Quote:
Originally Posted by GP_Matt
If they aren't then the status quo will remain.
One idea is that someone can open up a private practice and bid on procedures. If their bid comes in lower than the current system spends then they can be awarded for example 100 hip replacement surgeries per year at the bid price.
In the current system the family doctors are private already and it seems to be working out. Why can family doctors open their own clinic without ruining the system when surgeons are only allowed to work in government run facilities.
|
The family doctor situation, the MRI situation, these are examples of areas where privatisation has lead to people facing long wait times and not having a family doctor. Its basically the exact opposite of what we want, right? If it hasn't helped here, why would it help to expand to other services?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacks
See what I mean, bring up health care and all people can talk about is the US system.
|
No one has brought up the US actually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antithesis
At some point though, doesn't this system become another of the "lowest bid wins" types of scenario? I can't say I'm terribly comfortable of the idea of health care being provided by the for-profit company that had the lowest bid for the service.
Don't get me wrong - I am open to the conversation about health care privatization. I want the best health care system my money can pay for, and for me, best doesn't necessarily mean least expensive (and I'm not at all insinuating that is what anyone is arguing for here).
|
What it leads to is cherry picking by the corporations. They bid on stuff that is profitable, and leave the hard, messy and unprofitable stuff for the public system to deal with. I wouldn't hold that against a corporation, its just good business, but as a health care delivery model its pretty terrible.