No Third Way thread?

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

The Klein thread made me realize I'd seen nothing on here about Alberta's third way.

Is it to the point where everyone is in whatever camp fits their values and there's nothing left to discuss, or are we simply past the point of caring? Other provinces have moved on, so maybe Alberta joining the parade is a yawner.

[Ace]

We've got to do something different than continue to allow half our tax dollars to go to health care. Some efficiencies need to be created, which IMO starts with private for profit groups operating under our "everyone allowed access" system.

For example, allowing a private company to perform MRI's, get $XXX, per patient served, and attempt to make a profit based on those parameters. The private sector usually does things more efficiently. In the end it should cost us (tax payers) less and free up more money for other areas...

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by fotze

This is the one issue I am totally torn on. I don't really like the third way thing but it is already here so maybe it is just making lemonade out of lemons.

How is it that hockey players get the medical services right here in Canada in priority over regular fellers (for Hulk). There must be a third way already?

In that sense there is.

4 groups fall outside the standard system and have (often) much faster access to private, parallel care right now.

- those hurt at work
- the military
- the rcmp
- federal pentitentiary inmates

[Cowperson]

Bottom line, there is a certain element in our society with sufficient wealth that they will think nothing of spending part of that wealth abroad to advance the timing of medical services versus what they can currently receive in Canada.

That's human nature and, from their point of view, common sense.

Since that's simply a fact, we should acknowledge it and figure out ways to keep that spending here in Canada and do so in a manner that helps fund the broad principle of universal access as well as improve quality of care and reduce wait times.

Both sides use scare tactics to argue for and against their positions and we need to wade through their crap, get out of the straight-jacket the system is currently in and recognize a combination public/private system of some method is something to be explored without a massive panic attack.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

or are we simply past the point of caring?

I'm not past the point of caring about actual changes, but I am certainly past the point of caring about another pronouncement from Ralph that the healthcare system has to change. Far as I can tell, they've been talking about this and conducting studies, handing out grants to study, studying, releasing studies, publishing white papers, policy initiatives, roundtables, consultations, press releases, organizations, reorganizations and on and on and on for at least 10 years.

If they are going to do something, they might as well get on and do it and quit hemming and hawing.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by fotze

Which is great if they could do it without problems. If the doc's in those clinics can make way more money, why bother to work for the public side. I think if they can do it then kudos, but there must be a trillion tough things to consider and do it right.

That's why I wish they took our gazillions of bucks and socked it away for a health annuity type of thing although I fully realize hucking unlimited dollars at a public based org does not encourage efficiency.

exactly!! why have a public side at all?! make it all private delivery and public funded. you get the efficiency of private companies wanting to turn a profit with all the equality for access and funding of a publicly run system.

edit: sorry... i forgot that goes against the canada health act. that's a pretty uncanadian thing to even think of. i must be brainwashed by satan.. errrr harper

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

If they are going to do something, they might as well get on and do it and quit hemming and hawing.

I would agree, as I have been an advocate for privatization. I think the wait has ended since the public seems resigned to it and the political will is now in place to make it happen. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th largest provinces are now on board, the Supreme Court is on board, and the Tories are philosophically on board, even if their minority status has them holding back their public support.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

exactly!! why have a public side at all?! make it all private delivery and public funded. you get the efficiency of private companies wanting to turn a profit with all the equality for access and funding of a publicly run system.

edit: sorry... i forgot that goes against the canada health act. that's a pretty uncanadian thing to even think of. i must be brainwashed by satan.. errrr harper

The Canada health act deals only with funding. As long as it's publically funded, the Canada health act does not care whether the service is publically to privately delivered.

In fact, most care outside of hospitals is privately delivered, publically funded care.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

The Canada health act deals only with funding. As long as it's publically funded, the Canada health act does not care whether the service is publically to privately delivered.

In fact, most care outside of hospitals is privately delivered, publically funded care.

i can't believe you'd say something like that. it may not go against the act itself but it goes against the principles of the act. trust me on that, don't bother looking it up. you must be brainwashed by the conservative scum.

choose your canada

[FireFly]

It is all private, it's just that currently, our 'insurance' goes through the government. The hospitals are contractors right now. They're just considering allowing clinics for certain procedures to open up and not be directed by government insurance. In other words, not contractors of the government.

Edited to say that didn't make much sense. It currently is privately operated, publically funded. There are just restrictions that any contractor has to agree to.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

i can't believe you'd say something like that. it may not go against the act itself but it goes against the principles of the act. trust me on that, don't bother looking it up. you must be brainwashed by the conservative scum.

choose your canada

Spoken like a true 18 yr old...

I know everything. You don't. Don't bother correcting me either, 'cause I won't listen.

Bravo!

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by fotze

I think he was being fececious (sp?)

thank god someone caught that.
its sometimes hard to get across sometimes subtle things like that using only text and yellow faces.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by fotze

I think he was being fececious (sp?), although I am not sure as I am not sure what side I am on this debate.

I'm with you, although I probably slant a bit more to wanting to retain universal health care only.
I too don't know what happens when all the Doctors and nurses look over here to all the extra money to be had. Soon there's no one telling me to say ahhhh.
Then even if there is doctors in the public system, they're just getting their training and cutting their teath until some private practice wants them. So you end up getting not as experienced care if you can get it at all.
Course that's just a theory I pulled out of my posterior. I could be wrong.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by fotze

But at the same time I don't think it is right to prevent a doctor from making as good a wage as he could, that goes against my core beliefs, but at the same time doctors are revered by society for being above making money at all costs. It's a tough issue.

Good point, and remember they study harder than anyone and probably soak up the most debt. Still....
Maybe there should be a cap on the number of private doctors/practices and you must conduct some public health service at some point in your more experienced years. Or like lawyers with pro bono. Your sig gives me a pro bono by the way fotze.

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by fotze

but at the same time doctors are revered by society for being above making money at all costs.

They may be revered for it, but it certainly isn't true. I've never met anyone in med school who were not there for anything other than prestige, there big head and the potential of future $$$. In fact, that is part of the reson why we need private health care, 'cause doctors are in it for the money, so if the good ones can't make bags full, they will go to jurisdictions were they can, and we end of with the dregs of the medical world

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

thank god someone caught that.
its sometimes hard to get across sometimes subtle things like that using only text and yellow faces.

Sorry... my mistake.

[Bobblehead]

I just don't want to lose what we already have. If you just open it up and allow doctors to shift to 'for profit' then why would they stay in the public system? Even if there were limits, the best doctors would go to the 'profit' side, then those who could not afford to pay would end up with inferior care.

Maybe someone knows; I've heard that there is a limit on billable hours by doctors, so once they reach that point they take the time off. Is that the case?
Could there be a system where docs could work 1 hour 'for profit' for each 4 hours they work in the 'public' system?

I just don't think your paycheck should define the level of healthcare that you receive. There are enough valuable jobs where people get paid squat (eg. daycare workers) that they should not be put in a healthcare squeeze.

If someone is rich and wants to pay a doctor to give up some of his off hours to give them treatment, then fine. If someone loses their home because their appendix bursts and they can't pay the bill, that is wrong.

[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.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

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!

[Nehkara]

The AUPE's response to the Third Way with links to information about the plan. I agree with AUPE.

http://www.aupe.org/in_the_news/3rdway0306/3rdway.php