Further proof that Universal Health Care does not work?

[moon]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

So the rich should have better health care treatment than the poor?

If they pay more, yes.

[FireFly]

We should clarify, it's not necessarily better treatment they're paying for, it's faster service.

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Sorry Nehkara, I'm very well informed and I disagree with you. Cal-Gal has very articulately identified the true ignorance I hear all the time. Everybody is so quick to automatically assume that you give an inch and suddenly doctors take a mile and health care is suddenly run by mercenary doctors for hire. The fallacy of the slippery slope.

What people should really be discussing is the DEGREES of privatization, not this all or nothing mentality. Aspects of privatization are already here amongst us - "elective" vs. necessary surgical procedures, private MRI's/CT's....etc - so you are already seeing it in action. The public and private systems can coexist, provided there is some proper regulation. If you fear losing the best doctors to the private side, put a limit on their abilities to bill privately, or require a quota of public billing. Here you are providing some incentive to work extra, in addition to maintaing the public side. This is a better alternative than losing them all together to the US.

And to the guy (unabomber) whining about his doctor, he's not your secretary. He's probably doing the public more of a service treating 5 patients with real medical problems, rather than using that time to sort out the problems of the RGH patient records office (completely seperate from his own office). Not to mention he's only obligated to refer you to a vascular surgeon, not to set you up with the previous one, in the nicest hospital in town, as soon as possible for some surgery you might need in 5-6 years. Again, as per previous forum discussions, this overwhelming sense of entitlement some people have is a huge reason why public health care is in a crisis. You are part of the problem, get over yourself!!!

And your comment about not being able to launch a complaint? You're either completely ignorant or lying for the sake of sensationalism. Complaints are very easily made through our professional group - the college of physicians and surgeons - and taken very serious, leading to disciplinary action if warrented. Here, i'll even give you the link which took me 2 seconds to find on google:

http://www.cpsa.ab.ca/complaints/complaintprocess.asp

There is always a breaking point though... the "straw that broke the camel's back".

Corporations seem to hold a lot of power over our government and if you let the huge American medical companies in the door, you will probably never get them out and they will push and push and push and push and push and push, etc, until they get their way (near-total privatization).

In my opinion it has already GONE TOO FAR. Universal health care is one of the things that makes this country great. It is the only system that works for everyone.

I don't think we can risk letting the American medical system anywhere near us... that country's health care is a total disaster. I want Canada to be as close to a polar opposite as possible.

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by Cal-Gal

IMO, when it comes to Health Care, a lot of Canadians suffer from False Dichotomy Disease. There seems to be this ridiculous assumption that there are only two ways of doing health care: OUR way, and the AMERICAN way....and our way is right and good and fair, and the American way is evil and unjust and don't talk to me about it.

The Canadian health care system is built on the principle of Universality. The US system is not. So comparing the two is kind of silly. How about instead we compare Canada to other countries that have health care systems which also adhere to the principle of universal access:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

It bothers me that so many people think that as long as we're better than the Americans when it comes to health outcomes, then everything is peachy. Problem is, all 29 countries that rank higher on the WHO list than Canada, ALL are based on the notion of universal access, and ALL have a public health system, supplemented by private health options. Canada, Cuba, and North Korea are the only three countries in the world with a complete government monopoly on health care.

I can spend my money on darn-near whatever I want in this country....I can buy snowmobiles, or Flames tickets, or cigarettes that make me sick...but I can't - by law - spend my own money on health insurance for myself and my family. Seems odd to me.

I'm not advocating for the US system...God knows its got a lot of ugly problems. But saying we're not going to touch Canadian health care because we don't want to "Americanize" our system is a purely political argument - one that holds no water when it comes to improving access and addressing patient needs.

You can already pay more for services in Canada if you want them faster and you can also buy private health insurance... it is not a 100% monopoly by the government and you are sensationalizing that aspect just as much as others (myself included) sensationalize the "CANADA vs AMERICAN" arguement.

If we built our health care system (privatization included) on European nations then I would be happy, most of them seem to function well.

But whenever a politician comes up with a plan to privatize some of our services, it seems to be with an eye to the south and I don't think that can be allowed. We should have nothing to do with that debacle.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by albertGQ

They have access to the best dental care, optometry, costmetic surgery, homes, food, clothes, cars, boats, etc.

I don't see why health care should be any different

That is so cold.

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by evman150

That is so cold.

Yup.

[NuclearFart]

I think we all would want something like that nehkara, but the problem is that it is not sustainable. The luxury of universal health care on the level you suggest is too costly to carry on indefinitely. Hence the rising waitlists and ever expanding federal deficit. Something must change before the system implodes.
________
Wendie 99

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by FireFly

We should clarify, it's not necessarily better treatment they're paying for, it's faster service.

Well over time the better doctors would tend to go towards the private providers. Just as our best doctors leave for the US.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Well over time the better doctors would tend to go towards the private providers. Just as our best doctors leave for the US.

Soooo if we are already losing our doctors completely to another country...does it make a difference?
________
big women Cams

[evman150]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Soooo if we are already losing our doctors completely to another country...does it make a difference?

The fact working in the US implies living in the US stops a lot of people.

Nice straw man though.

[albertGQ]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Soooo if we are already losing our doctors completely to another country...does it make a difference?

Exactly! I'd rather them stay in Canada then cross the border. Our taxes highly subsidize their tuition costs, and I'd rather them go treat "rich" Canadians in Canada as opposed to Americans. Alot of the "rich" Canadians go to the States to get faster treatment anyway, so why not keep the dollars in Canada???

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Cal-Gal

It bothers me that so many people think that as long as we're better than the Americans when it comes to health outcomes, then everything is peachy. Problem is, all 29 countries that rank higher on the WHO list than Canada, ALL are based on the notion of universal access, and ALL have a public health system, supplemented by private health options. Canada, Cuba, and North Korea are the only three countries in the world with a complete government monopoly on health care.

Great post - all of it.

We already have a multi-tier system where the rich and priviledged (or incarcerated) get better care.
We already have a system where 'free' health care seems to cost a lot out of pocket.
We already have a system where you socio-economic status has as much to do with your wellness as anything.

We have all the downsides of a public private mix, but none of the upside - choice and efficiency.

Worst sacred cow ever

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by evman150

The fact working in the US implies living in the US stops a lot of people.

Nice straw man though.

It's not a straw man because it's a stand alone argument, rather than a distortion. It's also valid because you are currently losing doctors from the system all together, which is totally relevant to the discussion. If his argument is based upon the fact that we are losing doctors in the scenario of privatization, but yet we are also losing doctors in the current scenario, then it is not unreasonable to question if they are equivocal.

And living in the US may stop some, but it's also an incentive for some. And if the gains, outweigh the negatives of living the US, then you get net migration.
________
Blonde Cam

[DFO]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Worst sacred cow ever

I hear they make the best hamburger. Its time to take the feeble political hurdles out of the way when it come to reform. I can't for the life of me figure how some want the status quo when every country ranked ahead of us uses a mixed system.

[evman150]

He's saying it's no different.

It's like a poker player saying, **** it, I'm already down $1000 I might as well pump off my last $1000. Well, geez, it's still $1000.

He's exaggerating the direness of the situation to suit his argument. Yes we are losing our doctors, but not nearly the number we'd lose if the right wingers got their way.

[The Unabomber]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Sorry Nehkara, I'm very well informed and I disagree with you. Cal-Gal has very articulately identified the true ignorance I hear all the time. Everybody is so quick to automatically assume that you give an inch and suddenly doctors take a mile and health care is suddenly run by mercenary doctors for hire. The fallacy of the slippery slope.

What people should really be discussing is the DEGREES of privatization, not this all or nothing mentality. Aspects of privatization are already here amongst us - "elective" vs. necessary surgical procedures, private MRI's/CT's....etc - so you are already seeing it in action. The public and private systems can coexist, provided there is some proper regulation. If you fear losing the best doctors to the private side, put a limit on their abilities to bill privately, or require a quota of public billing. Here you are providing some incentive to work extra, in addition to maintaing the public side. This is a better alternative than losing them all together to the US.

And to the guy (unabomber) whining about his doctor, he's not your secretary. He's probably doing the public more of a service treating 5 patients with real medical problems, rather than using that time to sort out the problems of the RGH patient records office (completely seperate from his own office). Not to mention he's only obligated to refer you to a vascular surgeon, not to set you up with the previous one, in the nicest hospital in town, as soon as possible for some surgery you might need in 5-6 years. Again, as per previous forum discussions, this overwhelming sense of entitlement some people have is a huge reason why public health care is in a crisis. You are part of the problem, get over yourself!!!

And your comment about not being able to launch a complaint? You're either completely ignorant or lying for the sake of sensationalism. Complaints are very easily made through our professional group - the college of physicians and surgeons - and taken very serious, leading to disciplinary action if warrented. Here, i'll even give you the link which took me 2 seconds to find on google:

http://www.cpsa.ab.ca/complaints/complaintprocess.asp

Nuclear Fart,

I had to see a vascular surgeon, i didn't request to see my old one, i simply requested to see one due to the possibility of a double bypass surgery that i had when i was younger in which the surgeon told me that there was a chance the vein that was used to replace the artery may burst with 15 years. That might not meet your serious standards but it does mine. I called the hospital to set up an appointment but i was told only a family doctor could set up appointments with surgeons, so no, the doctor didn't do his job. So please explain to me how i'm part of the problem....is it because i went through the proper channels and didn't get a response from a doctor?

What could have i done better? As far as launching a complaint, i simply said what was told to me, that it's of no use to issue a complaint.

WHAT IS A REAL MEDICAL PROBLEM IN YOUR EYES?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Well over time the better doctors would tend to go towards the private providers. Just as our best doctors leave for the US.

There would probably be some sort of regulation that a doctor has to work in both systems a maximum of 25 public/75 private, starting with 100 public/0 private after university. Ensuring that even the best are available to the public at least part of the time. There is no slippery slope here, its very much invented, and very much a tool of the left to claim there is only two ways to go... the bloated socialist way, or the cutthroat capitalist way. Europe and Japan seriously disagree with this claim.

Ironically in both extremes, its the middle class that gets screwed. In the socialist system, the poor are the ones in mind and get better service than they would otherwise get, and the rich just go somewhere else. In the capitalist system, the government tends to take care of the poorest, and the richest have the best services available, that tend to be out of the range of the middle class.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

So the rich should have better health care treatment than the poor?

A system that fails everyone is equal for all but good for no one.

If there were private options available that the wealthy utilized - would that not also take some of the strain off the public system - thus benefiting everyone?

[ken0042]

I also do not understand why a doctor has to declare himslef part of one system or another. In fact, would it not work that it be required that he work a certain percentage on the public system?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I also do not understand why a doctor has to declare himslef part of one system or another. In fact, would it not work that it be required that he work a certain percentage on the public system?

Of course it can... all it takes is a couple tweaks to some regulations and its done. But people like the "Friends of Medicare" don't want you to know that.