't see why private companies can't offer publically funded treatment. That's the bottom line here, and that's how the systems of much of Europe operate... and low and below, no lines or waits (well, beyond reason).

If there is a lineup, that means someone else could be making money. Let that someone else make their money and treat those people faster.

For those touting purely private examples, I think there is clearly a cost savings with public insurance (as long as it's private providers of service)... we see this clearly in car insurance.

[Nocrap]

I don't see why private companies can't offer publically funded treatment. That's the bottom line here, and that's how the systems of much of Europe operate... and low and below, no lines or waits (well, beyond reason).

If there is a lineup, that means someone else could be making money. Let that someone else make their money and treat those people faster.

For those touting purely private examples, I think there is clearly a cost savings with public insurance (as long as it's private providers of service)... we see this clearly in car insurance.

The problem is that private companies MUST make a profit. We've seen it in Ontario after 'Two-Tier Tony Clement' (who didn't get his nickname because he liked cake) did a hatchet job on our healthcare system. After my daughter's knee surgery she was told that she should have physio, but if she wanted it free she would go on a waiting list that could take three months, or pay and start treatment right away.

He also reduced hospital stays, opting instead for 'homecare'. Unfortunately the 'homecare' providers are private companies who must tender their bids and the lowest wins. Locally we are stuck with a company known as Comcare, who run a meat market operation. Most clients are lucky to get 15 minutes a day from minimum wage employees. It's shameful.

Wealthy people always had another option. They could afford to hire private care nurses. Leave the rest of us alone.

[margrace]

Because people who can't afford to go to the U.S. (travel hotel etc. etc.) might be able to do something for themselves or their families if it were available here.

I see no reason for not allowing private clinics and diagnostic procedures alongside our public healthcare, and I'll never understand why people are against other people spending their money as they see fit.

You have a big waiting list, mainly because of the shortage of doctors. So you allow a private clinic which takes half the doctors away and you pay them to do the procedure. They are in it to make money so they only pick the easy ones and bill the government full price. What

[geoffrey]

The problem is that private companies MUST make a profit. We've seen it in Ontario after 'Two-Tier Tony Clement' (who didn't get his nickname because he liked cake) did a hatchet job on our healthcare system. After my daughter's knee surgery she was told that she should have physio, but if she wanted it free she would go on a waiting list that could take three months, or pay and start treatment right away.

Would you rather have the choice, or do you think everyone should wait? If your daughter used the private care, that takes her off the public list and someone else will get that spot sooner. If not, she still has access to publically funded care, but has to wait longer.

The model I'm proposing would have your daughter using the private provider, but the government would foot the bill. This is commonly used in Europe, it costs less in the long run and people get the care they deserve.

[scribblet]

Because people who can't afford to go to the U.S. (travel hotel etc. etc.) might be able to do something for themselves or their families if it were available here.

I see no reason for not allowing private clinics and diagnostic procedures alongside our public healthcare, and I'll never understand why people are against other people spending their money as they see fit.

You have a big waiting list, mainly because of the shortage of doctors. So you allow a private clinic which takes half the doctors away and you pay them to do the procedure. They are in it to make money so they only pick the easy ones and bill the government full price. What

If doctors where able to practice privately and make more we could probably attract the doctors and technicians back that we lost to the U.S.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourview/sports/200...ound_for_u.html

One in nine trained-in-Canada doctors is practising medicine in the United States, says a study published in Tuesday's issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

The study suggests that luring back some of these Canadian physicians would go a long way toward solving the country's doctor shortage.

[segnosaur]

The problem is that private companies MUST make a profit.

Yes, it is true that private companies must make a profit... but there are ways that the 'costs' can get offset.

In a purely public system, there is little incentive for management to reduce costs, nor is there much incentive to improve service (in a way that would bring in more 'business'). As a result, publically run operations may continue to be inefficient, and may not provide what users (or, 'customers') really need.

Not that I think we should go to an all U.S.-style system. However, the profit motive CAN lead to cost efficiencies.

We've seen it in Ontario after 'Two-Tier Tony Clement' (who didn't get his nickname because he liked cake) did a hatchet job on our healthcare system.

Keep in mind that many of the cuts that were blamed on the Conservative party in Ontario were actually necessitated by cuts in Federal health care spending. I believe that over the course of their 2 terms, provincial health care contributions increased under the conservatives... but they failed to counteract a much greater drop in fed spending.

After my daughter's knee surgery she was told that she should have physio, but if she wanted it free she would go on a waiting list that could take three months, or pay and start treatment right away.

Sorry to hear about your dauther's problem... but do you really think private health care is to blame? Without the private option, do you really think that the waiting list would be any shorter (given the likelyhood of health care spending restrictions brought on by debt reduction)?

[segnosaur]

You know, after reading this article, I'd caution people against reading too much into this particular 'study'.

First of all, the article is appearing in a "new" publication called "Open Medicine". Normally, I'm a big fan of the concept of 'peer review'. However, as this is a new publication, it doesn't really have much of a track record behind it.

Seondly, the study itself was done by meta-analysis... They selected studies that had already been done and combined the result. (From the original article...To conduct their meta-analysis, researchers identified almost 5,000 titles and abstracts. Of these, 498 appeared potentially eligible on initial review. Eventually, 38 studies were deemed to be eligible..) That's less than 8% of the articles. How exactly did they decide which articles to include and which to reject? How exactly did they combine the results of studies that may have had greatly different sample sizes and/or dealt with totally different diseases? Without knowing that, it may be quite possible that some selection bias has come into play.

[mikedavid00]

This is an interesting report: Study of Canadian vs US treatment outcomes on Yahoo today. It appears that on average, the outcomes of treatment in this country is as good (and in many instances, as the report points out, even better) than in the US. No matter that it costs $7,500 vs $2,900 (i.e. 2.5 times more) in the US. Looks like an argument that public health care is more efficient (in both costs and results) than the private one.

"said one of the 17 authors, Dr. P.J. Devereaux, a cardiologist and clinical epidemiologist at McMaster University in Hamilton. "

Wow. A Canadian special interest group cherry picked studies for outcomes.

This truly is laughable. I'm not even going to get into it. Go believe what you read.

Every lunch our when I listen to the CBC almost each day there is some discussion about the degradeded state of our healthcare system. There's even doctors in Ontario paying for ads that are basically warning the public that our healthcare system is crumbling.

[mikedavid00]

The model I'm proposing would have your daughter using the private provider, but the government would foot the bill. This is commonly used in Europe, it costs less in the long run and people get the care they deserve.

And the private companies would also partner (read pay) with our Universities to make medical training more accessible. I do realize there is also an 'elitism' problem in our medical schools and simply not enough seats or the will to expand them.

I still believe in full 2 tier health care with private insurance and hospitals. Our employers can foot the bill. I don't thik the hospitals can pull a profit in Canada from the little amount of funding that they would get from the gov't.

That's the part no one wants to face: we simply don't have or won't have the money to properly remedy our healthcare system. Thus, complete 2 tier is the only way.

Seperation is the only way.. hehe pun intended.

[August1991]

In a purely public system, there is little incentive for management to reduce costs, nor is there much incentive to improve service (in a way that would bring in more 'business'). As a result, publically run operations may continue to be inefficient, and may not provide what users (or, 'customers') really need.

Not that I think we should go to an all U.S.-style system. However, the profit motive CAN lead to cost efficiencies.

I think the most serious problem is that there are no accurate signals within Canada's health care system. Managers simply don't know what to do and they misallocate resources. (The old adage is that you can't ma nage what you can't count.)

This was the basic problem in the Soviet system.

You have a big waiting list, mainly because of the shortage of doctors.

That was the standard complaint in the Soviet Union. "There are shortages." The problem in Canada's helath care system is not shortages. throwing more money at the problem won't solve it.

August,

the report argues that in the mission critical area, publicly owned institution is as efficient, and substantially less expensive, when the private one. If you can disprove it by a substantiated argument, feel free to do so. Just (it was written by him so it must be wrong) won't do.

Myata, if you want me to present a detailed argument critical of Devereaux, I can and maybe I will. But I won't do it on this web forum where my post will disappear into threads debating 9/11 and other nonsense.

For a start however, what does Devereaux mean by "mission critical"?

It is standard procedure for a bureaucrat to define an arcane criteria and then use legitimate statistics to show that the bureaucrat's innovation is exemplary.

----

I will offer this anecdotal evidence that will get to the core of my viewpoint. The next time you go to a hospital in Canada, look at how the personnel use computers. Can you get in touch with your clinic by e-mail? Do medical staff use paper files or computer files?

Computers have lead to radical changes in every other private business in the modern world, particularly businesses where file-keeping and people are critical features. Yet for the most part, our government institutions (and hospitals in particular) still live in a 1985 world. How much do you think Canadian hospitals spend on IT?

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, few if any Soviet bureaucrats had desktop computers.

Bureaucrats innovate poorly and Canada's health system is bureaucratic.

[normanchateau]

It takes a particularly stubborn form of Leftism or nationalism to defend Canada's current health system.

So why does Stephen Harper now defend it?

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20050430091919834

Leftism, nationalism or hypocrisy in the guise of political expediency?