Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
This is interesting, because I'm doing a First Ministers Class in University, and healthcare is the most hotly debated agenda item.
My province is advocating a mix of both, but to see limitations put private delivery. For instance, doctors should sign at minimum 2-year contracts to adhere to either system, while having to fill a quota of public service time in a 10 year period. Doctors should adhere to a pay scale that is publicly funded, and profit made should only be reinvested back into equipment, inventory, and other fixed costs so as not to take any wealth for personal gain. Finally, surgeries or operations conducted in the private system should be taxed so as to fund the same operation completed in the pubic system, to ensure the quality of delivery.
The whole point of this is to keep doctors from preferentially choosing one system over the other, keep the quality of the public system up to par with similar private systems, and also to ensure that doctors maintain a long-term commitment to their patients.
Doctors should be taking ownership of their patient's health, which is unfortunately not as big of an issue as it should be in the healthcare debate.
|
Most would tell you patients should be taking ownership of patients health - and patients should then choose their docs.
Even docs are generally good with the idea that if they practise in both systems the 'cost' of that is some obligation to the public system - teaching, service, whatever.
The obligations your 'province' sets forth sound pretty draconian though!