Further proof that Universal Health Care does not work?

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

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?

No, it wouldn't.

The strain would increase. There is a finite number of workers in the healthcare field, you would be spreading them thinner.

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

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.

Now, which system would a doctor perfer... one where he gets paid $1500 per patient (private) or one where he is paid $500 per patient (public). What would be his motivation to put ANY effort into his work in the public system, in a system where their responsibilities are split?

Note: figures are completely made up, but I strongly believe that a private system would pay doctors significantly more.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

Now, which system would a doctor perfer... one where he gets paid $1500 per patient (private) or one where he is paid $500 per patient (public). What would be his motivation to put ANY effort into his work in the public system, in a system where their responsibilities are split?

Note: figures are completely made up, but I strongly believe that a private system would pay doctors significantly more.

Now you're trying to tell me that every doctor is a money hungry despot, who only cares about their paycheque and not their efficacy or sense of empathy? Lets pretend they are... okay, their motivation in that case is keeping their job and reputation in both. If a doctor puts no effort in their work in the public sector, they still get reported to the same regulatory body and would therefore face the same penalties in both systems. And what reputable private clinic would want to employ a doctor who is under investigation for negligence/incompetence/malpractice?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

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.

That's because the 'Friends of Medicare' are really run by the government unions involved in healthcare. They would lose control over their membership should there be split hours.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

No, it wouldn't.

The strain would increase. There is a finite number of workers in the healthcare field, you would be spreading them thinner.

But wouldn't the availability of more private services enable Canada to retain more of its own doctors thus increasing the pool?

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by fotze

How many loaded people are there really. I would think the split of Rich vs. Don't want to pay patients would be skewed in the 97%/3% range. I could be totally wrong though.

Would it just be the loaded people accessing the service though? I guess that's the question...when it comes to one's health I wonder how many would do whatever they needed to if it meant getting faster service. If I could afford it anyway possible I would.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Cal-Gal

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.

No offense but Canada should not be compared to countries like San Marino with their population of 29,000. Yes we're still behind tons of our competition in these rankings. Remove the countries under 10mil and suddenly Canada is 19th instead of 30th.

[jamesteterenko]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

... He has collaborated with author and physician David Gratzer to produce freemarketcure.com, a website featuring his videos as well as health care commentary from a pro-capitalism perspective...

Wow, that is where David ended up. I had to click the link to verify. I actually went to university with him. I remember sniffing organics with him in chemisty class. Fun times.

James.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

Now, which system would a doctor perfer... one where he gets paid $1500 per patient (private) or one where he is paid $500 per patient (public). What would be his motivation to put ANY effort into his work in the public system, in a system where their responsibilities are split?

Note: figures are completely made up, but I strongly believe that a private system would pay doctors significantly more.

The motivation question is usually about what would docs be motivated to do, instead of not to do. By that i mean if you are a doc talking to a patient and also operate in a clinic, you can essentially 'upsell' the patient into your private service. Or so the argument goes.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

No, it wouldn't.

The strain would increase. There is a finite number of workers in the healthcare field, you would be spreading them thinner.

But many efficiencies.

As an example, hospitals build operating rooms for any eventuality. Purpose built clinics can specialize the room and equipment, and do twice the work with half the staff.

Also, don't forget that this happens right now. WCB, Military, Government, Prisoners etc all receive care outside the system from docs that generally move between both worlds.

(not singling you out btw...just thought both posts were interesting)

[Cal-Gal]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

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.

Granted, but what services??? and Insurance for what??? and who decides??

I can pay 40 bucks a night for a private room at Foothills Hospital, true.
I can buy insurance to cover prescription drugs, absolutely.

The monopoly is a virtual one, not a comprehensive one....and I should have chosen my words more carefully. I shouldn't have said the government has a 'complete monopoly on health care services', I should have said the 'government completely monopolizes the services it offers'.

If the government covers it, they have a monopoly on it. You cannot, by law, purchase health care coverage for services that are provided for within the government system (like essential surgeries, or doctors' fees).

The only things you can buy, and indeed have to buy, for yourself are those services that the government has "delisted" - and these "private" services account for about 30% of all health care spending in Canada. Of the total health care expenditures in Canada, 70% are paid for by the government. In the US the government covers 40% of all health care expenditures, I think.

As for Canadian politicians looking to the south - when Ralph Klein introduced the Third Way, the whole point was to NOT follow the American model. The point was to find another option, a better way of doing things, a more efficient, and more cost-effective way....a THIRD WAY. But he got shouted down by the fear-mongering of those who cried "American-Style Health Care", and would not even allow the debate to take place. And those people are just as guilty of putting ideology above patients as are the capatalists of the US insurance companies we so greatly abhor.

I'm not advocating for carte blanche privatization...but rather, lets look at all possible options to reduce wait times, improve access, and improve outcomes in Canada. I just hate it when anti-Americanism is what dictates health policy in this country. And I'm honestly not trying to sensationalize the debate, I just want to have the debate......and I'm very glad to see that most people here seem to want the same.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Dan02

No offense but Canada should not be compared to countries like San Marino with their population of 29,000. Yes we're still behind tons of our competition in these rankings. Remove the countries under 10mil and suddenly Canada is 19th instead of 30th.

Yikes. Why not?

Should the US not be compared to anyone under 100 million?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

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

Don't they have that exact same thing right now?

If you're rich....you go to the US for the best health care possible...especially if you are put on a waiting list here in Canada. Why not keep that money here in Canada? And along with the money you keep the doctors.

I would rather have a system that reduces waiting lists by contracting out certain operations to private hospitals. I think the UK does that.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Yikes. Why not?

Should the US not be compared to anyone under 100 million?

because the economics of a country of 29,000 are completely different then a country 1000 times its size.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

No, it wouldn't.

The strain would increase. There is a finite number of workers in the healthcare field, you would be spreading them thinner.

Considering that you could keep a lot of the doctors moving to the US because of the incentive of working in the private field....how do you figure the strain would increase?

By all accounts it would decrease based simply on the fact that more skilled physicians would stay here in Canada.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Dan02

because the economics of a country of 29,000 are completely different then a country 1000 times its size.

Not different, just smaller.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Dan02

because the economics of a country of 29,000 are completely different then a country 1000 times its size.

Sure.. it's the 10 million cut off I question.

[ericschand]

Here's what I feel you do.

On the tax forms, similar to what they do with public vs seperate school, you
ask a question. Do you wish to pay health taxes and remain within the public
Universal Healthcare system?

Answer yes, you remove the amount of taxes for the health portion, and the
person remains under Alberta Health Care.

Answer no, you do not remove the health portion, they are free to spend it
on their own insurance.

Note, they can answer yes, but still use the private system if they like.

However, let's say Mr. Simpson decides to go into the private system and
does not pay the taxes. All of a sudden he is diagnosed with severe radiation
poisoning problems. The cost will be $100,000 for treatment, and just
like the USA his insurance companies deny him benefits, 'cause he fell
down the gorge landing on his head a number of times.

Mr. Simpson cannot simply say, well, let me back into the public system.

He would have reimburse the public system, by paying at least 66.7% of
the $100,000 (ie. $66,666.67) plus the past 5 years of the health portion
of his taxes. First he must pay the 5 years portion. Then as it adds up he
must pay 66.7% of the cost.

He can't come up with it? Too bad, he must stay in the private system, and
work it out with them.

You must choose the system you want, public or private, there is no,
just don't remove any money and I'll take my chances. Default would be
public system.

All children turning 18 are automatically put into the public system, until they
file their first taxes and make a selection.

Lay this out on the table, then let people make the choice.

ers

[Reggie Dunlop]

Well, if you're poor, you're pretty much screwed anyway. Why bother with doctors.

In order to facilitate the reduced need for doctors, make medical education available only to the extremely rich.