Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

If the UCP does win, it's Calgary's fault.

After the bird vote I have lost all faith in Calgary voters making the correct decision.

Magpies? Oh no, they’re loud and annoying bring pain and suffering wherever they go.

Danielle Smith and the UCP? Well of course!

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

This woman can't be permitted anywhere near a position of power. I guess if you are unfortunate enough to lose the health lottery, you better hope you have a really really good acupuncturist.

Absolute trash. This spending account is so stupid. The idea is to funnel government money into alternative medicine (go free market!) and cut healthcare spending from science based "alternatives". The reason healthcare spending works is most people don't need it all the time. The average cost per person is easy to calculate, and for many indivduals it may be near zero in particular year. But some years you need lots of health care. Having a small amount you can spend, spread out over your life isn't how insurance systems work. Everyone will spend what they have on massages when they don't need real health care, then get ####ed when they do.

Smith's paper from the Calgary Policy school originally suggested that $375 was the spending account on family physician visits. perhaps her health spending account is a new first-step towards this goal.

Smith wants user-pay health care ( with insurance available for elected officials)

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

Smith's paper from the Calgary Policy school originally suggested that $375 was the spending account on family physician visits. perhaps her health spending account is a new first-step towards this goal.

Smith wants user-pay health care ( with insurance available for elected officials)

she suggested that it be for more than that. trips to the dentist, physio, psychologists, prescriptions.

yeah, that $375 a year will go far.

this is her most telling statement

"But once people get used to the concept of paying out of pocket for more things themselves then we can change the conversation on health care"

She wants government supported health care pared down to the minimum required to keep you alive, and then the rest is up to you.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

she suggested that it be for more than that. trips to the dentist, physio, psychologists, prescriptions.

yeah, that $375 a year will go far.

this is her most telling statement

"But once people get used to the concept of paying out of pocket for more things themselves then we can change the conversation on health care"

She wants government supported health care pared down to the minimum required to keep you alive, and then the rest is up to you.

Nothing like a little rugged individualism. Pull up our bootstraps?

[TheIronMaiden]

I am convinced that anyone who likes the idea of private health care either
1. has no idea that means you will need to make claims through a private insurance company.
2. Has shares in an insurance company.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I am convinced that anyone who likes the idea of private health care either
1. has no idea that means you will need to make claims through a private insurance company.
2. Has shares in an insurance company.

Yo Shandro where u at bro

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

If the UCP does win, it's Calgary's fault.

This is true.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

If the UCP does win, it's Calgary's fault.

Edmonton is no good... except when it comes to provincial politics.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I am convinced that anyone who likes the idea of private health care either
1. has no idea that means you will need to make claims through a private insurance company.
2. Has shares in an insurance company.

I'm probably too idealistic but for quite a long time I have thought that public and private can work alongside each other up here. People that can afford private treatment or services already travel to places across the US, Mexico or internationally so why not keep them here and keep those dollars in the economy. Maybe a private structure can even attract some more doctors who see it as a good opportunity so that our public system is not always so stressed. It could even be an opportunity for health tourism dollars to increase in our economy. I understand there are also a lot of concerns and fears though and reality can be quite different from an ideal situation.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I'm probably too idealistic but for quite a long time I have thought that public and private can work alongside each other up here. People that can afford private treatment or services already travel to places across the US, Mexico or internationally so why not keep them here and keep those dollars in the economy. Maybe a private structure can even attract some more doctors who see it as a good opportunity so that our public system is not always so stressed. It could even be an opportunity for health tourism dollars to increase in our economy. I understand there are also a lot of concerns and fears though and reality can be quite different from an ideal situation.

I am not going to pretend to be a medical economist, but I would be fine with there being a hybrid system, so long as public health care was fully funded, and no one was exempt from paying into it, meaning that folks who wanted private healthcare would pay on top of the taxes they were already paying to get care more quickly.

However, I don't think that would ever happen. Any implementation of a private system will be a decision inspired by money. Either folks thinking they will save money, or folks thinking that they will make money. My own assumption is only the latter will be true.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I'm probably too idealistic but for quite a long time I have thought that public and private can work alongside each other up here. People that can afford private treatment or services already travel to places across the US, Mexico or internationally so why not keep them here and keep those dollars in the economy. Maybe a private structure can even attract some more doctors who see it as a good opportunity so that our public system is not always so stressed. It could even be an opportunity for health tourism dollars to increase in our economy. I understand there are also a lot of concerns and fears though and reality can be quite different from an ideal situation.

Where are you going to get all the doctors, nurses, and other specialized medical staff from? If you have 100 doctors, it doesn't make a huge difference if 100 work at one place, or 50 work at each of two places.

Would medical graduates that move to another country stay in Canada? Possibly a few, but I doubt that it would be enough to make much noticeable difference.

You'll get the private facilities poaching all the easy / high paying patients, leaving all the challenging, medically complex patients for the public facility. So the staff that does choose to work there ends up with a more difficult job for the same (or less) money, depending on how the private facilities compensate their staff.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I am not going to pretend to be a medical economist, but I would be fine with there being a hybrid system, so long as public health care was fully funded, and no one was exempt from paying into it, meaning that folks who wanted private healthcare would pay on top of the taxes they were already paying to get care more quickly.

However, I don't think that would ever happen. Any implementation of a private system will be a decision inspired by money. Either folks thinking they will save money, or folks thinking that they will make money. My own assumption is only the latter will be true.

I agree. A well-funded, well-oiled public healthcare system that everyone can access and have quality service and everyone pays in. Private is simply a top-up for those looking for expidited service or funded by the public system in cases where there is a (temporary) shortage of quality public care.

There should be absolutely no reason to use a private system. At least in an ideal world.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I agree. A well-funded, well-oiled public healthcare system that everyone can access and have quality service and everyone pays in. Private is simply a top-up for those looking for expidited service or funded by the public system in cases where there is a (temporary) shortage of quality public care.

There should be absolutely no reason to use a private system. At least in an ideal world.

Aren't we sort of 50% private now anyways?

AHS covers family doctors, labs, tests and hospitals. Ultrasounds and surgeries now you can pay upfront to not wait a year. Or Cataracts, you can go for a free option or a paid option which includes laser.

So privatizing would be an increase in available paid services. Sure the rich would be advantaged but would having people go off to private unclog the system a bit? Right now everything is maxed out by scheduling and quotas.

[iggy_oi]

[QUOTE=GirlySports;8389136]Aren't we sort of 50% private now anyways?

I don’t know about 50% but there’s definitely a significant portion that is.

So privatizing would be an increase in available paid services. Sure the rich would be advantaged but would having people go off to private unclog the system a bit? Right now everything is maxed out by scheduling and quotas.

It seems as though the bolded statement is in contradiction with the rest of your post. If privatization of healthcare lead to better access and we’ve been increasing privatization for some time now then everything shouldn’t be maxed out now should it?

The goal of privatization isn’t to make the system better for everyone, it’s to ensure the investor class can make money off of it, that’s all.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

So privatizing would be an increase in available paid services. Sure the rich would be advantaged but would having people go off to private unclog the system a bit? Right now everything is maxed out by scheduling and quotas.

As I said, the public system needs to be well-funded and well-oiled so that private healthcare isn't needed. That is also going to require some realignment structurally, as well as invest in building trust back up with the public. Perhaps I should say Single-payer systems, but I would like to see a public system where confidence is fully restored in delivery and quality and not just assume private delivery is the primary way to go. Lineups at places like Dynalife and radiologists are evident that private services are not always more efficient.

I suspect the UCP are trying to go down that route.

[powderjunkie]

Private care doesn't seem likely to help the biggest bottlenecks like long-term care, family medicine, or surgical suites (beyond the operating room itself there is the vast numbers of staff/supplies required, pre/post op care, and everything else that means they would basically have to build/staff/operate a full hospital, which would be awfully tough to do profitably.

Also, private docs may order more unnecessary tests to give the illusion of service and diligence, which can make things worse.

[Dion]

OMG she's gone off the deep end!

https://twitter.com/user/status/1553050101102231554

[direwolf]

Good grief, this woman is a f'n lunatic. Have fun with her as your next premier, Alberta.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Dion

OMG she's gone off the deep end!

https://twitter.com/user/status/1553050101102231554

I’d say the ones who actually believe this rhetoric about the world economic forum loving all parties except the conservatives are the ones who’ve gone off the deep end. This is just more of the same from Smith.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I don’t know about 50% but there’s definitely a significant portion that is.

It seems as though the bolded statement is in contradiction with the rest of your post. If privatization of healthcare lead to better access and we’ve been increasing privatization for some time now then everything shouldn’t be maxed out now should it?

The goal of privatization isn’t to make the system better for everyone, it’s to ensure the investor class can make money off of it, that’s all.

It's currently not really privatized. There are some services you can pay for but it's still under the government umbrella and way too expensive. $500 uninsured for a CT Scan or wait a year? What if it were $200 and insured. Would more people jump the queue?

I don't want crazy American privatization where you can get a dental cleaning for $50 (i've done that). But some more services going private and being covered by insurance might move the system along better?