PunBB

The healthcare system in Canada has some similarities to the U.S. one; mainly in that the vast bulk of money is spent on keeping healthy people healthy in terms of doctor's visits, etc with funding for expensive treatment and drugs for seriously sick people (cancer, serious heart problems, brain tumors, etc) limited in Canada by the amount of funding government gives to hospitals that focus on such diseases and in the U.S. by lowering the rate of reimbursement to hospitals by Medicare and Medicaid. The free market doesnt work the way that Skippy implied; a totally unregulated health care system would be as inequitious as a statist government run health care system but a system of checks and balances where profit and responsibility to treat all patients as equally as possible is feasible.

If you cut out the fact that the vast majority of Americans do not have health insurance and can barely afford the best medical treatment available, you realize that the US has the best health care system in the world. That said, that's a very big "IF".

Granted, there's something to be said about US style health care. For example the aforementioned availability of services to those who can afford them. For example there are more nurosurgeons in Boston than there are in all of Canada. Massachusetts also has more MRI machines than all of England. Then look at the incredible number of technological advances that have come out of the US in the past ten years alone. This is the country that stumbled upon Viagra and cured Restless Leg Syndrome.

But the inequalities of the US system, which is a two-tiered system of public and private health care, full of government subsidies, really can't be anything to emulate. That said, systems like those in Sweden or France wouldn't fly here either. France for example subsidizes the hell out of its health care system; come on, any country that allows you to take a day at the spa, and pay for it, has to be onto something. The doctors are the ones who lose out here, paid lower than almost any other Western nation, despite still doing housecalls (also covered under French health insurance).

Also, Joe Taxpayer has to bite the bullet. Canadians in general will never touch their healthcare system, and anyone who runs nationally on even a semi-privitization campaign is shooting themselves in the foot. But ask voters to pay higher taxes to fix the problems and its like you've just asked them to pull the plug on their mother (see reaction to the Ontario 2004 budget).

It'll be interesting to see how health care plays out this time, especially in Quebec, with all the problems Jean Cherest is facing.

T-minus 15 minutes

Cheers

Pat

The minority Liberal government has fallen in a historic non-confidence vote in the House of Commons, setting the stage for Prime Minister Paul Martin to call an election Tuesday.

The three opposition parties joined forces Monday night, voting 171-133 that the government had lost the confidence of the House.

I don't have convidence in government in general... I think alot of people feel this way. I think this is just a HUGE waste of money.

I think we can guess how Lance is voting...

or how he isn't voting

mrlayance Wrote:I don't have convidence in government in general... I think alot of people feel this way. I think this is just a HUGE waste of money.

Couldn't agree more.

:thumb:

I love that last cartoon. I have changed the name of the thread to General Election 2006 since this thread will undoubtedly be about the election, parties, policies, and leaders.

i find this picture pretty funny

Pat[/quote]

Yeah, I respect Gord Downie as a singer but his beliefs almost mean nothing to me. I agree with him about nationalism but disagree with him on other things.

Call me crazy, but privatized health care doesn't sound so bad to me. Public and private health care can work IMO. I don't know why most Canadians brag about our healthcare. I think we are like 30th in the world or something in healthcare rankings. How can our system be so infallible when people have to wait over a year for surgery. Why is our system considered perfect when it's life or death for me to get an appointment with my doctor??? Why is the system perfect when many people are going to the hospital for a sore throat or other ridiculous reasons and the medical bills pile up for people who shouldn't be in the hospital to begin with??? There is so much wasted medicare money for people who don't need medical care at all. I say why not be open to new ideas?? I know I'm not closing the door on new ideas for healthcare. The healthcare system in New Zealand puts Canada to shame.[/quote]

Ok, you're crazy. If you allow corporations to run your healthcare system, people who can't afford a high standard of care are inevitably going to suffer. There certainly are problems with the system now, but the solution is to fund it properly, not go corporate at the expense of the poor. You may say "we shouldn't have to pay higher taxes," but I think if the government changed some of its priorities we wouldn't have to. Even if we did pay more, I think it would be worth it to make sure that EVERYONE got the care they needed. That's why Canadian's are proud of their system: it is based on the principle of equality, which is something Americans clearly value less.

This point is also very important: corporations sell you health insurance for PROFIT. The government charges you its COSTS. In other words, a private system inevitably takes more our of the average citizen's pockets than a public system. You may think you're carrying all those single parent families bellow the poverty line with your taxes right now, but a private system will NOT give you any breaks.

One final point: our population is ageing. That's why so many corporate interests are whispering in Ralph Klein and others' ears right now. They know the market is ripe, and they're dying to exploit it. Never think these people care about you or want to help Canada. These corporations exist for the sole purpost of generating profit, and will act exclusively in their own self-interest.

blesser Wrote:i find this picture pretty funny

we have that picture posted up at work..makes me smile every day

arseface88 Wrote:Ok, you're crazy. If you allow corporations to run your healthcare system, people who can't afford a high standard of care are inevitably going to suffer. There certainly are problems with the system now, but the solution is to fund it properly, not go corporate at the expense of the poor. You may say "we shouldn't have to pay higher taxes," but I think if the government changed some of its priorities we wouldn't have to. Even if we did pay more, I think it would be worth it to make sure that EVERYONE got the care they needed. That's why Canadian's are proud of their system: it is based on the principle of equality, which is something Americans clearly value less.

This point is also very important: corporations sell you health insurance for PROFIT. The government charges you its COSTS. In other words, a private system inevitably takes more our of the average citizen's pockets than a public system. You may think you're carrying all those single parent families bellow the poverty line with your taxes right now, but a private system will NOT give you any breaks.

One final point: our population is ageing. That's why so many corporate interests are whispering in Ralph Klein and others' ears right now. They know the market is ripe, and they're dying to exploit it. Never think these people care about you or want to help Canada. These corporations exist for the sole purpost of generating profit, and will act exclusively in their own self-interest.

Ok, here's the flaw in your theory of government only charging you its costs; massive bureacracy. Corporations have an incentive to cut their overhead in order to make money. If they can find a better way to process paperwork, claims, et all with more efficiency, they will implement these cost savings. Government has absolutely no incentive to reduce its overhead. In fact, government has added incentive to increase bureacracy if they can convince Congress to allocate more tax money to "solve" the health insurance gap. Congress created a Medicare + Choice program in 1997 that was supposed to allow senior citizens to choose their own health care programs and services they needed. It was supposed allow seniors and others to create tax-free medical savings accounts to put aside money for future medical expenses. But the snarl of bureacratic red tape that has delayed insurance companies in approval and implementation of services has encouraged them to drop out of the program or refuse to join because of the paperwork/bureacracy headache. When government tries to micromanage a program on a national level, it reduces the efficiency of the program and encourages the growth of bureacracy. Government on a national level should be the watchdog for health insurance and medical care, not the sole provider and manager for health services.

VioletlightHeron Wrote:Ok, here's the flaw in your theory of government only charging you its costs; massive bureacracy. Corporations have an incentive to cut their overhead in order to make money. If they can find a better way to process paperwork, claims, et all with more efficiency, they will implement these cost savings.

Yet overhead costs in the United States' health system are something like three times what they are in Canada.

It's sad when the facts don't actually support the theory, ain't it?

If you'd spent more time working in large corporations, rather than in writing term papers, you wouldn't say this stuff. You'd know that large companies are filled with bureaucracy, rampant inefficiency, and empire building. You'd also understand that the pressure to keep costs down and profits up doesn't necessarily result in improved service or greater efficiency.

all of this discussion leads me to post one simple quote from Karl Marx:

profit = theft by another name