Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[FlameOn]

[Bill Bumface]

Can we just talk about how dumb the "health reform" is?

Like, I think Canada's healthcare system is a bit of a disaster. Sure we don't suck as hard as the US, but compared to a lot of European systems we blow tons of money on it and have pretty ####ty service. So saying you want to reform it isn't controversial to me.

Instead of just copying what other better places do, we have to line our friends' pockets come up with our own insane approaches.

"Hey, let's take advantage of free market competition to improve our services".

Sure, how are you going to do that?

"Sign a contract with ONE provider of lab services, and sell them all the assets. They have guaranteed income, and just put up a huge barrier for anyone else to enter the market".

Like... jesus christ. Of course the service is going to be ####. Why wouldn't it be?

Even if we just copied our own not-awful version of this we could be better off. Diagnostic imaging has been privatized forever. There are multiple providers though, so any one of them can't just rage quit on their obligation to provide a base level of service, as their competition will eat them up. It works fine, and I hear few people complaining about getting an x-ray.

[GGG]

And remember service is going to #### right now because institutional change is hard. That part will resolve itself and get better.

We haven’t seen the cost, service, and quality implications of switching to a private monopoly provider yet.

We took a service with competition between public and private and turned it into a monopoly. This is anti market capitalism. If we are going to deal with issues of private delivery of services we need to get the cost, service and quality benefits. The private sector is only better with robust competition.

[CliffFletcher]

The sensible thing to do would be look at high-performing systems (ie the Nordic countries) and introduce elements of those systems to increase capacity. I don’t trust conservatives to carry out those reforms in a way that will benefit Canadians as a whole. However, the left isn’t stepping up to the plate with their own plans because any hint of bringing in features like private insurance (as European systems have) sends them into a wild panic.

It makes you wonder just how bad things will have to get before Canadians realize the status quo is unsustainable.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The sensible thing to do would be look at high-performing systems (ie the Nordic countries) and introduce elements of those systems to increase capacity. I don’t trust conservatives to carry out those reforms in a way that will benefit Canadians as a whole. However, the left isn’t stepping up to the plate with their own plans because any hint of bringing in features like private insurance (as European systems have) sends them into a wild panic.

It makes you wonder just how bad things will have to get before Canadians realize the status quo is unsustainable.

We definitely need to do something, but we already have private insurance and spend more private dollars than any European country (except the Swiss). So if our goal is to move towards them, we need to redesign the system, and increase public funding and lessen the amount of privatization.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The sensible thing to do would be look at high-performing systems (ie the Nordic countries) and introduce elements of those systems to increase capacity. I don’t trust conservatives to carry out those reforms in a way that will benefit Canadians as a whole. However, the left isn’t stepping up to the plate with their own plans because any hint of bringing in features like private insurance (as European systems have) sends them into a wild panic.

It makes you wonder just how bad things will have to get before Canadians realize the status quo is unsustainable.

Based on OECD data, Canada already funds significantly more of its healthcare through private insurance and out of pocket spending than most European countries do (other than Switzerland). Here's the % of total health care spending that comes from non-government sources among what are generally considered the best systems in the world:

Canada: 38.1%
UK: 29.4%
Norway: 28.5%
Sweden: 27.9%
Germany: 25.6%
Netherlands: 24.1%
France: 21.7%


That would suggest that we need significantly less private funding if we want to emulate those systems.

[Fuzz]

Easy there, Opendoor, facts might send the Conservatives into a wild panic.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Easy there, Opendoor, facts might send the Conservatives into a wild panic.

In this case pointing out that Canada’s single payer system isn’t as single payer as people assume might break the zero private dollars in health cares peoples minds.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

In this case pointing out that Canada’s single payer system isn’t as single payer as people assume might break the zero private dollars in health cares peoples minds.

I’m pretty confident that most people who don’t view more private dollars to healthcare as a silver bullet solution are aware that there already is a private component to the system and believe that it hasn’t helped produce the better results that are usually promised by those promoting it.

[Fuzz]

I would hope most people know that, but ya, after this past election odds are most don't.

[GordonBlue]

Now we're going to see how many insiders and failed UCP candidates are going to get consultant and advisor jobs.

I already read that Smith said to ensure Edmonton isn’t overlooked, she will put together a “council” of UCP candidates who lost in Edmonton.

I'm sure Kaycee and the rest will get a good chunk of money for that "work"

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

Now we're going to see how many insiders and failed UCP candidates are going to get consultant and advisor jobs.

I already read that Smith said to ensure Edmonton isn’t overlooked, she will put together a “council” of UCP candidates who lost in Edmonton.

I'm sure Kaycee and the rest will get a good chunk of money for that "work"

And they will be getting paid for this? Why wouldn't this council include the elected Edmonton MLA's? Regardless of party affiliation

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

And they will be getting paid for this? Why wouldn't this council include the elected Edmonton MLA's? Regardless of party affiliation

Do you have to ask that?


They'll get paid with our tax dollars, and Smith won't talk to dirty commies.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by GGG

In this case pointing out that Canada’s single payer system isn’t as single payer as people assume might break the zero private dollars in health cares peoples minds.

Unless someone has gotten through life without ever needing a prescription, going to the dentist, or having a job with supplemental health coverage, I'm not sure how it'd be possible to not realize that private money funds a lot of healthcare in Canada.

[timun]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

I already read that Smith said to ensure Edmonton isn’t overlooked, she will put together a “council” of UCP candidates who lost in Edmonton.

Seriously?! How about that "council" consist of MLAs who were already elected as representatives of the people of Edmonton?

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Based on OECD data, Canada already funds significantly more of its healthcare through private insurance and out of pocket spending than most European countries do (other than Switzerland). Here's the % of total health care spending that comes from non-government sources among what are generally considered the best systems in the world:

Canada: 38.1%
UK: 29.4%
Norway: 28.5%
Sweden: 27.9%
Germany: 25.6%
Netherlands: 24.1%
France: 21.7%


That would suggest that we need significantly less private funding if we want to emulate those systems.

Maybe you can help with a good answer to "The OECD data shows the US also has very low non-government spending, aren't they totally privatized?"

I know it probably has to do with Obamacare or something, but I struggle to put together a coherent argument.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

How was this not circulating everywhere 2 weeks ago?

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by timun

Seriously?! How about that "council" consist of MLAs who were already elected as representatives of the people of Edmonton?

according to the Edmonton Journal, smith said it on 630 CHED

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/loc...onton-shut-out

Appearing Tuesday morning on 630 CHED, Smith said to ensure Edmonton isn’t overlooked, she will put together a “council” of UCP candidates who lost in Edmonton.

“Some got a lot closer than I think anybody would have ever expected, so I’m going to rely on them to continue giving me advice because our capital city is vitally important to the overall success of Alberta,” said Smith.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The sensible thing to do would be look at high-performing systems (ie the Nordic countries) and introduce elements of those systems to increase capacity. I don’t trust conservatives to carry out those reforms in a way that will benefit Canadians as a whole. However, the left isn’t stepping up to the plate with their own plans because any hint of bringing in features like private insurance (as European systems have) sends them into a wild panic.

It makes you wonder just how bad things will have to get before Canadians realize the status quo is unsustainable.

Not sure how all the stats are counted, but I think the massive glaring gap in Canada is dental care and pharmacare. If we publicly funded those 100%, and then looked at the comparison numbers, I'd be curious to see how the picture looked and how much more receptive people would be to adopting some of the more successful European models.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Maybe you can help with a good answer to "The OECD data shows the US also has very low non-government spending, aren't they totally privatized?"

I know it probably has to do with Obamacare or something, but I struggle to put together a coherent argument.

I'm not sure why it's shown as being so low in that dataset. Other OECD stuff I've seen puts the US at a little over 50% public funding (primarily through Medicare and Medicaid), while other countries remained similar in both. So I assume it's different criteria or some other oddity.