Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[PepsiFree]

It’s actually kind of nice to know that the problem with healthcare is kids these days and that any mention of government-side or policy-related issues can be waived off as partisan nitpicking. Should make for a quick and tidy resolution to this issue, so let’s hurry up then.

[Roughneck]

I think I've summed up the doctor shortage

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s actually kind of nice to know that the problem with healthcare is kids these days and that any mention of government-side or policy-related issues can be waived off as partisan nitpicking. Should make for a quick and tidy resolution to this issue, so let’s hurry up then.

not just any kids, but non Christian kids.

[Muta]

Stupid kids these days, going into STEM careers in geographic locations that foster that type of career path, and uselessly playing with technology on their phones in their spare time - instead of doing something that I want, which is them to go be a tenured doctor in Dildo, Newfoundland forever and shut up and like it, because righteous Christian values tell them they need to!

[calf]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I guess I am relating it to a lack of kids going to Sunday School where the Christian idea of serving others is drummed into their heads.



Oh boy... I can see where this is ending up. Cheese where are you?

Maybe your generation shouldn't have dismantled the system, wrung it dry, then retired as soon as you reached retirement age to leave the younger generation to clean up the mess you left behind.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by calf

Maybe your generation shouldn't have dismantled the system, wrung it dry, then retired as soon as you reached retirement age to leave the younger generation to clean up the mess you left behind.

We’ve never spent more on health care. It’s been eating up a larger and larger slice of the government spending pie for decades.

Demand and costs are increasing faster than spending. That’s where the capacity shortfall has come from. Not from spending cuts.

As for the rural doctor shortage, a big part of the problem is in generations past the spouses of doctors didn’t have careers, so it was easier for doctors to relocate for work. Now most are married to other professionals, and small towns struggle to provide a second, high-paid professional job for the spouse. They try to get creative and provide things like doctor + teacher job pairings. But it’s an uphill struggle.

[MRCboicgy]

Maybe he's right - my memory of Sunday School wasn't about being taught to serve others, but was more if you:
- listen to that music
- watch those tv shows
- hang out with 'bad' people
- touch yourself
You'll just end up in hell.


Given all that, I'd just chase the money too.

[flamesfever]

I think that many young ambitious people, who have the potential to become doctors, just don't want to end up working for the government, and dependent of them for their income.

I recall a doctor friend in the late 80s or early 90s, who after 35 years of practice, managed to save $100,000. to retire on. That would probably equate to more than double that in today's dollars, but certainly not enough to have a great retirement.

Also, I know my own doctor has been struggling at times, and has had to charge extra fees for certain services.

It's true the answer to our healthcare problems are complex, and simply throwing money at the System isn't the answer. However, if we don't start finding solutions, it will get worse. Things like limited two tier and decentralizing aren't magic bullets, but neither is the status quo. I think it behooves us to try different approaches, even if we have to step outside our belief that we all deserve the right to universal healthcare.

As I see it, it has only been the development and marketing of our exceptional resource abundance as a nation that has allowed us to have a universal healthcare system. However, as we have witnessed, not appreciating and continuing to take advantage of that has led us to our present situation.

just my opinion

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

We’ve never spent more on health care. It’s been eating up a larger and larger slice of the government spending pie for decades.

Demand and costs are increasing faster than spending. That’s where the capacity shortfall has come from. Not from spending cuts.

That's a fact basically everywhere. Modern healthcare is more expensive and a relatively older population is also more expensive to treat. But the lack of growth in funding relative to peer countries is pretty stark:

-In 1990 Canada was #2 on the OECD in total health spending as a % of GDP and now we're 10th.

-Also in 1990, Canada was #3 in the OECD in government health spending as a % of GDP and now we're 13th.

-Since the early '90s, Canada's government spending on healthcare (as a % of GDP) has increased by about 15-20%. That pales in comparison to countries like Japan (120%), Netherlands (85%), UK (85%), Australia (65%), Germany (60%), France (60%), New Zealand (60%), and Sweden (50%).

It's clear that peer countries are investing far more heavily in improving health care than Canada is, and it shows in the quality disparity.

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I think that many young ambitious people, who have the potential to become doctors, just don't want to end up working for the government, and dependent of them for their income.

I recall a doctor friend in the late 80s or early 90s, who after 35 years of practice, managed to save $100,000. to retire on. That would probably equate to more than double that in today's dollars, but certainly not enough to have a great retirement.

Also, I know my own doctor has been struggling at times, and has had to charge extra fees for certain services.

It's true the answer to our healthcare problems are complex, and simply throwing money at the System isn't the answer. However, if we don't start finding solutions, it will get worse. Things like limited two tier and decentralizing aren't magic bullets, but neither is the status quo. I think it behooves us to try different approaches, even if we have to step outside our belief that we all deserve the right to universal healthcare.

As I see it, it has only been the development and marketing of our exceptional resource abundance as a nation that has allowed us to have a universal healthcare system. However, as we have witnessed, not appreciating and continuing to take advantage of that has led us to our present situation.

just my opinion

I've heard that doctors are notorious for getting scammed/hosed by shady investment advisors more than one would would expect given their much higher intelligence. Usually just don't have the time to check stuff out. Not sure if that is horsecrap though.

Mind you, a guy I graduated engineering with went back to school to become a Doc/Radiologist in Edmonton, last I talked to him he had like seven houses and was doing really well, I imagine he's added a few more on the list (not that owning houses is 100% successful). Smart as fata fellow.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by opendoor

That's a fact basically everywhere. Modern healthcare is more expensive and a relatively older population is also more expensive to treat. But the lack of growth in funding relative to peer countries is pretty stark:

-In 1990 Canada was #2 on the OECD in total health spending as a % of GDP and now we're 10th.

-Also in 1990, Canada was #3 in the OECD in government health spending as a % of GDP and now we're 13th.

-Since the early '90s, Canada's government spending on healthcare (as a % of GDP) has increased by about 15-20%. That pales in comparison to countries like Japan (120%), Netherlands (85%), UK (85%), Australia (65%), Germany (60%), France (60%), New Zealand (60%), and Sweden (50%).

It's clear that peer countries are investing far more heavily in improving health care than Canada is, and it shows in the quality disparity.

It's easy for people to point at Euro countries and try to say "see, privatization works" while ignoring that they also spend way more public money than us.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I think that many young ambitious people, who have the potential to become doctors, just don't want to end up working for the government, and dependent of them for their income.

I recall a doctor friend in the late 80s or early 90s, who after 35 years of practice, managed to save $100,000. to retire on. That would probably equate to more than double that in today's dollars, but certainly not enough to have a great retirement.

Also, I know my own doctor has been struggling at times, and has had to charge extra fees for certain services.

It's true the answer to our healthcare problems are complex, and simply throwing money at the System isn't the answer. However, if we don't start finding solutions, it will get worse. Things like limited two tier and decentralizing aren't magic bullets, but neither is the status quo. I think it behooves us to try different approaches, even if we have to step outside our belief that we all deserve the right to universal healthcare.

As I see it, it has only been the development and marketing of our exceptional resource abundance as a nation that has allowed us to have a universal healthcare system. However, as we have witnessed, not appreciating and continuing to take advantage of that has led us to our present situation.

just my opinion

So you've had several posters explain in logical rational terms why this makes things worse, but you still insist we should give it a go? Maybe you can recommend a country to look at where this sort of system has made things better, while not taking resources form the public system, and helping to decrease costs. Let is know when you find a good example.

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by belsarius

It's easy for people to point at Euro countries and try to say "see, privatization works" while ignoring that they also spend way more public money than us.

I think its way too complicated for laypeople to even comprehend. You talk to anyone in a northern European place and they moan about all the same things we do. My in-laws in Denmark have all the horror stories.

My father in law was here when my kid got a hoverboard for his birthday, within minutes of opening it, father in law is on it wipes out and snaps his wrist.

He was in surgery that night. Cost him about $5k. His doc in Florida was blown away how cheap it was and it was top notch work (I guess they can tell by the x-ray). Maybe we should be charging more to Americans up here.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by fotze2

I've heard that doctors are notorious for getting scammed/hosed by shady investment advisors more than one would would expect given their much higher intelligence. Usually just don't have the time to check stuff out. Not sure if that is horsecrap though.

Mind you, a guy I graduated engineering with went back to school to become a Doc/Radiologist in Edmonton, last I talked to him he had like seven houses and was doing really well, I imagine he's added a few more on the list (not that owning houses is 100% successful). Smart as fata fellow.

It's possibly that, but some doctors have told me that they're just plain busy and terrible with money. I don't think that's peculiar to their profession though because a lot of professionals would fall into that category.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So you've had several posters explain in logical rational terms why this makes things worse, but you still insist we should give it a go? Maybe you can recommend a country to look at where this sort of system has made things better, while not taking resources form the public system, and helping to decrease costs. Let is know when you find a good example.

Maybe it’s more hearsay based on the feedback he’s been receiving from all of the young ambitious people he’s been talking to during his retirement who are telling him that they don’t want to work for the government?

[PepsiFree]

Solution:
- Children and working age people get free healthcare
- Retirees get access to the system, but have to foot 100% of the bill
- That money goes into funding increases

That way, we remove the most expensive individuals from the equation while using the increase in funding to improve the system we have, and gain the two-tier system that people desire. Thoughts? A win for everyone?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Solution:
- Children and working age people get free healthcare
- Retirees get access to the system, but have to foot 100% of the bill
- That money goes into funding increases

That way, we remove the most expensive individuals from the equation while using the increase in funding to improve the system we have, and gain the two-tier system that people desire. Thoughts? A win for everyone?

I'd try it out for a couple decades.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by opendoor

That's a fact basically everywhere. Modern healthcare is more expensive and a relatively older population is also more expensive to treat. But the lack of growth in funding relative to peer countries is pretty stark:

-In 1990 Canada was #2 on the OECD in total health spending as a % of GDP and now we're 10th.

-Also in 1990, Canada was #3 in the OECD in government health spending as a % of GDP and now we're 13th.

-Since the early '90s, Canada's government spending on healthcare (as a % of GDP) has increased by about 15-20%. That pales in comparison to countries like Japan (120%), Netherlands (85%), UK (85%), Australia (65%), Germany (60%), France (60%), New Zealand (60%), and Sweden (50%).

It's clear that peer countries are investing far more heavily in improving health care than Canada is, and it shows in the quality disparity.

None of that is contrary what I said: Health care spending is increasing because demand and costs are increasing. So the next time someone comes out with the familiar refrain that we’ve been cutting health care funding in this country or province, you could chime in with those stats to disabuse them of that myth.

It’s also worth noting that most of those countries have older populations than Canada. And the European ones have higher tax rates than Canada - and higher taxes for everyone, not just higher for the wealthy.

The biggest barrier to Canada funding health care at European levels is an unwillingness of Canadians to be taxed at European levels.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Yes, they bill the government for any services that the government covers. Look at Preventous for example:

https://preventous.com/calgary-priva...e-health-care/

That’s gross, this isn’t two tier health care. It’s government subsidized queue jumping.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

People can’t seem to get beyond partisan politics when talking about this stuff. Health care capacity shortfalls aren’t an Alberta problem. It’s a problem in Ontario, B.C., Manitoba, Quebec, and New Brunswick too. Under PC, Liberal, and NDP governments. It’s been a problem for decades, in every province, under very party. And it’s getting worse.

That means the problem is systemic. The government in power doesn’t make much of a difference, because reforming something as vast and complex as a public health care system is beyond the capability of any single government in a 4-year term. It would likely involve imposing measures that vested interests and voters will not like, and the benefits wouldn’t be evident for 6+ years. So there’s no political upside.

We could maybe look at what countries with better access and outcomes do, and try to learn from them. But that’s pretty much taboo in Canada. Let’s just keep blaming whichever party is in power at the moment. It hasn’t worked yet, but maybe if we blame a bit harder it will work eventually.

How do you implement these other country solutions given the constraints in your second paragraph?