Is Free Health Care Good? [Archive] - RedFlagDeals.com Forums

Emancipated

Jun 23rd, 2009, 10:01 PM

I think for the majority of people who are living hand to mouth and barely getting by, Canada's health system is a godsend but I wonder about the morality a two tier system where the rich can get in front of the queue by paying their way. Essentially what we have is a two tier system in place; if you don't want to wait, you can go to Mexico or the US to get your operation. However, if you decide to scrap everything all together and make it private, the people I mentioned at the onset would suffer dearly.

I was wondering about Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple Computers and how he was reported to have had a liver transplant. You know it's highly likely he paid for that with a king's ransom to get it so quick. I just wonder how people think about that. Does a person on his or her death bed really care what is or isn't moral? WHen the chips are down, you do what you do to survive.

Just something to occupy your mind tonight before retiring to bed and of course realizing that the reality for many of us here are that we'd be knee deep in it if we ever found ourselves in that predicament.

Heynow999

Jun 23rd, 2009, 10:22 PM

Just to be clear, Health care is not free, it is paid for from our taxes.

I agree it is good for many people but we need user fees to cut down on unneccessary use. Any free service will be abused. Three out of four members of my family have nearly died in the last five years because operations were not done quickly. I feel this happened because the system is overloaded. These were all split appendix's that weren't removed for several days. I can tell you that I was sent home from the emergency room AFTER being diagnosed with appendicitis. I was told I would get better! A few days later I drove myself to the hospital for surgery after walking around with a split appendix for 2 days. Apparantly you can survive for several days with a split appendix. In total we all spent about 4 months in hospital for what is essentially day surgery.

HBP

Jun 23rd, 2009, 10:25 PM

In this society having money helps sustain a better life... and people are fine with this, they accept it.

Suddenly it becomes immoral if having money prevents death?

IMO, both are wrong.

Hairball

Jun 23rd, 2009, 10:27 PM

The health care debate was never to totally eliminate the public system. It's more about finding alternatives to solve the wait times, and doing a two tier system is a possible way.

I think it is great that everyone in the country is cared for, while there are limitations to this system, it is still something to be proud of.

I've had several minor surgeries when I was younger, I thought the service was pretty decent. My mom has had various surgeries over the years, and the service seems to be good too. But of course it depends on a lot of factors.

A small and reasonable user fee would help for things like family doctors. Perhaps say a $10 charge, it would be affordable, and at least will help prevent some of these unnecessary visits, that hold up the line that people that need the service more.

bilibulu

Jun 23rd, 2009, 10:39 PM

Canadian Healthcare is *****.

Free healthcare is only good when supplemented by a parallel private healthcare, which our country is severely lacking.

And there are low lives in this country who think that private healthcare is immoral.

Where does the government get money to provide free healthcare?
1. Tax like robbers. Rob the rich and feed the poor.... Robin Hood way. I HATE Robin Hood!
2. Provide ***** healthcare so everybody except government high ranking officials and MPs etc get ***** poor service.

No, having Free healthcare but having no private healthcare is immoral. People have no choice. Well, you may say we could go to Mexico or US to get ELECTIVE treatment. But what about car accidents? emergencies? one would be stuck in this ***** country and be treated in a 4th world hospitals.

Emancipated

Jun 23rd, 2009, 10:43 PM

BornRuff

Jun 23rd, 2009, 10:49 PM

RiCHC3

Jun 23rd, 2009, 10:58 PM

Well the complication with privatization is that it inevitably spreads. Furthermore, they may be able to offer better incentives to care aids than the Canadian Government (thus poaching doctors / nurses from an already scarce pool of workers). At the same time, the private sector would be more incline to cut corners (shotty service, cleanliness, ethics, etc) which can be incredibly dangerous.

In truth, I think the public health care system is a bit wasteful with finances and a bit of fine-tuning here and there could not only free up money for beds, and so forth, but also improve the quality of service. In essence, I'd like to see public system managed partly like a corporation. Right now though, it just bleeds money and in some cases, just lacks common sense.

champlinD

Jun 23rd, 2009, 11:00 PM

Its better than no care.

shannn

Jun 23rd, 2009, 11:04 PM

There's no such thing as a free lunch ;)

Frankie3s

Jun 23rd, 2009, 11:08 PM

brunes

Jun 23rd, 2009, 11:13 PM

With free health care, Steve Jobs would've been put through so much crap that he would've either a) died before it would happen or b) figure it's not worth all the crap and just wait for the end to happen. Just because we have subsidized (not really free) health care it doesn't mean that it's so easy to get.

Yeah, and meanwhile people who aren't loaded like jobs get to wait for a kidney and probably die, because they can't afford to fly to another state for a transpalant like he can.

Tennessee is known to have been chosen for the small size of its transplant waiting list. Where the median number of days a patient would have to wait for a procedure in the US was 306 as of 2006, Tennessee's list was just 48 -- enough to virtually guarantee an operation during Jobs' hiatus. Methodist University Hospital also points out that it's one of the ten largest locations offering liver transplants in the US and that Jobs specifically chose the hospital due to its strong reputation for patient survival rates.

Why should Jobs, or anywhere else for that matter, get better care because they have more money? We're talking about peoples lives here. Not everything should be expressed in dollars and cents.

flexwong

Jun 23rd, 2009, 11:24 PM

yes and no. i've always been supportive of a 2 tier system. in the end, those with money will get treatment anyways so why not keep their money flowing in the canadian economy?

Emancipated

Jun 23rd, 2009, 11:25 PM

Yeah, and meanwhile people who aren't loaded like jobs get to wait for a kidney and probably die, because they can't afford to fly to another state for a transpalant like he can.

Tennessee is known to have been chosen for the small size of its transplant waiting list. Where the median number of days a patient would have to wait for a procedure in the US was 306 as of 2006, Tennessee's list was just 48 -- enough to virtually guarantee an operation during Jobs' hiatus. Methodist University Hospital also points out that it's one of the ten largest locations offering liver transplants in the US and that Jobs specifically chose the hospital due to its strong reputation for patient survival rates.

Why should Jobs, or anywhere else for that matter, get better care because they have more money? We're talking about peoples lives here. Not everything should be expressed in dollars and cents.

Because of the hypocrisy of human nature.

I don't actually buy that line. It's a tacit understanding that the more money you have in this world, the better off your life is. If we were all moral, we wouldn't have starvations in Africa because if everyone in the world chipped in a dollar (in reality it's much less than a dollar), we wouldn't have famine yet we still have children dying in scores every single day. Why should someone with money get to live and someone without it has to die... because every transaction whether we like it or not is spoken in dollars and cents.

Moral of the story is, don't get sick if you're a broke ass because you're screwed if you are.

danman227460

Jun 23rd, 2009, 11:37 PM

bilibulu

Jun 23rd, 2009, 11:53 PM

Canada is far from a "4th world" country in terms of health care. If you think American health care is so good, why do they have a higher infant mortality rate and a lower life expectancy than us?

Our system isn't perfect by any means, but it is one of the best.

Did I say American health care is good?

Why do people think like this? There are a lot of other countries in this world other than Canada and America.

Our system is one of the WORST!!!

How many countries have you been to. How many have you lived in. How many countries have you experienced healthcare in?

Canada is 4th world because it's worse than 3rd world. People in 3rd world countries know that they're bad and accept it. People in 4th world countries are ignorant and think that they are the best, but they're really out of this world (in a bad way).

I am lucky that I have options. I have multiple citizenship other than Canada and I have money. So one day I can just leave Canada and laugh at the Canadians.:twisted:

bilibulu

Jun 23rd, 2009, 11:56 PM

Why should Jobs, or anywhere else for that matter, get better care because they have more money? We're talking about peoples lives here. Not everything should be expressed in dollars and cents.

Why not? We're talking a form of natural selection.

Whether it's lives, or cars, money should talk!

CanadaEQ

Jun 24th, 2009, 12:10 AM

So one day I can just leave Canada and laugh at the Canadians.:twisted:

don't let the door hit your ass on the way out

bilibulu

Jun 24th, 2009, 12:18 AM

You make it sound like someone going in for a small surgery and waking up to discover their liver has been harvested is an every day occurrence. I don't think it's that dire, but definitely could stand some improvements.

No. It would be more like someone going in for a small surgery and waking up to be told that because s/he was made waiting so long for this surgery, the cancer has been metastasized and now it's SOL.

Or, when s/he wakes up, s/he has contracted some kind of infective diseases due to the lack of attention to the sterilization of instruments. Because of unions, the hospital staff don't really get penalized for any wrong doings.

MasterXan

Jun 24th, 2009, 12:30 AM

It's the free market that allows people to "shop" around for health care. Why should a person be limited to the lack of procedures here or the wait times when they can "shop" for their health care? If you had ONE chance to live and that operation happens to be 50K and offered only in China, what would you do?

Its with anything. If you have money, you can afford things that other people can't. It isn't right but living in a free market society, its how it is done. If you don't like it, move out of the country and into the Scandinavia countries.

It is pretty nice in Canada we get MOST of our basic health cares taken care of instead of other nations where the simplest procedure would run a huge bill.

There are flaws but no system is perfect. You fix one thing, another problem appears.

So is "free" health care good? Yes because even if you are poor, you can get most of your procedures taken care of.

the thing with socialized medicine is that it give everyone access to healthcare but it doesn't solve the cost issue.

you people wanna know why U.S. healthcare is expensive? it's because the government getting in the way by having Medicare and Medicaid. Seniors get a free ride while the rest of the people have to pay for it, thus driving costs up. Also, it doesn't help when illegals could go to the country and get literally free health care and other people have to pay for it.

listen to what Dr. Paul says about socialized medicine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG8MHYNY4Xs

btw, i'm not suggesting we dismantle socialized medicine cause I've benefitted from it but I think we can do better if we just add a private tier.

even Jack Layton went to a private clinic for a hernia operation

http://www2.canada.com/national/features/decisioncanada/story_05.html?id=980634bb-d0fa-4227-9c0e-4ec734f8e0e4

:lol:

No. It would be more like someone going in for a small surgery and waking up to be told that because s/he was made waiting so long for this surgery, the cancer has been metastasized and now it's SOL.

Or, when s/he wakes up, s/he has contracted some kind of infective diseases due to the lack of attention to the sterilization of instruments. Because of unions, the hospital staff don't really get penalized for any wrong doings.

lol

anyone read or heard about the incident about some guy's wife giving birth at Scarborough Grace and for some reason, she died? it was a month ago and the husband protested outside the hospital. the hospital concluded that it was a rare case scenario but i don't think the investigation was conducted by a third party.

i wouldn't be surprised if the governing body that govern doctors here actually "help their own."

Psubs

Jun 24th, 2009, 12:35 AM

ghostryder

Jun 24th, 2009, 12:43 AM

Canadian Healthcare is *****.

Free healthcare is only good when supplemented by a parallel private healthcare, which our country is severely lacking.

The problem with having a parallel private system is that you will have doctors and other health care personnel leave the public system to go private.

Public system: 2 doctors, 100 patients = 1 doc for every 50 people.

Private system: 2 doctors, 1 private sees only the 5 patients that can afford to. The other 95 people have to share the 1 doctor in the private system.

Where does the government get money to provide free healthcare?
1. Tax like robbers. Rob the rich and feed the poor.... Robin Hood way. I HATE Robin Hood!

Yes the $$ for health care comes from tax dollars. Where else is it going to come from? If you have a fully private system then only people who can afford insurance (or self insure) will have health care.

Many often compare to the US and think they have private health care when in fact they have 4 parallel systems.

Fully socialized health care: The VA for example. Doctors etc are all actual government employees.

Socialized health insurance: Medicare/Medicaid (this is essentially the system Canada has, socialized health insurance).

Employer paid insurance (sometimes cost shared with employee): Self explanatory

Fully private: You buy your own insurance (if you can afford it) or self insure. If you cannot afford it, you have no health care.

2. Provide ***** healthcare so everybody except government high ranking officials and MPs etc get ***** poor service.

Strange, I have never had anything but good service. Maybe in your case it is not the health care provider that is the problem but the customer. :twisted:

I have no idea which system is better (or combination of) but I have never really had any major issues with our current system. The only thing that bugs me is how hard it is to get to see my regular GP, but she is very good and in high demand. Though now that she is no longer delivering babies she is much easier to get in to see.

Hairball

Jun 24th, 2009, 12:50 AM

danman227460

Jun 24th, 2009, 12:53 AM

I do. They have better deals and with my friend in America, I get it for cheaper. When the dollar hits par, I shop at Amazon.com and why not?

Why do I have to be a slave to the B&M stores or Canadian websites that ask me for my limbs whenever I want a product when I have alternatives?

I just paid for two movies that came out to 30 while up here, it would cost me about 45-50 for the same two movies.

If you don't like Amazon.ca go ahead and use Amazon.com.

ghostryder

Jun 24th, 2009, 12:56 AM

the thing with socialized medicine is that it give everyone access to healthcare but it doesn't solve the cost issue.

Which cost issue is that? That the US spends almost TWICE what Canada spends on health care as a percentage of GDP?

you people wanna know why U.S. healthcare is expensive?

Insurance companies put profit ahead of patients?

Insurance companies get people to pay premiums for years, then when people need the insurance they cancel it retroactively? So the patient not only had to pay premiums but then has to pay for their care out of pocket for what should have been covered by insurance.

People who cannot afford insurance pay "full retail" price for their health care while insurance companies negotiate discounts?

Doctors need 5 times the staff to process all the paperwork for hundreds of insurance companies while in Canada they only have to bill one insurance "company"?

MasterXan

Jun 24th, 2009, 01:01 AM

Which cost issue is that? That the US spends almost TWICE what Canada spends on health care as a percentage of GDP?

Insurance companies put profit ahead of patients?

Insurance companies get people to pay premiums for years, then when people need the insurance they cancel it retroactively? So the patient not only had to pay premiums but then has to pay for their care out of pocket for what should have been covered by insurance.

People who cannot afford insurance pay "full retail" price for their health care while insurance companies negotiate discounts?

Doctors need 5 times the staff to process all the paperwork for hundreds of insurance companies while in Canada they only have to bill one insurance "company"?

watch the Dr. Paul video I put up. he even mentioned why insurance companies do this.

bilibulu

Jun 24th, 2009, 01:05 AM

The problem with having a parallel private system is that you will have doctors and other health care personnel leave the public system to go private.

Public system: 2 doctors, 100 patients = 1 doc for every 50 people.

Private system: 2 doctors, 1 private sees only the 5 patients that can afford to. The other 95 people have to share the 1 doctor in the private system.

Well, not necessarily. It is more like:

Public system: 2 doctors, 100 patients = 1 doc for every 50 people.

Private system: 2 doctors, 1 private sees only the 5 patients that can afford to. The other 95 people have to share the 1 doctor in the private system, maybe initially.
But there will be more doctors coming in because there is more money to be made here. So 4 doctors seeing 50 people and 1 seeing 50.

When there is a private system, the government will have more resource to improve the public one because the private patients will take a lot of financial burden away.

Yes the $$ for health care comes from tax dollars. Where else is it going to come from? If you have a fully private system then only people who can afford insurance (or self insure) will have health care.

A fully private system is preferable to a fully public system, if you asked me. But I am not advocating that. I'm advocating a two tier system that would give the citizens freedom of choice.

Strange, I have never had anything but good service. Maybe in your case it is not the health care provider that is the problem but the customer. :twisted:

My family doctor here is good. Well, he's cheap and his office is far from nice. But he is hardworking and busy. I bribe the receptionist a lot so I can be seen any time I want.:twisted:

If I need elective treatment, I would go abroad. So I don't need to face sh itty treatment here. But still, it is not right. Why can we pay to attend private school here but not pay to attend a private hospital?:evil:

I have no idea which system is better (or combination of) but I have never really had any major issues with our current system. The only thing that bugs me is how hard it is to get to see my regular GP, but she is very good and in high demand. Though now that she is no longer delivering babies she is much easier to get in to see.

Of course a two tier is better than what it is now. Consider yourself lucky that you have a GP in this fu cked up country! A lot of people don't even have access to a doctor. That's how bad this system is.

It's surprising there are so many stupid, dumb Canadians who have never seen the world, or who have only seen the stupid American system, that say our system is the best in the world! Well, good for them because they don't know what they've missed. But it's bad for us who know and who have to pay millions of dollars in taxes to support this useless healthcare system.

ghostryder

Jun 24th, 2009, 01:07 AM

I don't think there are many doctors that will only see 5 patients.

You missed the point. It was a simpified example of what could happen. Doctors would leave the public system because they could make more money in the private system. Then there would be fewer doctors in the public system. Since every province seems to be already short of doctors what happens when you put additional pressure by further reducing the available doctors in the public system?

Just a thought.

CanadaEQ

Jun 24th, 2009, 01:14 AM

It's surprising there are so many stupid, dumb Canadians who have never seen the world, or who have only seen the stupid American system, that say our system is the best in the world! Well, good for them because they don't know what they've missed. But it's bad for us who know and who have to pay millions of dollars in taxes to support this useless healthcare system.

Instead of continually ragging on the Canadian and American systems why don't you provide examples of better systems or describe a system you think would work better?

MasterXan

Jun 24th, 2009, 01:15 AM

You missed the point. It was a simpified example of what could happen. Doctors would leave the public system because they could make more money in the private system. Then there would be fewer doctors in the public system. Since every province seems to be already short of doctors what happens when you put additional pressure by further reducing the available doctors in the public system?

Just a thought.

then blame the Canadian Medical Association and the College for Physicians and Surgeons or blame the government. by centralizing licensing power in one organization is a dumb move and the government should start by allowing other licensing groups be opened. kinda like in accounting there are CA, CMA and CGA.

these regulating bodies are nothing but protectionist shills. they make new immigrant doctors jump through hoops to get license to practice here and they find out it's not worth it and move to the U.S.

CanadaEQ

Jun 24th, 2009, 01:22 AM

a) There are plenty of immigrant doctors
b) The entry process should be reasonable, which would involve some "hoop jumping" anything less is ridiculous
c) If a doctor isn't willing to prove themselves let America have them

bilibulu

Jun 24th, 2009, 01:23 AM

Instead of continually ragging on the Canadian and American systems why don't you provide examples of better systems or describe a system you think would work better?

That's easy.

Take the system in almost any where else in the world.

There are a lot of Hong Kong people on this forum. So take Hong Kong.

They have two tier.

The government have public hospitals. They have a very low user fee. There is a wait-list but the waiting time is a lot shorter than ours. Emergency rooms are not as packed as ours. They don't have to wait 6-7 hours to be seen. Maybe half and hour.

There are a lot of private hospitals. They are not cheap. But they're good. They have a lot of new equipment that the MDs here only talk about. An MRI can be done immediately or within a day, whereas here, a patient might need to wait 6 months.

Other places I am familiar with are more or less the same, way better than here in Canada. I am familiar with Singapore, Malaysia, UK, Portugal, Thailand, Dubai, Iceland. These places all have private healthcare that don't make patients wait months to be seen. But if one is poor or broke, s/he can be seen by the public clinics, of course there will be waits but no worse than what we have here.

Remember, the bad service is only experienced by the poor people or cheap people in those countries, whereas EVERYBODY (except if you know the doctor personally or if you are a politically important person) would have to be treated badly here.

ghostryder

Jun 24th, 2009, 01:26 AM

When there is a private system, the government will have more resource to improve the public one because the private patients will take a lot of financial burden away.

I think you may be overestimating the number of people who would make use of the private system. I don't know anyone who could afford to.

I had an aunt and uncle in the US. My uncle worked until the day he died because he could not afford insurance, his employer paid for it. My aunt did not have any employer coverage but worked full time. Her entire take home pay went to pay her insurance premiums. She worked 'till the day she died too. No retirement, ever.

A fully private system is preferable to a fully public system, if you asked me.

Because you can apparently afford it. What happens to the millions of people who can't? I tend to drift to the right, fiscally anyway but I do not want to live in a country where my friends, family, neighbours can die simply because they cannot afford care. Or go bankrupt trying to pay for it when something catastrophic happens.

Before my dad passed away my sister and I were helping him arrange his affairs and he was enormously annoyed at the amount of taxes his estate might have to pay. He was quite ill and this agravation wasn't helping. Then my sister sat him down and said "your daughter (my other sister) got hit by a car and required extensive care, care she could not (or anyone in the family) could have afforded on her own. Your grandson was born very sick and spent 5 weeks in NICU. Your sister (my aunt from above) told you that had your grandson been born where they live in the US it would have cost at least $10,000 PER DAY. That would have bankrupted your son." Suddenly my dad was not so concerned anymore. It wasn't that he liked paying taxes, he just needed to feel he got his money's worth.

bilibulu

Jun 24th, 2009, 01:32 AM

I think you may be overestimating the number of people who would make use of the private system. I don't know anyone who could afford to.

I had an aunt and uncle in the US. My uncle worked until the day he died because he could not afford insurance, his employer paid for it. My aunt did not have any employer coverage but worked full time. Her entire take home pay went to pay her insurance premiums. She worked 'till the day she died too. No retirement, ever.

As I said before in other posts, don't compare us to the Americans!

The American healthcare system is flawed too in that it is ruined by the insurance industry.

Having said that, I still prefer the US system to ours because I have money.

CanadianMike

Jun 24th, 2009, 01:33 AM

The problem with having a parallel private system is that you will have doctors and other health care personnel leave the public system to go private.

Public system: 2 doctors, 100 patients = 1 doc for every 50 people.

Private system: 2 doctors, 1 private sees only the 5 patients that can afford to. The other 95 people have to share the 1 doctor in the private system.
why would you blame the 'private system' in that scenario?

it sounds like the issue would be the public system being neglected......there are ALREADY doctor shortages in the existing public only system:

About 2,000 people in central Newfoundland will get phone calls, beginning Monday, to learn they've won the lottery for a new family doctor at the Gander Medical Clinic.

...

But instead of a phone-in lottery, patients were selected on a first-come, first-serve basis. The strategy created a public relations nightmare as people began lining up outside the clinic at 5 a.m. on the selection day. By the time the clinic opened its doors, the line of people stretched around the building and into the parking lot.

This time around, the clinic has accepted 4,000 names, by phone, that will be put through a computer lottery draw Monday. The draw will randomly select about half to be the lucky patients of the two new doctors.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2008/07/07/doctor-draw.html
Many often compare to the US and think they have private health care when in fact they have 4 parallel systems.

Fully socialized health care: The VA for example. Doctors etc are all actual government employees.

Socialized health insurance: Medicare/Medicaid (this is essentially the system Canada has, socialized health insurance).

Employer paid insurance (sometimes cost shared with employee): Self explanatory

Fully private: You buy your own insurance (if you can afford it) or self insure. If you cannot afford it, you have no health care.
+1 for pointing this out......people too often assume the US is a 'fully private' system when that is far from the case.
Strange, I have never had anything but good service. Maybe in your case it is not the health care provider that is the problem but the customer. :twisted:
some people do get what they would consider good service out of our current system......however, more focus should be on those who fall through the cracks. having to participate in a lottery to determine if you get a family doctor is a hole.......people having crucial surgery delayed is a bigger one.

bilibulu

Jun 24th, 2009, 01:33 AM

Because you can apparently afford it. What happens to the millions of people who can't? I tend to drift to the right, fiscally anyway but I do not want to live in a country where my friends, family, neighbours can die simply because they cannot afford care. Or go bankrupt trying to pay for it when something catastrophic happens.

Before my dad passed away my sister and I were helping him arrange his affairs and he was enormously annoyed at the amount of taxes his estate might have to pay. He was quite ill and this agravation wasn't helping. Then my sister sat him down and said "your daughter (my other sister) got hit by a car and required extensive care, care she could not (or anyone in the family) could have afforded on her own. Your grandson was born very sick and spent 5 weeks in NICU. Your sister (my aunt from above) told you that had your grandson been born where they live in the US it would have cost at least $10,000 PER DAY. That would have bankrupted your son." Suddenly my dad was not so concerned anymore. It wasn't that he liked paying taxes, he just needed to feel he got his money's worth.

Well, healthcare is expensive, isn't it. It's a fact. So the government should only help out so much! If one requires some really expensive treatment and if he can't afford it, then he is SOL! This is life!

I don't think I should be responsible to the illness of some welfare guy who don't work and just smoke and drink! But I am. I paid taxes which go to him!

I'm not saying that there should not be public healthcare, but there should be a choice!

CanadaEQ

Jun 24th, 2009, 01:34 AM

I can't believe you went with HK, are you serious?

bilibulu

Jun 24th, 2009, 01:37 AM

I can't believe you went with HK, are you serious?

I could go with any country that I am familiar with.

I am serious.

If you haven't been sick there, next time you go to Hong Kong, you can just go to any private hospital in Hong Kong and book a physical appointment. You'd notice the receptionist would be a lot more polite and courteous than their Canadian counterpart. You would be able to get an appointment on very short notice. When you attend your appointment, the doctor will be ON TIME!!! Nothing like here, where you would be expected to spend hours at a clinic just to be seen for five minutes.

CanadaEQ

Jun 24th, 2009, 01:44 AM

If you don't see how ridiculous your comparison is I really don't know what to say.

MasterXan

Jun 24th, 2009, 01:54 AM

If you don't see how ridiculous your comparison is I really don't know what to say.

what ridiculousness?

CanadaEQ

Jun 24th, 2009, 02:08 AM

Hint: Try applying HK's health care, or any other public service for that matter the exact same way in any other country in the world.

ghostryder

Jun 24th, 2009, 02:14 AM

That's easy.

Take the system in almost any where else in the world.

There are a lot of Hong Kong people on this forum. So take Hong Kong.

They have two tier.

The government have public hospitals. They have a very low user fee. There is a wait-list but the waiting time is a lot shorter than ours. Emergency rooms are not as packed as ours. They don't have to wait 6-7 hours to be seen. Maybe half and hour.

There are a lot of private hospitals. They are not cheap. But they're good. They have a lot of new equipment that the MDs here only talk about. An MRI can be done immediately or within a day, whereas here, a patient might need to wait 6 months.

All you have demonstrated is their results, not what they really do differently or what we could learn from/copy.

How is the public system paid for? With tax dollars? How is this different from Canada?

Other places I am familiar with are more or less the same, way better than here in Canada. I am familiar with Singapore, Malaysia, UK, Portugal, Thailand, Dubai, Iceland. These places all have private healthcare that don't make patients wait months to be seen. But if one is poor or broke, s/he can be seen by the public clinics, of course there will be waits but no worse than what we have here.

The vast majority of people in Singapore use the public system which is paid for by payroll deductions (taxes) and strict controls on price and supply of services. Would that work here?

Maybe a private system parallel to our current public system would work here. But from a practical standpoint we already have a public/private combination. We just have to cross a border to access the private system.

The deeper question(s) is what can we learn from other countries and how to integrate/adapt those ideas to improve what we have already.

Just pointing out that Hong Kong has shorter wait lists and less busy emergency rooms doesn't really explain why, or what they are doing that is different. Or if their solutions would work here.

ghostryder

Jun 24th, 2009, 02:25 AM

Well, healthcare is expensive, isn't it. It's a fact. So the government should only help out so much! If one requires some really expensive treatment and if he can't afford it, then he is SOL! This is life!

And I, and I surmise, most Canadians would disagree. As I said I do not want to live in a country where my friends, family, neighbours can die simply because they cannot afford care.

I'm not saying that there should not be public healthcare, but there should be a choice!

Which you have, just by crossing a border. I am not saying we can't/shouldn't allow a public/private mix, but let's make sure we know both the advantages and disadvantages of any changes we propose.

ghostryder

Jun 24th, 2009, 02:39 AM

why would you blame the 'private system' in that scenario?

it sounds like the issue would be the public system being neglected......there are ALREADY doctor shortages in the existing public only system:

But if the public system is already short of doctors, what happens when some of them leave to go private? Doesn't that make the shortage in the public system worse?

Many rural areas struggle to attract doctors, I have no idea what the solution to that is. Not very many new doctors want to practice in rural areas (or stay there if they are recruited into rural areas). The simplistic "Econ 101" answer to attracting labour to a region or sector that has a shortage is to offer higher pay. But that may not be enough. If I was a doctor I would actually like to relocate to a more rural area. But my current occupation/career is not one that I could relocate. But I suspect I am in the minority on this. Generally people have been migrating away from rural areas to cities.

brunes

Jun 24th, 2009, 06:29 AM

Moral of the story is, don't get sick if you're a broke ass because you're screwed if you are.

I find that line pretty repugnant myself...

As far as which system is better, the world has already decided for us. Do you guys realize the united States is THE ONLY country in the first world without universal healthcare? And that most developing countries have it as well?

The only reason there is even a debate in this country AT ALL over whether or not we should go to a private or semi-private system (instead of properly fixing the system we have) is because of the proximity to our right-winged neighbors to the south.

TCWeasel

Jun 24th, 2009, 07:58 AM

Wow. Some certain people are taking whining to new levels. If their business is complaining, I can see why they've been successful.

76% of Americans would prefer to have the option of publicly funded healthcare, this would lead one to conclude that less than 24% (there are undecideds) of them prefer the private only health care. I'm not sure how anyone would then conclude that a private only system would be beneficial. Perhaps someone who has money, I suppose, yet not all of them all selfish.

France is ranked by the WHO as the number one health care system. It is totally a public system. In fact, all of the top tiered countries ranked by the WHO are public systems.

Currently, the average US citizen pays roughly 3x-4x the amount the average Canadian citizen pays for their health care. In fact, the US pays more per capita for health care than any other nation, by a wide margin. If the funding for the Canadian system were to quadruple, I think it would be a pretty damned nice system. Yet we have far too many so-called citizens who scream for better health care, but want it done without paying more for it.

Why is the American system so expensive? It's not due to the VA or military or medicare/medicaid (Though the prescription drug plan, part D didn't help) is that more than 40 cents out of every $1 does not go to actual health care. A large portion is designated for profit, then there is administrative costs which dwarf those of public costs and lots of other non-medical costs, including paying top executives billions (with a 'b'). What makes things worse is that these medical insurers are LEGALLY OBLIGATED to do what they can to deny claims. As a corporation within the USA, the are legally bound to increase shareholder profits.

If the preference of one individual is for totally private (OK, not what you're advocating...whatever) than the only apt comparison is the American system, so why not use it for the comparison? You cannot disqualify something merely because it doesn't specific support your point. That is no more useful a tactic then sticking your fingers in your ears and saying 'na-na-na, I can't hear you'.

Now, a two tier system sounds great. If you have money, you get quicker service. Who, then, decides which doctors get to benefit from working in a private system? Will they be paid more? Will the doctors moving to private practice then put more a strain on the public system? Is that fair? Is that socially or morally acceptable of the less fortunate now get poorer health care? Do you have publicly funded private clinics?

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe wealthier people are just more deserving, generally speaking, in life. Perhaps they are just more important. I've a few more adjectives for them if that is the mentality they go by.

gnunn

Jun 24th, 2009, 08:14 AM

Personally as someone with insulin controlled diabetes I like the public healthcare system and not having to depend on an employer for affordable care. My employer does have a very good drug plan, but even without that I believe my supplies (insuling, needles, test strips, etc) would be cheaper in Canada then in the US.

Emancipated

Jun 24th, 2009, 09:41 PM

the thing with socialized medicine is that it give everyone access to healthcare but it doesn't solve the cost issue.

you people wanna know why U.S. healthcare is expensive? it's because the government getting in the way by having Medicare and Medicaid. Seniors get a free ride while the rest of the people have to pay for it, thus driving costs up. Also, it doesn't help when illegals could go to the country and get literally free health care and other people have to pay for it.

listen to what Dr. Paul says about socialized medicine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG8MHYNY4Xs

btw, i'm not suggesting we dismantle socialized medicine cause I've benefitted from it but I think we can do better if we just add a private tier.

even Jack Layton went to a private clinic for a hernia operation

http://www2.canada.com/national/features/decisioncanada/story_05.html?id=980634bb-d0fa-4227-9c0e-4ec734f8e0e4

:lol:

lol

anyone read or heard about the incident about some guy's wife giving birth at Scarborough Grace and for some reason, she died? it was a month ago and the husband protested outside the hospital. the hospital concluded that it was a rare case scenario but i don't think the investigation was conducted by a third party.

i wouldn't be surprised if the governing body that govern doctors here actually "help their own."

Complications during birth is not rare; why is it so egregious? I'm not aware of the specifics but perhaps it's best to just say accidents happen and doctors are humans after all then leave it at that?

bilibulu

Jun 24th, 2009, 09:51 PM

Question: Is free health care good?

Answer: Only if your country has stringent immigration policies.

... AND there is a parallel private system which is not free.

KorruptioN

Jun 24th, 2009, 09:53 PM

... AND there is a parallel private system which is not free.

As already mentioned, what about the French medical system? It is completely public - and is widely known to be the best in the world. There is no alternative because there doesn't need to be. I do not support a private system in any way, shape, or form. I am absolutely grateful for our current system, even as it is today. TCWeasel makes an excellent post above.

Well, healthcare is expensive, isn't it. It's a fact. So the government should only help out so much! If one requires some really expensive treatment and if he can't afford it, then he is SOL! This is life!

Also, I think the above is an extremely selfish mindset to have... I just don't understand. Just because somebody isn't able to afford the healthcare they need, they should be left alone to fend for themselves?

bilibulu

Jun 24th, 2009, 10:11 PM

As already mentioned, what about the French medical system? It is completely public - and is widely known to be the best in the world. There is no alternative because there doesn't need to be. I do not support a private system in any way, shape, or form. I am absolutely grateful for our current system, even as it is today. TCWeasel makes an excellent post above.

Listen buddy. The French system is NOT completely public. There are clinics that can charge whatever they want to charge, although they have to display their fees, which is fair.

Patients in France can go to a non-convention� clinic and they would have to pay extra for the price difference.

The government will cover up to their fee schedule and the clinics are ALLOWED to charge above this fee.

I haven't lived in France but I have lived in England and Portugal and when I lived there, I have heard of the different medical systems within the EU.

So there!:evil:

bilibulu

Jun 24th, 2009, 10:14 PM

Also, I think the above is an extremely selfish mindset to have... I just don't understand. Just because somebody isn't able to afford the healthcare they need, they should be left alone to fend for themselves?

Why don't you understand? There are so many people, especially in Africa who are dying of hunger every day. The world doesn't owe them! To feed them belongs to the department of CHARITY.

If you needed a treatment that costs 10 million dollars, or you would die. And you appeal to OHIP. Would they cover you? You would either be SOL or you could appeal to the general public for charitable help. Or pray to God if you believe there is a god.

Nakuruin

Jun 24th, 2009, 10:16 PM

bilibulu

Jun 24th, 2009, 10:25 PM

Do you have any idea how expensive treatments for cancer can be? I guess children are SOL if their parents can't pay for it. The world would never work like that, you have to give people an opportunity to survive if you want people to be productive members of society.

Cancer treatment can be very expensive, especially when it's at the late stage. This can easily happen in Canada because every test would take forever to complete. This greatly increases the chance of metastasis.

Everybody would be SOL if their government healthcare cannot pay for the proper treatment, when there is no alternative of private healthcare.

So yes, free healthcare is good because it is a service that everyone needs. it's also a way to ensure that a private healthcare system wouldn't undermine the public one.

Saying private healthcare would undermine public healthcare is irresponsible.

can you imagine the influence that corporations would have on healthcare? they could pay doctors enormous amounts to push a certain type of drug even if it's not entirely appropriate. It's the fairest system.

They can't. To recommend a drug, doctors have their professional decision which is evidence based. Money can't push that. Well, you may argue money can alter the results of a study. But then this would happen whether the healthcare delivery system is private or public. So this is not an issue.

KorruptioN

Jun 24th, 2009, 10:30 PM

can you imagine the influence that corporations would have on healthcare? they could pay doctors enormous amounts to push a certain type of drug even if it's not entirely appropriate.

Just look at the American pharmaceutical industry. It is beyond massive nowadays.

bilibulu

Jun 24th, 2009, 10:34 PM

Just look at the American pharmaceutical industry. It is beyond massive nowadays.

This has nothing to do with private healthcare.

For one drug to come to the shelf, over 5000's of them have been designed and tested and discarded. The costs involved are huge and hence the massive pharmaceutical industry.

virgilaug

Jun 24th, 2009, 10:35 PM

Well considering all the countries that have free healthcare, the US with its private system is the only one in need of reform. So Yes, Free Health Care is a Good thing.

nalababe

Jun 24th, 2009, 10:44 PM

Cancer treatment can be very expensive, especially when it's at the late stage. This can easily happen in Canada because every test would take forever to complete. This greatly increases the chance of metastasis.

Everybody would be SOL if their government healthcare cannot pay for the proper treatment, when there is no alternative of private healthcare.

Saying private healthcare would undermine public healthcare is irresponsible.

They can't. To recommend a drug, doctors have their professional decision which is evidence based. Money can't push that. Well, you may argue money can alter the results of a study. But then this would happen whether the healthcare delivery system is private or public. So this is not an issue.

But in the US you can get a doctor to prescribe a particular branded test or drug. Many of the drugs are "equally" as good, there are many incentives without bribing....if it were only based on evidence, Cialis would have destroyed Viagra.

For diagnostic testing you can provide a sticker for a particular test (from a particular company) and that is what they would get...in Canada it is not the same.

nalababe

Jun 24th, 2009, 10:48 PM

This has nothing to do with private healthcare.

For one drug to come to the shelf, over 5000's of them have been designed and tested and discarded. The costs involved are huge and hence the massive pharmaceutical industry.

Actually there is a large relationship. Prices we charge as industry are determined by maximizing GP while at the same time considering the insurance coverage/billing code.

We actively lobby to have these billing codes increased.

Since this does not exist the same way in Canada, along with the presence of GPO/IDN, there is actually far more market pressure driving down the cost of many assays/drugs here in Canada.

bilibulu

Jun 24th, 2009, 10:48 PM

But in the US you can get a doctor to prescribe a particular branded test or drug. Many of the drugs are "equally" as good, there are many incentives without bribing....if it were only based on evidence, Cialis would have destroyed Viagra.

For diagnostic testing you can provide a sticker for a particular test (from a particular company) and that is what they would get...in Canada it is not the same.

Why is it not the same. In Canada, you can still get a doctor to prescribe a certain drug. There are "incentives" in Canada too.

bilibulu

Jun 24th, 2009, 10:50 PM

Actually there is a large relationship. Prices we charge as industry are determined by maximizing GP while at the same time considering the insurance coverage/billing code.

We actively lobby to have these billing codes increased.

Since this does not exist the same way in Canada, along with the presence of GPO/IDN, there is actually far more market pressure driving down the cost of many assays/drugs here in Canada.
So it's the insurance industry that screws up the healthcare in the US.

As I said, I am not a fan of the US healthcare either. A private system is not necessarily an evil thing.

MasterXan

Jun 24th, 2009, 11:00 PM

"free health care?" it's not free, it's paid by taxes.

unless you people don't pay taxes. :lol:

IF a private system exists and it ends up taking some doctors from the public system, you can always blame the CMA or the College of Doctors and Physicians for being protectionist. They are the ones who control who gets licensed and who doesn't so people should blame them for not licensing more doctors rather than putting the blame on businesses who see a niche market.

some people here have this misconception about insurance. Like Ron Paul said, insurance is a measure of risk but most people think insurance is supposed to pay for everything, thus increasing costs. In the movie Sicko, Michael Moore said that insurance companies rejecting people with late term critical illness are evil. now, why shouldn't these companies reject these people? these people clearly have HIGH RISK. what's the deal?

with our single payer system, there is no oversight on rationing of care. Ron Paul mentioned that socialized medicine is prone to abuse and he's right. there are some people who shouldn't be seeing a doctor but are waisting a spot; the spot that should be used by someone who truly needs it. once you have something "free," people would dive into the trough to get their "fair share."

CanadianMike

Jun 25th, 2009, 01:53 AM

As already mentioned, what about the French medical system? It is completely public - and is widely known to be the best in the world. There is no alternative because there doesn't need to be. I do not support a private system in any way, shape, or form. I am absolutely grateful for our current system, even as it is today. TCWeasel makes an excellent post above.
unfortunately i must call you out....you are wrong, the french system does indeed have pay options (already pointed out). we are in unique company in canada in regards to banning the 'purchase' of health care services, we are with north korea and cuba in that regard.

thinking a private system will drain the public system is just an excuse for lack of funding said public system.

why can one pay for their dog to have an MRI, but they cant pay for a fellow human to do so.....they must wait 3-6 months? :confused:

BornRuff

Jun 25th, 2009, 06:20 AM

As already mentioned, what about the French medical system? It is completely public - and is widely known to be the best in the world. There is no alternative because there doesn't need to be. I do not support a private system in any way, shape, or form. I am absolutely grateful for our current system, even as it is today. TCWeasel makes an excellent post above.

The french system is nothing to brag about. They do offer a ton of really nice services. It is also completely unsustainable. There is a nice quote where the minister of health in France said something like "our system has gone mad, profound reforms are needed urgently". They run a deficit of a few billion dollars a year to fund all their perks.

The french system is more of a dream than a reality.

KorruptioN

Jun 25th, 2009, 07:52 AM

Yeah, I guess with it being so public (but with the pay systems as mentioned), it does seem pretty hard to keep under control. I stand corrected on that matter, but I still think going to a private system will be detrimental to what we have set up now. Call me stubborn, but it's saved my ass more than a few times.

TCWeasel

Jun 25th, 2009, 08:36 AM

Saying private healthcare would undermine public healthcare is irresponsible.

Really? How so? I gave a simplistic scenario of how this would happen. Review and refute.

They can't. To recommend a drug, doctors have their professional decision which is evidence based. Money can't push that. Well, you may argue money can alter the results of a study. But then this would happen whether the healthcare delivery system is private or public. So this is not an issue.

Yet, strangely, it happens. Especially under the American system. A simple google search would enlighten people on that scenario. Do the companies send them big cheques. Yep. Sometimes. But it's often not just that simplistic.

Can money alter the results of drug tests? Absolutely. Especially in a country where drugs can fetch up to ten times the prices they can here. The US's big pharma's lobbying budget is nearing a quarter billion. Just for lobbying. Just for convincing lawmakers to see things their way. It worked for them in getting "Part D" of the medicare bill passed. This is the section of the bill which details the fact that the US government CANNOT negotiate with the drug companies for lower prices on medication for those people on medicare. Medicare buys large amounts of prescription medication, yet they cannot get a bulk discount. You can go over to deal extreme and get discounts if you buy more than 3 cables. Doesn't that seem odd? The government spends countless billions, but no discounts. A consumer spends a few bucks...bulk discount. Why would they do this? Well, it was passed when the Republicans controlled everything. They don't like public systems. Therefore, it seemed like a good idea to try and destroy medicare. They were upfront about this, it's not some sort of idle speculation.

bilibulu

Jun 25th, 2009, 08:42 AM

Yet, strangely, it happens. Especially under the American system. A simple google search would enlighten people on that scenario. Do the companies send them big cheques. Yep. Sometimes. But it's often not just that simplistic.

Can money alter the results of drug tests? Absolutely. Especially in a country where drugs can fetch up to ten times the prices they can here. The US's big pharma's lobbying budget is nearing a quarter billion. Just for lobbying. Just for convincing lawmakers to see things their way. It worked for them in getting "Part D" of the medicare bill passed. This is the section of the bill which details the fact that the US government CANNOT negotiate with the drug companies for lower prices on medication for those people on medicare. Medicare buys large amounts of prescription medication, yet they cannot get a bulk discount. You can go over to deal extreme and get discounts if you buy more than 3 cables. Doesn't that seem odd? The government spends countless billions, but no discounts. A consumer spends a few bucks...bulk discount. Why would they do this? Well, it was passed when the Republicans controlled everything. They don't like public systems. Therefore, it seemed like a good idea to try and destroy medicare. They were upfront about this, it's not some sort of idle speculation.

This is true, but this applies to everywhere, including Canada.

bilibulu

Jun 25th, 2009, 08:43 AM

hagbard

Jun 25th, 2009, 09:17 AM

This sounds like a political thread to me. :o

trisle604

Jun 25th, 2009, 09:58 AM

from past experiences i know someone who received surgery for the appendix the same day he went to the hospital.he just went in said side hurt , ran some test , prep'd for surgery .

help_questions

Jun 25th, 2009, 10:05 AM

The french system is nothing to brag about. They do offer a ton of really nice services. It is also completely unsustainable. There is a nice quote where the minister of health in France said something like "our system has gone mad, profound reforms are needed urgently". They run a deficit of a few billion dollars a year to fund all their perks.

The french system is more of a dream than a reality.

sustanability - a union supporter posting about sustainability....really?
lol

Canadians are going to run a defecit of a few billion dollars to fund the benefits of the unskilled CAW autoworkers. We are just as bad, if not worse.

KorruptioN

Jun 25th, 2009, 10:37 AM

sustanability - a union supporter posting about sustainability....really?
lol

Canadians are going to run a defecit of a few billion dollars to fund the benefits of the unskilled CAW autoworkers. We are just as bad, if not worse.

You really are blind with rage, aren't you? You don't seem to know how to talk about anything else.

nalababe

Jun 25th, 2009, 10:55 AM

from past experiences i know someone who received surgery for the appendix the same day he went to the hospital.he just went in said side hurt , ran some test , prep'd for surgery .

It happens here in Canada all the time...the media sees the bad. Our son had a head tauma (had a febrile seizure while running and his faceplanted into the pavement). He was seen, had blood work done in 30 minutes and a CT Scan within the hour--yes this was at a Toronto hospital.

liorsyncro

Jun 25th, 2009, 10:55 AM

Canada is far from a "4th world" country in terms of health care. If you think American health care is so good, why do they have a higher infant mortality rate and a lower life expectancy than us?

Our system isn't perfect by any means, but it is one of the best.
True. Not only that, but in the US even if you do pay for the best coverage, you still have co-pays. A dip into your wallet twice. And you have to worry about dealing with a private enterprise - the insurance companies, who are FOR profit organizations who MUST deny a certain percentage of claims in a given year. And given how the Babyboomers are now starting to retire by the drones, Medicare and Social Security will bankrupt years from now, which means more pressure on the reserves of private insurance, which in turn means higher rate of denials AND premium increases across the board for everyone. Then we'll see these Yankees praise their system. Even to insure a single young healthy person would cost a fortune.

My father has three relatives in the States who are doctors and they all envy the system we have here. Why? Because in America it's too much about the rich when it comes to health care. As a person who have to make a living, they really like the private enterprise system of payment. However, as medical doctors, they've seen their share of people being denied critical care because they can't afford it. You have to be very well off financially in the US to afford a lot of the quality health care that we get here for free, and at the end of the day, once you add up the premiums and co-pays you've paid, you can bet your nuts that in the course of a life time you've paid a lot more than what we pay in taxes to sustain our current system.

While I fully agree the system we have here is not perfect and improvements are needed, it is one of the best in the world. My father just underwent two surgeries in the past six months to remove a tumour from his stomach and his thyroid. His group insurance from work paid for the private room. His only expense leaving the hospital: $15 for telephone service.

CanadianMike

Jun 25th, 2009, 01:42 PM

It happens here in Canada all the time...the media sees the bad. Our son had a head tauma (had a febrile seizure while running and his faceplanted into the pavement). He was seen, had blood work done in 30 minutes and a CT Scan within the hour--yes this was at a Toronto hospital.
we dont need the media reporting people getting successful surgery.....we need them pointing out the holes. they need to point out the types of surgery that if you happen to need it, you may be juggling with your life waiting for surgery.

collectively patting ourselves on the back isnt as productive as identifying (and hence acting on) the holes of the system.

TCWeasel

Jun 25th, 2009, 01:43 PM

I still don't understand why people (especially Canadians) think that there are only 2 countries in the world, namely Canada and USA.

When I criticized the Canadian healthcare system, they automatically beat up the US system to illustrate how superior the Canadian system is compared to the US.

There are more than just 2 countries in this world.

There are many countries. Yet you've said you're in favor of a private system and have attempted to debate from that standpoint. Therefore, choosing a country with private health insurance would seem to be best to counterpoint that standpoint.

Anything else varies in degrees. While there may not be specific private operations here, you still have the choice of going stateside. It's an unofficial two tier system.

liorsyncro

Jun 25th, 2009, 03:15 PM

If you haven't been sick there, next time you go to Hong Kong, you can just go to any private hospital in Hong Kong and book a physical appointment. You'd notice the receptionist would be a lot more polite and courteous than their Canadian counterpart. You would be able to get an appointment on very short notice. When you attend your appointment, the doctor will be ON TIME!!! Nothing like here, where you would be expected to spend hours at a clinic just to be seen for five minutes.
I don't know about you, but when I visited an open clinic when my doctor was on vacation, the most I waited was like 20 minutes. If you find a clinic that has shoemakers for doctors and you end up waiting "hours" to be seen, just go to another clinic. Open clinics are not really designed to replace your family doctor as most times they don't know anything about you or your medical history.

As for your argument about the need for a private option, that's just not viable. You may have money and find it easy to look down at others who don't, but from a medical perspective, it is not fair. If the public system does not come through and the private system can help, what does a doctor suppose to do from an ethical point of view? Not save someone's life because they're not rich? Remember that doctors swear an oath to put the patient first. It doesn't matter whether the person is rich or poor, black or white. If you can save a life, you save it.

But of course, with a private system, it caters only to those who can actually afford it. Even in France, where they do have a joint public and private health care system, if you can't afford vital treatment you still get it. It's just that over there the structure that funds the system is more organized than here. Over there, both employers AND employees contribute to the system, regardless of whether a person works full-time or part-time or how much they make. We don't have that system here, although we should explore it to alleviate some of the pressure from the public system. There may be some element of a private system, but the government should have control over it. And that is something that any free enterprise corporation will refuse.

Most of the people who need critical care in our system get it whenever they need. Are there exceptional circumstances? Of course there are. And you can bet that even Steve Jobs, who has billions and probably cr�me de la cr�me of private insurance, was on a waiting list for his liver transplant. We just don't know how long he waited because he's a very private person. But I doubt it was an overnight thing.

ThinkOutsideTheBox

Jun 25th, 2009, 04:44 PM

No. It would be more like someone going in for a small surgery and waking up to be told that because s/he was made waiting so long for this surgery, the cancer has been metastasized and now it's SOL.

Or, when s/he wakes up, s/he has contracted some kind of infective diseases due to the lack of attention to the sterilization of instruments. Because of unions, the hospital staff don't really get penalized for any wrong doings.
Uh --> I would love to hear a statistical sample of the number of infections that have occured due to poor post-op care in Canada compared to the same statistic for one, any one of the MANY countried you purport to have a better health care system.

Instead of continually ragging on the Canadian and American systems why don't you provide examples of better systems or describe a system you think would work better?
That would require him to have facts. He doesn't deal in facts, he deals in blanket statements about how only 'supposed' rich people should have benefits that others don't. He fronts about 'supposed' money that he has and tried to direct every thread to his 'riches'.

Remember, the bad service is only experienced by the poor people or cheap people in those countries, whereas EVERYBODY (except if you know the doctor personally or if you are a politically important person) would have to be treated badly here.
So you admit, bad service will be seen by poor people. So all poor people will have bad service in your ideal world? How is that an improvement of the current state.

You're saying that:
if 100% of the people in Canada currently experience 65% service : the system would be improved by have 2% of those people (~700k people) have an increase to 95% service whereas the remaining 34 million people drop to 45% service. These numbers are obviously approximated, but the logic should be clear.

Well, healthcare is expensive, isn't it. It's a fact. So the government should only help out so much! If one requires some really expensive treatment and if he can't afford it, then he is SOL! This is life!

I don't think I should be responsible to the illness of some welfare guy who don't work and just smoke and drink! But I am. I paid taxes which go to him!

I'm not saying that there should not be public healthcare, but there should be a choice!
Healthcare is expensive, that's why the current tax system, that collects from everyone and provide the same service to everyone is able to service so many people....from all economic tiers.
SOL if you can't afford it eh? You know you're not actually talking about a better system. You're talking about an improved system for a very small percentage of Canadians.

I don't think I should be responsible for the illness of someone like you, but luckily, our system doesn't take emotional outbursts and immaturity into account when allocation health care.

jjfz3000

Jun 25th, 2009, 04:53 PM

Yeah, and meanwhile people who aren't loaded like jobs get to wait for a kidney and probably die, because they can't afford to fly to another state for a transpalant like he can.

Tennessee is known to have been chosen for the small size of its transplant waiting list. Where the median number of days a patient would have to wait for a procedure in the US was 306 as of 2006, Tennessee's list was just 48 -- enough to virtually guarantee an operation during Jobs' hiatus. Methodist University Hospital also points out that it's one of the ten largest locations offering liver transplants in the US and that Jobs specifically chose the hospital due to its strong reputation for patient survival rates.

Why should Jobs, or anywhere else for that matter, get better care because they have more money? We're talking about peoples lives here. Not everything should be expressed in dollars and cents.

Why shouldn't they? I bet Job's surgery actually BENEFITTED the poor. Think about how much Jobs paid to get the surgery and how much of that went into the government's pockets which is used to help the poor.

Also, people have been debating as if it's either exclusively public or private. Well a two-tier system has the advantage of both.

We'll still spend the same amount of money into the public healthcare system. So the poor won't lose anything. But, it gives people incentives to innovate and get their rewards. If someone thinks that there's not enough hospitals in Yukon then he can just open a private one and start treating people. But right now, you have to petition the government. It's a slow process dictated by how many more votes the government can receive.

It basically comes down to this: you have two scenarios:

Person A gets +10 and Person B gets +0 OR
Person A gets +0 and Person B gets +0

Some people like the second one simply because it's "fair" even though Person B doesn't get hurt by choice one. But, that's the same as saying if I can't afford a car then cars should be banned.

ghostryder

Jun 25th, 2009, 07:32 PM

They can't. To recommend a drug, doctors have their professional decision which is evidence based. Money can't push that. Well, you may argue money can alter the results of a study.

If you think that drug companies are not bribing doctors you really need to read this:

http://www.amazon.ca/Our-Daily-Meds-Melody-Petersen/dp/0374228272/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245972237&sr=8-2

I always thought some of the things that went on were unseemly or even unethical. Turns out I severely underestimated how bad things are.

st7860

Jun 25th, 2009, 09:16 PM

the dirty little secret is there is already two tier medical services in Canada for certain groups - for example Worksafe BC clients.

bilibulu

Jun 26th, 2009, 02:13 AM

MasterXan

Jun 26th, 2009, 08:46 AM

ok here's question for the "free" health care diehard fans:

let's say i'm in the high income bracket and there's private health care. I want to op out of the public one cause I'll only use the private one only. why can't I do that?

remember, one less person using the system means less taxes to fund it.

slowpoke

Jun 26th, 2009, 09:03 AM

WontonTiger

Jun 26th, 2009, 12:57 PM

You missed the point. It was a simpified example of what could happen. Doctors would leave the public system because they could make more money in the private system. Then there would be fewer doctors in the public system. Since every province seems to be already short of doctors what happens when you put additional pressure by further reducing the available doctors in the public system?

Just a thought.

Or... More doctors move to Canada as wages have increased. More doctors find their way into the system. Higher paying jobs filled in the private industry, while newer docs work for public.

The overall doctor total in Canada is increased. The market is global, the market isn't only our public system.

WontonTiger

Jun 26th, 2009, 01:14 PM

WontonTiger

Jun 26th, 2009, 01:20 PM

It happens here in Canada all the time...the media sees the bad. Our son had a head tauma (had a febrile seizure while running and his faceplanted into the pavement). He was seen, had blood work done in 30 minutes and a CT Scan within the hour--yes this was at a Toronto hospital.

I have 10 horror stories to each positive story I've heard.

Sick Kids did wonders for my family when my sister and I were children. Rather than expect everyone else to pay for my morality, I decide to donate a minimum of $1000 per year to their foundation.

If more people put their money where their mouth is, we wouldn't need to go private. Obviously the majority of our society is greedy and self-interested, so a private system is needed. It's the only way to properly fund the public system with all it's wastes and abuses.

ghostryder

Jun 26th, 2009, 01:59 PM

This country of Canada is really hopeless.

It consists of a bunch of losers who support this socialist ideology, namely public healthcare with NO private healthcare choice. And it is the same bunch of losers that vote different levels of loser governments that allow this unconstitutional thing to happen.

Not everyone is a die hard single payer only system supporter. And how is it unconstitutional? Health care is a provincial jurisdiction. The provinces are free to withdraw from the Canada Health Act at any time. If they do, they can have whatever kind of health insurance system they want, including none at all.

My participation in RFD is just to gauge how the average Canadians feel about certain issues that I really have a problem with in Canada. Now I have come to my own conclusion. Further debates are just futile.

Debate is only futile when people are not willing to admit that they may be wrong or may not have considered all the consequences of their position. People like you for example.

People just think this public healthcare is good because it's free to them. They are willing to accept a poor service as long as it is free. Standard RFD spirit.

But I don't accept poor service, nor have I recieved poor service. And based on my last income tax return, it's not free either.

This place is really not a good place to live. I'm glad I can see the end of the tunnel: I will be leaving Canada for good soon.

Not everyone shares your opinion. I like it here, better than anywhere else I have been. My sister used to live in Europe & the UK and came back, she felt the quality of life is better and cost of living lower.

Don't let the doorknob hit you in the a s s on the way out. We won't miss you.

MasterXan

Jun 26th, 2009, 02:17 PM

see what happens at Kanata

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pl-L1CJ6450

ghostryder

Jun 26th, 2009, 02:24 PM

Or... More doctors move to Canada as wages have increased. More doctors find their way into the system.

Can you guarantee that you will have more doctors coming to Canada? No.

Higher paying jobs filled in the private industry, while newer docs work for public.

Or the good doctors go private, while the not as good (or bad) doctors who can't get a job in the private sector stay in the public system. So not only do the people who can afford private get faster care, they get better care as well.

The overall doctor total in Canada is increased. The market is global, the market isn't only our public system.

The market is already global and Canada has been attracting more doctors that we have lost for years. The much publicized "brain drain" of doctors that existed many years ago doesn't exist anymore and in fact is "draining" in our favor and has been for years.

Also "poaching" doctors from other countries reduces their health care capacity. Doctors seem to be in short supply virtually everywhere. While recruiting 1000 doctors from South Africa or Hong Kong or somewhere else may be better for us, is it right or moral to deprive those places of health care to make ours better?

God I love playing devils advocate. :D

MasterXan

Jun 26th, 2009, 02:37 PM

The market is already global and Canada has been attracting more doctors that we have lost for years. The much publicized "brain drain" of doctors that existed many years ago doesn't exist anymore and in fact is "draining" in our favor and has been for years.

Also "poaching" doctors from other countries reduces their health care capacity. Doctors seem to be in short supply virtually everywhere. While recruiting 1000 doctors from South Africa or Hong Kong or somewhere else may be better for us, is it right or moral to deprive those places of health care to make ours better?

even if that's the case, it's not about what's moral but what the market dictates. if a country can't compete, they can't compete.

the answer is really simple, no need to overthink.

MasterXan

Jun 26th, 2009, 03:14 PM

once again, Dr. Paul speaking sense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-mRdPJGWsE

BornRuff

Jun 26th, 2009, 06:44 PM

sustanability - a union supporter posting about sustainability....really?
lol

Canadians are going to run a defecit of a few billion dollars to fund the benefits of the unskilled CAW autoworkers. We are just as bad, if not worse.

lol, one track mind eh?

I'm not a "union supporter", I don't blindly dislike or like them. I have different opinions on different issues. I just don't have the same blind rage as you.

Though if you read my posts, I'm pretty much always thinking about sustainability. I generally don't think about things on moral grounds, I think about what is practical.

The french system is simply too generous. It's really nice, I know I would love to have the benefits they do, but when praising their system, understanding that it is completely impractical is a very big point to consider.

WontonTiger

Jun 26th, 2009, 06:47 PM

Can you guarantee that you will have more doctors coming to Canada? No.

Or the good doctors go private, while the not as good (or bad) doctors who can't get a job in the private sector stay in the public system. So not only do the people who can afford private get faster care, they get better care as well.

The market is already global and Canada has been attracting more doctors that we have lost for years. The much publicized "brain drain" of doctors that existed many years ago doesn't exist anymore and in fact is "draining" in our favor and has been for years.

Also "poaching" doctors from other countries reduces their health care capacity. Doctors seem to be in short supply virtually everywhere. While recruiting 1000 doctors from South Africa or Hong Kong or somewhere else may be better for us, is it right or moral to deprive those places of health care to make ours better?

God I love playing devils advocate. :D

Guarantees are for children. In real life there are NO GUARANTEES!

Prove just one thing that you just wrote. You're playing devil's advocate very poorly. You should at least post reasonable arguments.

By your logic I should take 80% of what you make, so that people in Africa can get their doctors (at our expense). The world isn't fair, doctors aren't unlimited, money doesn't grow on trees, and people will always be self-motivated.

CanadianMike

Jun 26th, 2009, 06:48 PM

Healthcare is expensive, that's why the current tax system, that collects from everyone and provide the same service to everyone is able to service so many people....from all economic tiers.
heh......are you reading straight from the canada health act?

if you think it works like that in practice, you are living with your head in the sand. 'provide the same service' is far from true.
I don't think I should be responsible for the illness of someone like you, but luckily, our system doesn't take emotional outbursts and immaturity into account when allocation health care.
but it does take things into account such as if you happen to know people working at a hospital.

its no secret that people who make 'generous donations' to hospitals find themselves flying up waiting lists.

its no secret that high ranking government officials seem to always avoid the 'commoner' waiting list.

how is the ban on private care compassionate?.....why do we ban paying for the treatment of humans? it is legal for one to pay for their dog to get an MRI here, but it is illegal for them to do the same for a fellow human......thats a compassionate system?? :confused:

kingfencer

Jun 26th, 2009, 06:50 PM

all you need is one person close to you to be hospitalized and you will never ask again is free health care good. if americans don't care about themselves, why should we?

BornRuff

Jun 26th, 2009, 06:58 PM

Did I say American health care is good?

Why do people think like this? There are a lot of other countries in this world other than Canada and America.

Our system is one of the WORST!!!

How many countries have you been to. How many have you lived in. How many countries have you experienced healthcare in?

Canada is 4th world because it's worse than 3rd world. People in 3rd world countries know that they're bad and accept it. People in 4th world countries are ignorant and think that they are the best, but they're really out of this world (in a bad way).

I am lucky that I have options. I have multiple citizenship other than Canada and I have money. So one day I can just leave Canada and laugh at the Canadians.:twisted:

I really would like to see some evidence of how Canada is one of the worst? Worst compared to what?

I've looked a quite a bit of research on this and Canada is nowhere near the worst in the world in terms of health outcomes.

ghostryder

Jun 26th, 2009, 07:31 PM

Prove just one thing that you just wrote. You're playing devil's advocate very poorly. You should at least post reasonable arguments.

Ok.

In recent years, not only has the brain drain trend slowed, it has actually reversed. In 2004, there was a net brain gain of 85 doctors. Although this gain has decreased as of late - a net gain of 61 doctors in 2005 and 31 in 2006 - the data still counter popular perceptions that Canadian doctors are leaving in droves.

The data also disprove claims that the brain drain is responsible for Canada�s doctor shortage. In 2006, there were 62,307 active physicians in Canada - the highest number ever, largely attributable to a more than five percent increase in Canadian-trained physicians over the last five years. The 2006 data also show a five percent increase in physicians between 2002 and 2006, which is just over parity with population growth over the same time.

http://www.chsrf.ca/mythbusters/html/myth29_e.php

By your logic I should take 80% of what you make, so that people in Africa can get their doctors (at our expense). The world isn't fair, doctors aren't unlimited, money doesn't grow on trees, and people will always be self-motivated.

You are twisting what I said. I was simply questioning whether it is right or moral to "poach" doctors (and other health care personnel) from other countries who already paid for their training and desperately need every doctor they train. I never said we should be training doctors at our expense and sending them to Africa. If we need more doctors, we should be training our own.

An important issue in all of this is where our doctors are coming from. In 2006, of the 238 returning physicians, about 190 had received training in Canada, while the rest were trained mostly in the UK and Ireland, but also South Africa, India and elsewhere. In the same year, international medical graduates accounted for 22 percent (13,715 doctors) of the total physician supply in Canada. If this means Canada is �poaching� doctors from countries that have a much more limited ability to train physicians and handle internal crises in population health, then this is a serious public policy problem.

ghostryder

Jun 26th, 2009, 07:56 PM

how is the ban on private care compassionate?.....why do we ban paying for the treatment of humans? it is legal for one to pay for their dog to get an MRI here, but it is illegal for them to do the same for a fellow human......thats a compassionate system?? :confused:

There is no ban on private care. If doctors want to practice privately they can. They just cannot receive payment from the publicly funded health insurance, they have to opt out of the public system. They have to pick one.

Almost no doctors go "full private", I guess they figure the potential customer base is too small to be profitable. The market dictating I suppose, as MasterXan says.

I have never said that a mixed system wouldn't work, or shouldn't be tried. But this debate, and the potential consequences are far more complex that MasterWonton seems to think.

WontonTiger

Jul 3rd, 2009, 11:46 AM

There is no ban on private care. If doctors want to practice privately they can. They just cannot receive payment from the publicly funded health insurance, they have to opt out of the public system. They have to pick one.

Almost no doctors go "full private", I guess they figure the potential customer base is too small to be profitable. The market dictating I suppose, as MasterXan says.

I have never said that a mixed system wouldn't work, or shouldn't be tried. But this debate, and the potential consequences are far more complex that MasterWonton seems to think.

The only reason you find it complex is because of a "poaching" issue. I personally don't care. If poaching is in our benefit, it should be done. People poach Canadian workers, it's the way of things, and is a new reality in the international economy.

Doctor recruitment is just over parity with our population growth. I checked the information that you posted, and it all flows back to one place, the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. I checked out some of their documents, and I have to say that they use bias information. In the immigration article you posted, they claim not to have accurate data on doctors leaving for the U.S. The older data they posted overwhelmingly showed that Canadian trained doctors go to the U.S. (I wonder why...).

Anyway, those reports were interesting if not one sided.

IronMac

Jul 3rd, 2009, 06:22 PM

Actually, the doctor brain drain to the US is reversing. *shrug* You may not like the docs that were provided so why don't you provide data that proves otherwise? Also, docs in the US do NOT make that much more than docs in Canada after their insurance companies get through with them.

As to the idea of "poaching" doctors and equating it to some tech worker coming to work in Kanata (Canada's Silicon Valley or it used to be), it's a question of ethics and how you view the value of someone's life. A country losing its healthcare professionals is a country whose healthcare system is being crippled. You can't argue with someone whose morality or ethics is not on the same level or is nonexistent.

I'd just like to say that anyone who thinks that going to a private healthcare system where your level of care is determined by how much you can pay is someone who has never had to make a decision to pull the plug on a loved one because they can't afford that "one more treatment" because of finances. It's not a great argument, it's not a logical argument but it's something that is faced by the people around me.

Socialized, public healthcare is one of the great things about Canada and anyone who thinks that it should be dispensed with is someone who really hasn't thought it through nor do they care about the citizenry around them.

st7860

Jul 3rd, 2009, 06:24 PM

There is no ban on private care. If doctors want to practice privately they can. They just cannot receive payment from the publicly funded health insurance, they have to opt out of the public system. They have to pick one.

its illegal for someone to pay for something thats medically necessary in canada.

however, certain agencies such as Worksafe BC(workers compensation) are allowed to legally queue jump.

Troodon

Jul 3rd, 2009, 06:48 PM

You are twisting what I said. I was simply questioning whether it is right or moral to "poach" doctors (and other health care personnel) from other countries who already paid for their training and desperately need every doctor they train. I never said we should be training doctors at our expense and sending them to Africa. If we need more doctors, we should be training our own.

How do you know the other country paid for the person's medical training? If he paid for his own training then he can choose to practise medicine anywhere, including Canada.

Also if the other country paid for his training then the other country's stupid for not placing limits on travel. They can simply take his passport until he works five years as a doctor or something. If the other country doesn't mind then there's no moral concern.

The free market is the best. If you believe in your morals then you should never eat imported food, since I'm sure someone's starving the country which exported food to Canada. Wait, that's called protectionism. :(

IronMac

Jul 3rd, 2009, 07:20 PM

The free market is the best. If you believe in your morals then you should never eat imported food, since I'm sure someone's starving the country which exported food to Canada. Wait, that's called protectionism. :(

The free market is not the best; deregulation in the US is what has lead to the most recent recession.

Without morality, what's to stop me from hiring a couple of goons to seize someone and sell them in North Africa as part of the white slave trade? Laws? Well, those are part of the moral fabric of a society.

CanadianMike

Jul 3rd, 2009, 07:28 PM

I'd just like to say that anyone who thinks that going to a private healthcare system where your level of care is determined by how much you can pay is someone who has never had to make a decision to pull the plug on a loved one because they can't afford that "one more treatment" because of finances. It's not a great argument, it's not a logical argument but it's something that is faced by the people around me.
that still happens now.

care is rationed.
Socialized, public healthcare is one of the great things about Canada and anyone who thinks that it should be dispensed with is someone who really hasn't thought it through nor do they care about the citizenry around them.
on the contrary, those who question the system do care about their fellow citizens.

you present a case above regarding a family deciding whether they should 'pay for one more treatment' in a private model.......in the public system, decisions are still made like that to some degree. if one had the ability to pay, they could pay for treatments that the public system would deem to be 'unnecessary'.

individuals get placed on long waiting lists for crucial treatments, people have to enter a 'lottery' for the mere chance to maybe end up with a doctor.......i dont see how ignoring these realities shows one who 'cares about the citizenry around them'.

Gloaming

Jul 3rd, 2009, 07:34 PM

BornRuff

Jul 3rd, 2009, 07:48 PM

The same people that subsidize health care for ALL Canadians by paying a disproportionately high rate of income tax should not have to cross borders to pay even more out of their own pockets to receive treatment.

How can some guy that pays 5k/year in taxes look someone that pays 70K/year in taxes and claim that this is a "fair" system??? If the rich person avoids the public health system that they are paying for anyway, it merely frees up a spot in line for less wealthy patients to get treated.

How is this NOT a win:win?

(Caveat: there are 2 dentist and 2 MDs in my family so we all collectively came to this conclusion)

They don't have to cross the boarder and pay to receive health services. They may choose to do so, but that is up to them.

If the guy paying 70k a year in taxes does choose to go to the US to get treatment, it doesn't necessarily only help the poorer people. It may open up a spot in line for someone even wealthier than that person. I know that when my parents were both worker, they both paid more than 70k in taxes per year, but they never went to the US to get medical treatment.

And overall, the guy paying more might be a bit upset about having to pay more taxes than the poor man, but the richer man could probably just look at the 100k more in after tax income that he has and it should cheer him up.

MasterXan

Jul 3rd, 2009, 08:20 PM

here's an interesting segment done by John Stossel of 20/20 and he talks about insurance and Canadian healthcare:

insurance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpsEAVbCkMM

i mentioned that there's a misconception of insurance. people think insurance pays for everything but by treating insurance like that, the cost of healthcare goes up. it's easy to say "it's free" here because it's a huge pool of taxes but it still doesn't solve the cost issue.

shortages in the Canadian system
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=refrYKq9tZQ

the example they used is a hospital in Mississauga

higher deductibles = cheaper insurance and forces people to care for themselves better
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xsp_Jh5EIT0

BornRuff

Jul 3rd, 2009, 08:56 PM

higher deductibles = cheaper insurance and forces people to care for themselves better
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xsp_Jh5EIT0

In some cases that is true, but it is not a magic bullet.

High deductibles can lead people to put off necessary preventative care. This is actually a huge problem in the US, and the main reason that their government health care plans like Medicare and Medicaid cost the government significantly more than our public health care system, and they get so little care for their dollars spent. Preventative care is a huge cost saver, as it typically cost a tiny fraction of a cost of treating the sickness itself.

The classic case is of a woman who thought she felt a lump in her breast, but wasn't sure, and thought it wasn't worth spending all the money to get it checked out if it was just going to be nothing. By the time the lump was big enough that she was sure something was wrong, the cancer had already metastasized to the rest of her body. She went through her entire life savings trying to fight it, and ended up on Medicaid.

Another big example is prenatal care in the US. Costs for that are so high in the US that many mothers simply don't receive any prenatal care. They just show up in the emergency room when the baby is ready to pop out. The problem is that many conditions that can easily be treated when noticed in routine prenatal care end up as serious unexpected problems when not noticed until the actual birth. This leads to many babies spending weeks in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit when they wouldn't have otherwise needed to. Every day in the NICU costs more than an entire 9 months of prenatal care, and is generally funded by the government(if the family couldn't afford prenatal care, they certainly can't afford a NICU bill).

markom

Jul 3rd, 2009, 09:32 PM

gordholio

Jul 3rd, 2009, 09:45 PM

There's no such thing as a free lunch ;)

No, but if you're one of the many Americans who don't have ANY coverage, then how would you feel?
Sure, it comes out of our taxes, but you're not stuck with an outrageous bill after surgery.
I'd rather pay taxes than have no coverage.
Our system is far from perfect, but it is more humane than the American one.

IronMac

Jul 3rd, 2009, 11:15 PM

that still happens now.

care is rationed.

Not in the way that I describe where you have to decide if you can afford to spend $5k.

on the contrary, those who question the system do care about their fellow citizens.

you present a case above regarding a family deciding whether they should 'pay for one more treatment' in a private model.......in the public system, decisions are still made like that to some degree. if one had the ability to pay, they could pay for treatments that the public system would deem to be 'unnecessary'.

individuals get placed on long waiting lists for crucial treatments, people have to enter a 'lottery' for the mere chance to maybe end up with a doctor.......i dont see how ignoring these realities shows one who 'cares about the citizenry around them'.

Don't mix up those who question the healthcare system with those who would advocate going to a private model. I have never seen anyone who advocates going to a private model as someone who cares about their fellow citizens. It's always been a matter of how much the public system inconveniences them or how much it is costing them. The argument is that a private system will allow those who can afford it to grab treatment ahead of their fellow citizens.

In this case, it's the almighty dollar that dictates who will live or die.

On another tangent, anyone who thinks that going to a private system will save them money is fooling themselves. Healthcare is something that you will pay for; whether it's in the form of taxes or in the form of insurance payments.

IronMac

Jul 3rd, 2009, 11:19 PM

The same people that subsidize health care for ALL Canadians by paying a disproportionately high rate of income tax should not have to cross borders to pay even more out of their own pockets to receive treatment.

How can some guy that pays 5k/year in taxes look someone that pays 70K/year in taxes and claim that this is a "fair" system??? If the rich person avoids the public health system that they are paying for anyway, it merely frees up a spot in line for less wealthy patients to get treated.

How is this NOT a win:win?

(Caveat: there are 2 dentist and 2 MDs in my family so we all collectively came to this conclusion)

First off, if all five of you believe the argument that "How can some guy that pays 5k/year in taxes look someone that pays 70K/year in taxes and claim that this is a "fair" system???" is a valid one needs to have a look at something called "percentage" of income at the very least.

Second, fine, if you want to cross the border to the US to buy healthcare then go right ahead.

ghostryder

Jul 3rd, 2009, 11:21 PM

First thing that should be addressed is the very poor bang for the buck canadians get for their current investment in the health system. Look at this study, the Euro-Canada health index:

http://www.fcpp.org/images/publications/61.%202009%20Euro-Canada%20Health%20Consumer%20Index.pdf

Canada ranks dead last out of 32 nations. Such poor management of current resources is simply unacceptable. We always hear more doctors more nurses more money but I am confident we can do much more with what we have at the moment.

LOL Your're using the FCPP as a basis for your argument? You don't think you would get anything but a bashing of Canada's health insurance system from them do you? The FCPP was founded and funded by the Donner Foundation, a major sugar daddy of conservative think tanks like Fraser & CD Howe.

...the Donner Canadian Foundation, the lifeblood of conservative research in this country. A decade ago, with a mission to �encourage individual responsibility and private initiative to help Canadians solve their social and economic problems,� and an annual giving budget of over $5 million, the Donner made a huge difference. From 1993 to 1999, under the leadership of executive directors Patrick Luciani and Devon Cross, it provided seed money to start a host of topnotch free-market think-tanks across Canada: the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, the Montreal Economic Institute, the Frontier Institute, the Society for Advancing Educational Research (dedicated to promoting charter schools), the conservative The Next City magazine (now defunct), and Energy Probe (a free market�oriented environmental organization).

According to the Donner's records, in 1997 it gave $4,632,944.49, or 69 per cent of its total budget, to public policy research. The bulk of it went to projects with conservative themes, such as advancing the role of free markets, the effects of trade liberalization, and the impact of taxes and regulation on jobs in Canada. In 1998, the Donner allocated $2,190,561, or 67 per cent of its budget, to the same sort of work.

http://www.daifallah.com/rcr.htm

And I am pretty sure that ranking 23 out of 32 does not equal "dead last".

If you ask the Fraser Institute or CD Howe if welfare rates should be raised to $50,000/year or make minimum wage $50/hr what do you think the answer would be?

Even in the report you posted the FCPP has this to say about their own rankings:

The BFB scores, naturally, should be regarded as somewhat of an academic exercise. Not least, the method of adjusting to the square root of healthcare spending certainly lacks scientific support.

MasterXan

Jul 3rd, 2009, 11:42 PM

First off, if all five of you believe the argument that "How can some guy that pays 5k/year in taxes look someone that pays 70K/year in taxes and claim that this is a "fair" system???" is a valid one needs to have a look at something called "percentage" of income at the very least.

Second, fine, if you want to cross the border to the US to buy healthcare then go right ahead.

the rich minority are the people who pays for most of the taxes in this country but they are the same people who are disliked by the media and by some of the so called "middle class" in big labor unions. they are also the ones who provide jobs in this country. you don't tax the employer disproportionally. it doesn't make any sense. you don't tax the hell outta the employer when they are the ones who creates jobs.

if one day we have a tough politician who would allow people to opt out of socialized medicine and these great entrepreneurs opt out, do you think the people who don't pay any taxes, are able to look at anyone with a straight face and still say how much these entrepreneurs suck? lol come on man, gimme a break.

If you ask the Fraser Institute or CD Howe if welfare rates should be raised to $50,000/year or make minimum wage $50/hr what do you think the answer would be?

well if you're looking for someone to give you an answer that YOU want to hear, maybe you should ask Robert Mugabe?

markom

Jul 4th, 2009, 12:17 AM

And I am pretty sure that ranking 23 out of 32 does not equal "dead last".

They are last for the bang for the buck category which is what I was referring to. Yes, the source may not be the best but I still think they are right as there are major problems with resources management here. Just look at the new CHUM fiasco that Montreal is dealing with. Huge money hug with too much politics involved.

Troodon

Jul 4th, 2009, 12:25 AM

Not in the way that I describe where you have to decide if you can afford to spend $5k.

Don't mix up those who question the healthcare system with those who would advocate going to a private model. I have never seen anyone who advocates going to a private model as someone who cares about their fellow citizens. It's always been a matter of how much the public system inconveniences them or how much it is costing them. The argument is that a private system will allow those who can afford it to grab treatment ahead of their fellow citizens.

In this case, it's the almighty dollar that dictates who will live or die.

Wow. So now you're just attacking those who want private healthcare? Government controlled healthcare doesn't work because there's no incentive for the government to spending more money or innovate the healthcare industry.

How does it decide when it should open another hospital? Probably when it thinks it needs more vote in that area. Basically the low population density areas doesn't get any care (or extremely long wait times) simply because they don't carry enough votes for the government to spend millions for.

Now private healthcare decides when to build hospitals by market forces. If enough people pay then a hospital will be built. There's no 20 years beauracy. No projects cancelled due to changing parties.

For example, public health care is like Internet Explorer before the creation of Firefox. Microsoft had no incentive to improve despite the fact that it's clearly vulnerable to viruses. The government can just fool us and delay creation of new products. However, the private company has every incentive to build hospitals ASAP because if it doesn't its competitor will.

Competition is good, government regulations stifle competition.

On a side note, I think Canada doesn't focus enough on preventative care. For example, drugs used to help people quit cigarettes are not covered while treatment for lung cancer is. However, the drug might be at most a few hundred dollars whereas lung cancer probably costs a few hundred thousand (after factoring lost income, productivity and etc...)

ghostryder

Jul 4th, 2009, 12:33 AM

well if you're looking for someone to give you an answer that YOU want to hear, maybe you should ask Robert Mugabe?

What is that supposed to mean? Is that some kind of insult? Mugabe needs a dose of "high-velocity lead poisoning", preferably directly to the brain.

pitz

Jul 4th, 2009, 04:41 AM

I work in a pharmacy, as a technician, occaisonally (my normal life is as an engineer).

I see an amazingly low amount of 'quick fixes' used.

Basically, the only narcotic medications that are dispensed are to those who are terminally ill. ADHD medication is quite uncommon.

Yeah, sure, there's a few fads that are driven by drug marketers, that show up in the drugstore, and show up in prescribing (ie: low-dose quietiapine as a sleeping pill, because the certain drug reps were pushing that as an off-label use), but that's extraordinarily rare.

I think this is one of the byproducts of the "free" health care system in Canada. A patient that is paying cash to see a doctor *demands* a quick fix, and that quick fix may very well be narcotics, tranquilizers, etc. Doctors quickly learn that either they oblige, or they don't get any repeat business. Whereas, under the Canadian system, it is far more likely that a wide segment of the population will get a proper treatment plan, that involves treating the root cause of illness.

For example, drugs used to help people quit cigarettes are not covered while treatment for lung cancer is. However, the drug might be at most a few hundred dollars whereas lung cancer probably costs a few hundred thousand (after factoring lost income, productivity and etc...)

buproprion, aka Zyban or Wellbutrin, is a formulary benefit under most provincial drug plans across Canada. Your example is well taken, but I find it hard to believe that the cost of prescription smoking cessation aids is a factor in their application or lack thereof. Just the cost of cigarettes themselves is an enormous incentive to switch to some sort of pharmacological therapy.

Same deal with alcohol. Getting drunk = $20, assuming $2/drink, and 10 drinks. Same intoxication could be replicated with <$0.50 worth of diazepam (or almost any other benzo), and cause far less physical damage to the body. Cost is hardly the issue, rather, its the psychosocial aspects of getting people into treatment instead of continuing their bad habits, and, to a lesser extent, getting society to stop stigmatizing the *illness* that addiction to cigarettes or alcohol entails.

freeonboard

Jul 4th, 2009, 07:13 AM

dental care is good. the dentist is always calling to get me in. otoh, the medical doctor only gives me about 10 minutes and has never done a physical or suggested any tests . i never get sick so i dont really care.

Beeg

Jul 4th, 2009, 08:03 AM

I believe in free health care.

However, we need to make sure it is efficient and well-run.

What is this about sex changes being free, but eye exams not?

That sucks.

sw1ft

Jul 4th, 2009, 12:01 PM

I had a major operation in 2000 and will never complain about paying for "Free health care". To put it into perspective:

$3,500 x 5 USD MRI - with and without contrast
$100,000 USD Brain Tumour operation
$2,583 CAD Radiation treatment

The above alone is roughly $150k in CAD. This does not include the cost of administration fees, PT (Physio Therapy), or OT (Occupational Therapy) which would add another few grand.

I don't know about you, but if myself or a loved one required a major operation, I wouldn't have $100k in change to cough up.

IronMac

Jul 4th, 2009, 04:45 PM

the rich minority are the people who pays for most of the taxes in this country but they are the same people who are disliked by the media and by some of the so called "middle class" in big labor unions. they are also the ones who provide jobs in this country. you don't tax the employer disproportionally. it doesn't make any sense. you don't tax the hell outta the employer when they are the ones who creates jobs.

Where do you get the idea that the rich minority are the ones who provide the jobs in this country? Small business are the biggest employers in this country.

IronMac

Jul 4th, 2009, 04:51 PM

Wow. So now you're just attacking those who want private healthcare? Government controlled healthcare doesn't work because there's no incentive for the government to spending more money or innovate the healthcare industry.

How does it decide when it should open another hospital? Probably when it thinks it needs more vote in that area. Basically the low population density areas doesn't get any care (or extremely long wait times) simply because they don't carry enough votes for the government to spend millions for.

Now private healthcare decides when to build hospitals by market forces. If enough people pay then a hospital will be built. There's no 20 years beauracy. No projects cancelled due to changing parties.

For example, public health care is like Internet Explorer before the creation of Firefox. Microsoft had no incentive to improve despite the fact that it's clearly vulnerable to viruses. The government can just fool us and delay creation of new products. However, the private company has every incentive to build hospitals ASAP because if it doesn't its competitor will.

A. Yes, i do attack those who want private healthcare.
B. Do you miss the logic in what you are saying? In a public healthcare system, votes may be equated to the money/market forces in a private healthcare system. What? You think that a multi-million dollar private clinic will open up in Geraldton north of Thunder Bay? Think again...

MasterXan

Jul 4th, 2009, 06:44 PM

A. Yes, i do attack those who want private healthcare.
B. Do you miss the logic in what you are saying? In a public healthcare system, votes may be equated to the money/market forces in a private healthcare system. What? You think that a multi-million dollar private clinic will open up in Geraldton north of Thunder Bay? Think again...

why do you need a "multi-billion dollar private clinic" in Thunder Bay? if you are implying that private entities won't open large clinics that has technologically rich facilities for people in Thunder Bay, yes you are correct. And why should they? Thunder Bay doesn't have a large population to warrant a huge investment. Rather, a small clinic would suffice.

it's like the argument against the privatization of the TTC because some unprofitable areas would go without buses. if low ridership is the cause of this, then will be other private entities who would fill the void but on a smaller scale.

Psubs

Jul 4th, 2009, 06:51 PM

CANADA ROCKS!!!!!

The US wants to start modelling their overhaul with our system in mind.

I really really don't understand people complaining about waiting rooms or waiting a while to get a procedure. For those that can't afford procedures it's in our taxes but they aren't that bad. Heck people are willing to wait 3+ hours to get a free lunch buffet at Mandarin. Waiting that time in a hospital for something that would cost hundreds or thousands is okay as long as you are assessed correctly and it's not life-threatening.

TCWeasel

Jul 4th, 2009, 08:19 PM

Want less waiting times?

Increase taxes. That usually doesn't go over very well.

It's common though. People want services, but not having to pay for them.

IronMac

Jul 4th, 2009, 09:48 PM

why do you need a "multi-billion dollar private clinic" in Thunder Bay? if you are implying that private entities won't open large clinics that has technologically rich facilities for people in Thunder Bay, yes you are correct. And why should they? Thunder Bay doesn't have a large population to warrant a huge investment. Rather, a small clinic would suffice.

Actually, let me ask you this...is it more likely that a private firm will open a "multi-million dollar clinic" in TB with its tiny population of high-income individuals or a government pandering to the votes of a large voting population?

nalababe

Jul 4th, 2009, 10:33 PM

You do realize that we have private health care facilities in Canada: The Cleveland Clinic has a branch here in Canada. For what they cannot do here, they will coordinate with their Cleveland facility...

Menace

Jul 4th, 2009, 10:35 PM

Good night after you are done there :D:lol::lol::lol:

Just something to occupy your mind tonight before retiring to bed

gordholio

Jul 4th, 2009, 10:58 PM

Want less waiting times?

Increase taxes. That usually doesn't go over very well.

It's common though. People want services, but not having to pay for them.

We do pay already through our taxes. Things can be done to make the whole system much more efficient with the money that's already there.
For instance, emergency wait times can be sped up by having nurse practitioners handling minor problems rather than 1 or 2 doctors.
You could have about 4 or 5 nurse practitioners added (they make a fraction of the salary of a doctor).

help_questions

Jul 5th, 2009, 09:46 AM

this thread highlights why I disagree with giving garbage men raises.

Reducing ER wait times, and improving the health care system are things that are more important than giving unskilled uneducated labourers wage increases and benefits.

The wages of the garbage men should be garnished to strengthen the health care system; the money involved will serve a greater good to the general public in the health care system than in the pocket of the trash man.

KorruptioN

Jul 5th, 2009, 12:13 PM

this thread highlights why I disagree with giving garbage men raises.

Are you completely unable to keep your "discussion" to the relevant thread at hand? Keep your babbling in the other CUPE thread, if you need a clue.

Troodon

Jul 5th, 2009, 02:39 PM

IronMac

Jul 5th, 2009, 04:31 PM

Hey. Why can't we just have two parallel healthcare systems? Keep the one we have right now but also deregulate the healthcare industry. Anyone who want to open their own hospital for profit can do so and we can use the tax to help the public healthcare. It's a win-win situation...

That's a win-lose situation.

Tell us, how do you keep the public health employees from going over to the private side if the wages are higher over there? Would it not mean that the public health system will eventually be drained of workers?

As for the idea of taxing the private healthcare entities a higher rate...what is the point in the end of them opening up? The only benefit here is that we will just see an increase in the tax bureaucracy.

Troodon

Jul 5th, 2009, 04:40 PM

That's a win-lose situation.

Tell us, how do you keep the public health employees from going over to the private side if the wages are higher over there? Would it not mean that the public health system will eventually be drained of workers?

As for the idea of taxing the private healthcare entities a higher rate...what is the point in the end of them opening up? The only benefit here is that we will just see an increase in the tax bureaucracy.

Well, that's a good question. In the long-run the doctors running private hospitals might not have to come from the public health care system. You're simply assuming that Canada's a closed economy and the supply of doctors is constant. Well, if private clinics are paying more then US doctors might travel to Canada. And more people would go to medical school since the wage is high enough to pay their student loans.

Also, there's no evidence that private companies pay much more than public ones. Private school teachers don't get more than public ones since all government organizations are dominated by unions.

The bottleneck here isn't the supply of doctors but lack of facilities. There are tons of immigrant doctors who can't find a job simply because the government isn't building enough hospitals to staff them.

The tax doesn't have to be high but at least the government gets something.

MasterXan

Jul 5th, 2009, 04:49 PM

Actually, let me ask you this...is it more likely that a private firm will open a "multi-million dollar clinic" in TB with its tiny population of high-income individuals or a government pandering to the votes of a large voting population?

a private firm will open a "multi-million dollar clinic" in TB if there is a market for it.

a government could pander to the votes of a large voting population to open hospitals but the bureaucracy would cause a delay in building those hospitals.

honestly, i dunno where you are getting at?

hagbard

Jul 5th, 2009, 05:08 PM

I'm glad govt is providing us with clothes, food and shelter because without it where would we be?

IronMac

Jul 5th, 2009, 05:15 PM

Well, that's a good question. In the long-run the doctors running private hospitals might not have to come from the public health care system. You're simply assuming that Canada's a closed economy and the supply of doctors is constant. Well, if private clinics are paying more then US doctors might travel to Canada. And more people would go to medical school since the wage is high enough to pay their student loans.

Also, there's no evidence that private companies pay much more than public ones. Private school teachers don't get more than public ones since all government organizations are dominated by unions.

The bottleneck here isn't the supply of doctors but lack of facilities. There are tons of immigrant doctors who can't find a job simply because the government isn't building enough hospitals to staff them.

The tax doesn't have to be high but at least the government gets something.

A. You can't force people to work in the public health system over a private one nor can you keep people from migrating over to a private one.
B. Your second paragraph makes no sense. Private school teachers are not part of government organizations so they do not belong to unions.

Let me ask you this, do you believe that people who work in public companies earn more or less than those in government? If you don't know the answer, look it up.

C. Lack of facilities? No, it's the licensing that is the bottleneck.
D. Tax doesn't have to be high? As a businessman, why would I want to take my investors' money, put it into a potentially risky business, hire expensive staff, and see it taxed at a higher rate?

IronMac

Jul 5th, 2009, 05:19 PM

a private firm will open a "multi-million dollar clinic" in TB if there is a market for it.

a government could pander to the votes of a large voting population to open hospitals but the bureaucracy would cause a delay in building those hospitals.

honestly, i dunno where you are getting at?

A. That you're unable to see the internal logic/equality in your own argument.
B. How much of a delay are we talking about here?

Edit:

Let me ask a question here, you're willing to undermine a reasonably affordable and equitable healthcare system simply because you want to speed up a couple of hospitals being built? Is that it? Because it seems that both you and Troondon are hyped up over that reason.

rabbit

Jul 5th, 2009, 05:27 PM

> With free health care, Steve Jobs would've been put through so much crap that he would've either a) died before it would happen or b) figure it's not worth all the crap and just wait for the end to happen. Just because we have subsidized (not really free) health care it doesn't mean that it's so easy to get.

Are you kidding me? With all the dudes out there who have pledged allegiance to Apple, Jobs just has to say the word, and they would all be lining up to donate and to do the operation for free.

MasterXan

Jul 5th, 2009, 05:34 PM

A. That you're unable to see the internal logic/equality in your own argument.
B. How much of a delay are we talking about here?

Edit:

Let me ask a question here, you're willing to undermine a reasonably affordable and equitable healthcare system simply because you want to speed up a couple of hospitals being built? Is that it? Because it seems that both you and Troondon are hyped up over that reason.

lol how am I willing to undermine a resonably affordable and equitable healthcare system?

I'm simply pointing out that free markets and private health care isn't all doom and gloom and the government can't do everything right. The system we have right now is good but we can do better. Why are you against any form of mitigation on wait times? delaying a hospital being built is just one example why the government simply...sucks. i can't give you an exact time of delay but then if I did, i'm sure you'll try to put a positive spin on why delays are worth it if everyone gets "equitable" healthcare.

IronMac

Jul 5th, 2009, 06:40 PM

lol how am I willing to undermine a resonably affordable and equitable healthcare system?

I'm simply pointing out that free markets and private health care isn't all doom and gloom and the government can't do everything right. The system we have right now is good but we can do better. Why are you against any form of mitigation on wait times? delaying a hospital being built is just one example why the government simply...sucks. i can't give you an exact time of delay but then if I did, i'm sure you'll try to put a positive spin on why delays are worth it if everyone gets "equitable" healthcare.

If you believe that government can't do everything right then you'd have to agree that business can't do everything right.

I am not against lowering wait times but I also don't believe that going to a private healthcare system is the answer. What? You've never been put on hold by a corporation?

Edit:

You know what? I think that last line is the best argument against people who believe that going to a private healthcare system will decrease wait times. Just ask them...how many times have you been put on hold, how many times you've been told that your car will be fixed next week, when your cable install will happen sometime between 2-6, etc.

Going to a private system is no panacea. I've been to a "private" hospital (third most profitable in the country!) where my mother-in-law went in via "private" ambulance to the emergency ward and it took five hours to get her admitted into a bed that was NOT even in her area of care. In fact, the bed was situated in a small alcove off of the hallway shielded by a wrap-around curtain. They had to move her out the next day to a proper ward.

This 12-day hospital stay will cost us around $15k and this is her THIRD visit to a hospital within the past year. It's not her longest stay nor is it her most serious stay.

Looking at that experience (among others) is why I am so disdainful of people who think that private is the way to go.

Troodon

Jul 5th, 2009, 07:32 PM

If you believe that government can't do everything right then you'd have to agree that business can't do everything right.

I am not against lowering wait times but I also don't believe that going to a private healthcare system is the answer. What? You've never been put on hold by a corporation?

Edit:

You know what? I think that last line is the best argument against people who believe that going to a private healthcare system will decrease wait times. Just ask them...how many times have you been put on hold, how many times you've been told that your car will be fixed next week, when your cable install will happen sometime between 2-6, etc.

Going to a private system is no panacea. I've been to a "private" hospital (third most profitable in the country!) where my mother-in-law went in via "private" ambulance to the emergency ward and it took five hours to get her admitted into a bed that was NOT even in her area of care. In fact, the bed was situated in a small alcove off of the hallway shielded by a wrap-around curtain. They had to move her out the next day to a proper ward.

This 12-day hospital stay will cost us around $15k and this is her THIRD visit to a hospital within the past year. It's not her longest stay nor is it her most serious stay.

Looking at that experience (among others) is why I am so disdainful of people who think that private is the way to go.

It's not deregulated enough to create adequate competition. The airline industry got deregulated and none of the problems that you said occured.

ghostryder

Jul 5th, 2009, 07:35 PM

Hey. Why can't we just have two parallel healthcare systems?

We could. Some of the posters here don't seem to realize that this is a complex issue and there will/may be significant complications & disadvantages to doing this. Too few people seem to be willing to look to other jurisdictions and learn from their successes as well as their failures.

Keep the one we have right now but also deregulate the healthcare industry.

Yeah, 'cause the deregulation of the energy sector worked out so well for California, and the deregulation movement of the financial sector that started during the Reagan years worked out so well too.

Anyone who want to open their own hospital for profit can do so and we can use the tax to help the public healthcare. It's a win-win situation...

There are already private hospitals and other facilities. There is nothing stopping more from being opened. But if they want to receive payments from provincial health insurance programs they have to abide by the Canada Health Act. They can choose to operate completely privately if they want.

ghostryder

Jul 5th, 2009, 07:48 PM

And more people would go to medical school since the wage is high enough to pay their student loans.
The bottleneck here isn't the supply of doctors but lack of facilities. There are tons of immigrant doctors who can't find a job simply because the government isn't building enough hospitals to staff them.

Things must be really different where you live. I don't see any lack of people wanting to go into medicine (and related programs ie nursing etc). The bottleneck seems to be in the education stage. As for jobs for immigrant doctors, there are plenty of rural areas that are in desperate need of doctors. If those immigrant doctors are so desparate for work, why do they refuse to go where the work is?

IronMac

Jul 5th, 2009, 10:46 PM

It's not deregulated enough to create adequate competition. The airline industry got deregulated and none of the problems that you said occured.

You're joking right? Let's dance this dance then...which airline industry are you talking about? American? Canadian?

IronMac

Jul 5th, 2009, 10:47 PM

Things must be really different where you live. I don't see any lack of people wanting to go into medicine (and related programs ie nursing etc). The bottleneck seems to be in the education stage. As for jobs for immigrant doctors, there are plenty of rural areas that are in desperate need of doctors. If those immigrant doctors are so desparate for work, why do they refuse to go where the work is?

It's not because they refuse to go where the work is; it's the licensing.

Troodon

Jul 6th, 2009, 12:31 AM

You're joking right? Let's dance this dance then...which airline industry are you talking about? American? Canadian?

American and Canadian. Fares became lower and there are now many more destinations.

Even the partial freeing of the air travel sector has had overwhelmingly positive results. Air travel has dramatically increased and prices have fallen. After deregulation, airlines reconfigured their routes and equipment, making possible improvements in capacity utilization. These efficiency effects democratized air travel, making it more accessible to the general public.

Airfares, when adjusted for inflation, have fallen 25 percent since 1991, and, according to Clifford Winston and Steven Morrison of the Brookings Institution, are 22 percent lower than they would have been had regulation continued (Morrison and Winston 2000). Since passenger deregulation in 1978, airline prices have fallen 44.9 percent in real terms according to the Air Transport Association. Robert Crandall and Jerry Ellig (1997) estimated that when figures are adjusted for changes in quality and amenities, passengers save $19.4 billion dollars per year from airline deregulation. These savings have been passed on to 80 percent of passengers accounting for 85 percent of passenger miles. The real benefits of airline deregulation are being felt today as never before, with LCCs increasingly gaining market share.

The dollar savings are a direct result of allowing airlines the freedom to innovate in routes and pricing. After deregulation, the airlines quickly moved to a hub-and-spoke system, whereby an airline selected some airport (the hub) as the destination point for flights from a number of origination cities (the spokes). Because the size of the planes used varied according to the travel on that spoke, and since hubs allowed passenger travel to be consolidated in �transfer stations,� capacity utilization (�load factors�) increased, allowing fare reduction. The hub-and-spoke model survives among the legacy carriers, but the LCCs�now 30 percent of the market�typically fly point to point. The network hubs model offers consumers more convenience for routes, but point-to-point routes have proven less costly for airlines to implement. Over time, the legacy carriers and the LCCs will likely use some combination of point-to-point and network hubs to capture both economies of scope and pricing advantages.

The rigid fares of the regulatory era have given way to today�s competitive price market. After deregulation, the airlines created highly complex pricing models that include the service quality/price sensitivity of various air travelers and offer differential fare/service quality packages designed for each. The new LCCs, however, have far simpler price structures�the product of consumers� (especially business travelers�) demand for low prices, increased price transparency from online Web sites, and decreased reliance on travel agencies.

As prices have decreased, air travel has exploded. The total number of passengers that fly annually has more than doubled since 1978. Travelers now have more convenient travel options with greater flight frequency and more nonstop flights. Fewer passengers must change airlines to make a connection, resulting in better travel coordination and higher customer satisfaction.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/AirlineDeregulation.html It's nice to note that while oil prices skyrocketed since the 1970s... airfares have dropped by 25%.

Even if you think private healthcare is bad, the system we have right now doesn't work. But I think a good solution would be to simply have the government encourage people to eat well and exercise. I'll use my example about anti-smoking drugs. The government won't pay for drugs that cost a few hundred but it'll pay for an expensive lung cancer surgery.

If we can prevent most of the preventible diseases then the government can save a lot of money.

But regardless of what's better the government needs to make choices soon.

brunes

Jul 6th, 2009, 06:29 AM

American and Canadian. Fares became lower and there are now many more destinations.

Right - and Air Canada is once again on the verge of bankruptcy, for the second time in less than 10 years. And if/when they go under an enormous amount of this country will be without any access to air travel whatsoever.

The problem is Canada is a huge vast country with pockets of people spread all over, and it is not easy to run these remote routes at a profitable rate. But if they get shut down, then how do you get people and materials and supplies up to the Yukon or to Nunavut or northern Ontario? They would be even more cut off then they are now.

I am not saying I am pro-government-owned-air-canada, I am simply saying there are pros and cons to every argument.

My argument again - every country (besides the US) in the first world runs a public health care system with varying degrees of success. Are the proponents of a private system just defeatist? Why do you think everyone else in the world can make it work except Canada?

IronMac

Jul 6th, 2009, 07:20 AM

American and Canadian. Fares became lower and there are now many more destinations.

Even if you think private healthcare is bad, the system we have right now doesn't work. But I think a good solution would be to simply have the government encourage people to eat well and exercise. I'll use my example about anti-smoking drugs. The government won't pay for drugs that cost a few hundred but it'll pay for an expensive lung cancer surgery.

If we can prevent most of the preventible diseases then the government can save a lot of money.

But regardless of what's better the government needs to make choices soon.

Actually, you cannot use the example of the airline industry and equate it to our healthcare system. The airline industry in both countries was never own and run by governmental bodies.

The system that we have right now DOES work despite some warts. Both private and public have their pros and cons. I just think that a private system would be detrimental to the majority of Canadians.

And, if you're talking about preventing health problems from cropping up; those measures can easily be done within a public healthcare system. In fact, it would probably be a lot easier.

To go off on a bit of a wild tangent; here's a questiom...which system do you think would be more likely to want to prevent health problems or to cure them? Would not the private system want a continuous stream of customers, ie. patients? I mean, they do have to make a profit don't they? They are beholden to their investors right? ;)

TCWeasel

Jul 6th, 2009, 08:49 AM

To go off on a bit of a wild tangent; here's a questiom...which system do you think would be more likely to want to prevent health problems or to cure them? Would not the private system want a continuous stream of customers, ie. patients? I mean, they do have to make a profit don't they? They are beholden to their investors right? ;)

Very much so. The shareholders take priority over the 'consumer'. If the shareholders can make more money by the patient being denied treatment, then that is the route that MUST be chosen.

As a consumer, I'd like to see as much money of what I'm spending go to the actual product. In the case of health care, I'd like to see most of my money go into the actual health care. In a private system, this is not the case. More of the private health care dollar is spent on non-health care related items than a public system. Private health care does not bring better care.

MasterXan

Jul 6th, 2009, 09:53 AM

Very much so. The shareholders take priority over the 'consumer'. If the shareholders can make more money by the patient being denied treatment, then that is the route that MUST be chosen.

As a consumer, I'd like to see as much money of what I'm spending go to the actual product. In the case of health care, I'd like to see most of my money go into the actual health care. In a private system, this is not the case. More of the private health care dollar is spent on non-health care related items than a public system. Private health care does not bring better care.

so giving it to the government = money going into actual health care? really?
government wouldn't piss your money away and put it into more nanny programs?

both healthcare systems are inclined to overprescribe people because of the probability of litigation. by doing more tests, the doctors' liabilities are lessened.

To go off on a bit of a wild tangent; here's a questiom...which system do you think would be more likely to want to prevent health problems or to cure them? Would not the private system want a continuous stream of customers, ie. patients? I mean, they do have to make a profit don't they? They are beholden to their investors right?

you guys are right, private systems are for profit. why not? profits drive innovation. if a business pockets the profits and don't invest into the business, someone else will.

are salary caps gonna encourage doctors to serve you better?

if a private clinic fails to prevent or cure your health problems, go to another clinic. someone else will provide better service.

TCWeasel

Jul 6th, 2009, 11:19 AM

so giving it to the government = money going into actual health care? really?

A larger percentage of the health care dollar? Yes.

For example, about 33-35 percent of each health care dollar spent in the US's private system goes to things other than health care itself. In Canada, that number is less than 20% for the public system.

you guys are right, private systems are for profit. why not? profits drive innovation. if a business pockets the profits and don't invest into the business, someone else will.

Not necessarily. Viagra sells about $2,000,000,000 a year for prescription medication (and increasing). Now, if ED were to be cured instead of treated, what does that do to a steady stream of billions of dollar in revenue for Pfizer? These companies spend billions on R&D, but it is resulted in mostly treatments as opposed to cures. Now far be it for me to accuse them of intentionally not finding a cure for something, but under corporate law they're bound to ensure the maximizing of profits for shareholders. Treatment brings in more profit than a cure.

This isn't exclusive to the pharmaceutical industry. It can be related to most industries. Why make a long lasting product when you can make one with a short lifespan, so they'll have to buy again and again?

Troodon

Jul 6th, 2009, 11:25 AM

A larger percentage of the health care dollar? Yes.

For example, about 33-35 percent of each health care dollar spent in the US's private system goes to things other than health care itself. In Canada, that number is less than 20% for the public system.

I heard that in the US healthcare companies charge more for patients with insurance since they know that regardless of how high they charge the insurance company will have to pay for it.

This creates a lot of bloated fees.

To go off on a bit of a wild tangent; here's a questiom...which system do you think would be more likely to want to prevent health problems or to cure them? Would not the private system want a continuous stream of customers, ie. patients? I mean, they do have to make a profit don't they? They are beholden to their investors right?

I think both systems under the right circumstances can focus on prevention. The building of gyms is a private "healthcare" action that helps prevent illness. Diet pills (assuming they work) can also be counted as prevention. The problem occurs with clinics that are in hospitals. Those clinics might recommend unneccesary surgeries that bring more revenue.

The government should help people prevent illness but its influenced by lobbyists and social trends. The fact that it took so long for governments to warn people about smoking shows that governments are not completely free of outside pressure.

So both have their disadvantages and advantages.

TCWeasel

Jul 6th, 2009, 11:43 AM

I heard that in the US healthcare companies charge more for patients with insurance since they know that regardless of how high they charge the insurance company will have to pay for it.

This creates a lot of bloated fees.

While this will skew the profit to some extent, it is based on a percentage and thus be relatively negligible. Though it makes the point in case that for-profit is even more heavily burdened on the consumer.

That being said, the pure comparable costs of overheads is about 12% for US private insurers versus about 1.5% for Canada's system.

Medicare, a publicly funded insurer, also has a substantially less dollars to healthcare ratio (Around 22-25% I believe). And they deal with the same kind of billing.

A two tier system has the potential to work in Canada, but there are far too many variables to make it something easily implementable.

MasterXan

Jul 6th, 2009, 12:40 PM

Not necessarily. Viagra sells about $2,000,000,000 a year for prescription medication (and increasing). Now, if ED were to be cured instead of treated, what does that do to a steady stream of billions of dollar in revenue for Pfizer? These companies spend billions on R&D, but it is resulted in mostly treatments as opposed to cures. Now far be it for me to accuse them of intentionally not finding a cure for something, but under corporate law they're bound to ensure the maximizing of profits for shareholders. Treatment brings in more profit than a cure.

This isn't exclusive to the pharmaceutical industry. It can be related to most industries. Why make a long lasting product when you can make one with a short lifespan, so they'll have to buy again and again?

good point. however, what's preventing other competitors from making a product to compete with Viagra or even cure ED?

Ron Paul kills it again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foXQbmZxWYY

BornRuff

Jul 6th, 2009, 01:37 PM

good point. however, what's preventing other competitors from making a product to compete with Viagra or even cure ED?

Ron Paul kills it again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foXQbmZxWYY

There really isn't anything in that video that isn't the same tired anti socialist rhetoric. He calls government health care "making sure everyone gets poor medicine". Does he not have the ability to read statistics or articles? The "poor medicine" in almost every other OECD country is providing better outcomes than we are seeing in the US.

Does he want to see the US actually get up to 1st world medical standards(they are significantly below that in many ways at the moment), or does he just want to make himself feel important by always making grand moral arguments he never has the power to back up?

This guy is essentially the American version of Jack Layton. Loves to talk big because he knows he never has to ever actually back up his sentiments. He always votes along moral lines and never has to think about things practically since he never holds any significant power.

IronMac

Jul 6th, 2009, 06:48 PM

you guys are right, private systems are for profit. why not? profits drive innovation. if a business pockets the profits and don't invest into the business, someone else will.

are salary caps gonna encourage doctors to serve you better?

if a private clinic fails to prevent or cure your health problems, go to another clinic. someone else will provide better service.

Tell us something...when was the last big cure that was produced out of a corporate lab?

If you're going to talk about service:

A. Lousy service, fire them. Let's not worry about salaries.
B. Would you rather have someone whose top priority is your health rather than the almight dollar?

Oh yeah, remember the last time a company put you on hold? Did you drop them and go to another one? In Canada, there are very few other options...unless of course you want to invite in the Americans. ;)

IronMac

Jul 6th, 2009, 06:50 PM

good point. however, what's preventing other competitors from making a product to compete with Viagra or even cure ED?

There are companies with competing products but do you know of any of them trying to even cure ED?

Business logic would say that you won't find one.

brunes

Jul 6th, 2009, 07:09 PM

This guy is essentially the American version of Jack Layton. Loves to talk big because he knows he never has to ever actually back up his sentiments. He always votes along moral lines and never has to think about things practically since he never holds any significant power.

I find this comme nt very humerous because while it is 100% true i can't even IMAGINE how Layton would react to being compared to Ron Paul - LOL

gordholio

Jul 6th, 2009, 07:12 PM

There really isn't anything in that video that isn't the same tired anti socialist rhetoric. He calls government health care "making sure everyone gets poor medicine". Does he not have the ability to read statistics or articles? The "poor medicine" in almost every other OECD country is providing better outcomes than we are seeing in the US.

Does he want to see the US actually get up to 1st world medical standards(they are significantly below that in many ways at the moment), or does he just want to make himself feel important by always making grand moral arguments he never has the power to back up?

This guy is essentially the American version of Jack Layton. Loves to talk big because he knows he never has to ever actually back up his sentiments. He always votes along moral lines and never has to think about things practically since he never holds any significant power.

Please don't equate Jack Layon with Ron Paul.
Ron Paul wants the US government OUT of people's business and affairs. Jack Layton wants the government IN people's affairs. Not much similarity.

TCWeasel

Jul 6th, 2009, 08:08 PM

I find this comme nt very humerous because while it is 100% true i can't even IMAGINE how Layton would react to being compared to Ron Paul - LOL

I'm not sure I'd consider Layton to be a libertarian. In the comparison that neither will be the leader in their respective countries, the comparison is apt. There is a Ron Paul following, but certainly not enough to ever put him in top spot of the GOP, not to mention he certainly doesn't have the support of Limbaugh. Whereas Layton has had much better success selling his Video Processor ;)

The fact is is that an overwhelming majority of Americans want a public option and are generally unhappy with their current system of health care.

MasterXan

Jul 6th, 2009, 08:13 PM

Tell us something...when was the last big cure that was produced out of a corporate lab?

If you're going to talk about service:

A. Lousy service, fire them. Let's not worry about salaries.
B. Would you rather have someone whose top priority is your health rather than the almight dollar?

A) can't do the work? someone else can.
B) I would want someone to do his/her job well and if it's for money, why should I care? greed is good and it works. you seem to be a person who demonizes people who want to make money but can't see the fact that there are people who want to do a good job while making money. what's the problem?

are you gonna demonize musicians for selling cds for $20 because musicians should be about art?

are you going to go to a university graduation ceremony and tell graduates to work in non-profit organizations because life isn't about profits?
:lol:

Oh yeah, remember the last time a company put you on hold? Did you drop them and go to another one? In Canada, there are very few other options...unless of course you want to invite in the Americans. ;)[/

yeah that's unfortunate. i wonder why there aren't a lot of choices.

for example, cell phone providers

MasterXan

Jul 6th, 2009, 08:16 PM

There are companies with competing products but do you know of any of them trying to even cure ED?

Business logic would say that you won't find one.

oh ok

if the government nationalizes these pharmaceutal companies, is it pretty much guarantee that there will be a cure for ED and there will be NO conflict of interest?

BornRuff

Jul 6th, 2009, 09:04 PM

Please don't equate Jack Layon with Ron Paul.
Ron Paul wants the US government OUT of people's business and affairs. Jack Layton wants the government IN people's affairs. Not much similarity.

Try to actually read the reasons why I said they are similar.

I did not say they were similar in political views, they are similar in the way they act.

They always go on long winded rants and vote based on rigid moral lines because they have no real power and know they never have to back up their rhetoric.

TCWeasel

Jul 6th, 2009, 09:07 PM

oh ok

if the government nationalizes these pharmaceutal companies, is it pretty much guarantee that there will be a cure for ED and there will be NO conflict of interest?

They don't. The government funds mostly public entities, as well as some private, to do the research. A government with publicly funded health care has a vested interest in finding a cure.

Stem cell research being an issue which has gotten press coverage over the last 8 years. When Bush signed off against stem cell research, he wasn't disallowing it from occurring in the US, he was simply now allowing public funds to be used in any of the research. If private industry was developing things like gene therapies that benefited humanity, there wouldn't have been any issue with the lack of government funding. It was, as you probably witness, quite a big deal. Although with stem cell research there are two things in play. Firstly, back to the notion that they'd rather have a treatment then a cure, it would work here to. Secondly, the development of a specific therapy would then become the exclusive domain of that company, and therefore with a monopoly on it could basically charge what they wanted. It's not entirely easy, either, to develop a competing therapy that wouldn't run afoul with any patents of the original developer.

The following New Yorker discusses the vaccination issues http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/12/20/041220ta_talk_surowiecki

There are more related articles, but we'll leave it there for now. Google something like disease cure ethics pharmaceutical (or others) and you'll come up with a host of articles.

I'm not trying to suggest that pharmaceutical companies are inherently evil, but for a number of things it's more advantageous for them to not develop a cure, and frighteningly (as I've mentioned before), they may be legally bound to NOT develop a cure.

IronMac

Jul 6th, 2009, 10:52 PM

why should I care? greed is good and it works.

Really? Why don't you spend a bit of time looking around you at something called "the recession".

you seem to be a person who demonizes people who want to make money but can't see the fact that there are people who want to do a good job while making money. what's the problem?

Nope, no problem with people making money. I have a problem when people advocate a stupid course of action.

yeah that's unfortunate. i wonder why there aren't a lot of choices.

for example, cell phone providers

How many cellphone service providers are in the US?

WontonTiger

Jul 7th, 2009, 11:03 AM

There are companies with competing products but do you know of any of them trying to even cure ED?

Business logic would say that you won't find one.

ED is largely a blood flow issue. They are working on many types of solutions to fix blood diseases. In the end, if they cure those more general diseases, they'll also cure ED.

Take into account as well that certain diseases can't be "cured," they can only be treated.

Nope, no problem with people making money. I have a problem when people advocate an opinion other than my own.
corrected

How many cellphone service providers are in the US?

There are at least 180 different providers.

nalababe

Jul 7th, 2009, 11:05 AM

oh ok

if the government nationalizes these pharmaceutal companies, is it pretty much guarantee that there will be a cure for ED and there will be NO conflict of interest?

No, because for most the cure is not a drug...

That is the problem with the Pharma Industry and US healthcare models, they goal is not to cure the underlying problem, but rather relieve the symptoms.
There is a reason why the US proportionally has more Stomach Staples, ED drugs, spinal fusions....quick fixes that make money.

TCWeasel

Jul 7th, 2009, 11:10 AM

nalababe

Jul 7th, 2009, 11:22 AM

For the record, I used ED has example, picked at random because it's the only name of a drug I could think of at the time. (Not for any particular reason. Maybe it's the advertising that I remembered it).

But it shows a key point in US medicine. They look to answer the quesiton...but just like in business, you should be looking a the question behind the question....

You can pick many of the drugs on the market and look at the US. How many times do you see or read of people abusing pain killers in the US? Do you really think that they are in more pain than say here in Canada? No, the society is one that lauds the quick fix.

Pharma companies are there to make money. Period. When I was looking at grad school I had a great project lined up that was tackling Malaria. Unfortunately, Malaria is very poorly funded as the people who are the key market cannot afford the drug. So why would a drug company spend hundreds of millions?

What this means is that if you have money you get something...though even with insurance you can pay a bit of money. Even working for a health care company, with good insurance, my colleague had to pay 5k for her kidney stone treatment.

WontonTiger

Jul 7th, 2009, 11:36 AM

But it shows a key point in US medicine. They look to answer the quesiton...but just like in business, you should be looking a the question behind the question....

You can pick many of the drugs on the market and look at the US. How many times do you see or read of people abusing pain killers in the US? Do you really think that they are in more pain than say here in Canada? No, the society is one that lauds the quick fix.

Pharma companies are there to make money. Period. When I was looking at grad school I had a great project lined up that was tackling Malaria. Unfortunately, Malaria is very poorly funded as the people who are the key market cannot afford the drug. So why would a drug company spend hundreds of millions?

What this means is that if you have money you get something...though even with insurance you can pay a bit of money. Even working for a health care company, with good insurance, my colleague had to pay 5k for her kidney stone treatment.

You're helping to prove our point against IronMac. If someone has enough money, they will be the catalyst for many types of disease elimination. If we stop these people from spending their money, we're only impeding future progress in the aim of keeping everyone "equally treated" in our wasteful system.

Unless you have figures to show that American's abuse pain killers more than Canadians, I'd assume we are actually very similar. Pain is something that can't be easily "cured." It can only be treated. It's separate from the issue we're talking about, which is curing diseases.

I think sometimes people think there are "cures" for everything. It's possible that many diseases are in-curable, and need to be kept in check by medication. We too often assume that everything has a cure somewhere down the line, and I don't believe that is the case.

TCWeasel

Jul 7th, 2009, 02:08 PM

You're helping to prove our point against IronMac. If someone has enough money, they will be the catalyst for many types of disease elimination. If we stop these people from spending their money, we're only impeding future progress in the aim of keeping everyone "equally treated" in our wasteful system.

No one is being "stopped" from spending the money. They aren't spending the money because there is no return on it. Bristol Myers abandoned their malaria R&D because of the reasons stated previously, there is no return on their investment. Corporations' first obligation is to make money. They're not in the business of benevolence.

I think sometimes people think there are "cures" for everything. It's possible that many diseases are in-curable, and need to be kept in check by medication. We too often assume that everything has a cure somewhere down the line, and I don't believe that is the case.

Conceivably, there should be a cure for anything which is not normal for the human body. Diseases are generally caused by viral or bacterial forces or some sort of malfunction in the human body, as well as any number of "defects". What we do have trouble with is a rapid mutation of whatever the source is (eg: The common cold). A cure doesn't necessarily represent the fixing of something once it has occurred, but the prevention. Like preventing cancer from occurring, rather than removing it once it has occurred.

The human body is not unlike a computer. There are physical component as well as the instruction set on how things operate. It's possible to "reprogram" that instruction set within the human body as much as it's possible to replace parts that are malfunctioning. The interaction between the body and its instructions is also via an electrical system. It is absolutely complex, but entirely possible.

WontonTiger

Jul 7th, 2009, 03:21 PM

No one is being "stopped" from spending the money. They aren't spending the money because there is no return on it. Bristol Myers abandoned their malaria R&D because of the reasons stated previously, there is no return on their investment. Corporations' first obligation is to make money. They're not in the business of benevolence.

Read what I posted once more. I understand their bottom line is $$, however if enough $$ is offered, they have no reason not to go after it. Depending on the situation of a company, you can offer a smaller rival less money, and they'll have more incentive to go after it (brand recognition). It's not so simple as always milking the status quo (constant treatments instead of cures), there is often financial benefit in curing diseases.

Just because Corps are in charge, doesn't preclude the right "moral" decision from occurring, it's just not their first priority. If you truly believe that the gov't first priority is to prevent all diseases, then I think you're smoking too much. The gov't is all about $$$$. They let people smoke, and tax them to hell. They're very selective in their desires and choices, and that in itself shows that their motivation is never pure.

Conceivably, there should be a cure for anything which is not normal for the human body. Diseases are generally caused by viral or bacterial forces or some sort of malfunction in the human body, as well as any number of "defects". What we do have trouble with is a rapid mutation of whatever the source is (eg: The common cold). A cure doesn't necessarily represent the fixing of something once it has occurred, but the prevention. Like preventing cancer from occurring, rather than removing it once it has occurred.

The human body is not unlike a computer. There are physical component as well as the instruction set on how things operate. It's possible to "reprogram" that instruction set within the human body as much as it's possible to replace parts that are malfunctioning. The interaction between the body and its instructions is also via an electrical system. It is absolutely complex, but entirely possible.

Cancer is accelerated cell growth. There may not be a "cure" to cancer (to put it simply). We can remove the cells, however we need to destroy much of the body to do that.

I don't personally know enough about disease to say for sure either way. I do know that it would be foolish to assume that we can cure all diseases, when we haven't even scratched the surface yet. (there are still lots of killer diseases).

TCWeasel

Jul 7th, 2009, 03:50 PM

They let people smoke, and tax them to hell. They're very selective in their desires and choices, and that in itself shows that their motivation is never pure.

Try making cigarettes illegal, and you'll have your answer. The government spends more in cigarette related health care than is collected in taxes. If it was money, cigarettes would be illegal. Pot is less deadly than cigarettes, but still (mostly) illegal. Just imagine the tax dollars it would bring it, though, it would be better than cigarettes for the government coffers.

Cancer is accelerated cell growth. There may not be a "cure" to cancer (to put it simply). We can remove the cells, however we need to destroy much of the body to do that.

I don't personally know enough about disease to say for sure either way. I do know that it would be foolish to assume that we can cure all diseases, when we haven't even scratched the surface yet. (there are still lots of killer diseases).

There are a lot of diseases, and it's a daunting task that will likely mean that we'll never likely have all diseases cured, but it doesn't mean that they cannot be cured.

Is it possible to "engineer" the human body to simply reject any cancer cells? I believe it is, and you'll find many a research scientist who'd say something similar.

To rely solely on a public system for discovering disease cures is foolish. The more people trying, the better it is. Corporations don't have a lot of incentive, in some cases (not all), to find the cure if the treatment they produce is working well.

nalababe

Jul 7th, 2009, 04:33 PM

IronMac

Jul 7th, 2009, 07:04 PM

ED is largely a blood flow issue. They are working on many types of solutions to fix blood diseases. In the end, if they cure those more general diseases, they'll also cure ED.

Are they really working on "fixing" blood diseases? I don't believe so because it makes no logical business sense nor in the end is it legal for them to do so.

Take into account as well that certain diseases can't be "cured," they can only be treated.

Is this pharma propaganda or do you really know it to be a fact?

There are at least 180 different providers.

LOL! hahahaha NO. You're talking with a guy who used to write reports on the cellphone industry in North America. The vast majority of your 180 providers are resellers for the big guys such as AT&T, Verizon and so on. They are the ones who hold the spectrum licenses.

IronMac

Jul 7th, 2009, 07:11 PM

WontonTiger

Jul 8th, 2009, 11:25 AM

No one has enough money to be a catalyst for disease elimination. It's not a case of "here, we have a rich man's disease, let's cure it". (Gout used to be known as the rich man's disease, I believe.)

Where the money is is in treating (not curing) as big a part of the population as you can for as long as you can before the patent runs out. If you can prove otherwise, go ahead.

Based on what? Where is this defeatist belief coming from?

Mankind has conquered diseases that were considered "incurable" in the past and the list is growing. Of course, with your "belief" system, we might still be living with smallpox, leprosy, bubonic plague, polio, etc. in Canada.

You won't agree on the power of private industry to be a catalyst for progress, so I won't even bother arguing it with you. If you look at human history, you'll see the power of money. I think that says it all.

I also think it is foolhardy to believe you can cure every disease. Even though I may believe this, it wouldn't stop me from trying to cure diseases. I just think that in the end, it's possible that some diseases can only be treated, and not cured. In many cases developing a treatment (which takes less time), can salvage and provide a better standard of living for patients, rather than watching them die while waiting for cures. Treatments and temporary solutions are sometimes the best way, and do not preclude cures being developed in the future.

Corporations are not evil entities, they are corporations, groups of interested people looking to make money. Why do you assume they are all evil, and would rather hold back human development?

danfromwaterloo

Jul 8th, 2009, 12:38 PM

IronMac

Jul 8th, 2009, 06:30 PM

You won't agree on the power of private industry to be a catalyst for progress, so I won't even bother arguing it with you. If you look at human history, you'll see the power of money. I think that says it all.

I also think it is foolhardy to believe you can cure every disease. Even though I may believe this, it wouldn't stop me from trying to cure diseases. I just think that in the end, it's possible that some diseases can only be treated, and not cured. In many cases developing a treatment (which takes less time), can salvage and provide a better standard of living for patients, rather than watching them die while waiting for cures. Treatments and temporary solutions are sometimes the best way, and do not preclude cures being developed in the future.

Corporations are not evil entities, they are corporations, groups of interested people looking to make money. Why do you assume they are all evil, and would rather hold back human development?

A. I never said that I don't believe in money moving progress forward. I just think that in this situation, the money will not be channeled towards progress, especially when it goes against business logic and corporate laws.
B. No one ever said that one should pursue cures to the detriment of treatments. It's just that the health system in the US is skewed towards the development of treatments rather than cures.
C. I never said that they were evil nor do I assume that they are evil. I am just saying that logically it makes no sense for a corporation to develop a cure for any sort of disease.

Again, show us an example where it made more sense for a corporation to develop a cure rather than a treatment for a disease or affliction.

IronMac

Jul 8th, 2009, 06:31 PM

Free healthcare should be the right of every citizen on the planet. Is it good? The alternative to it is worse - a system where people who cannot afford it cannot receive it, to die in poverty, where life is only a privledge to those who can afford it.

Amen!

Troodon

Jul 8th, 2009, 07:01 PM

Let's look at this logically:

The ideal system of healthcare is a system where each person, regardless of society delineation, gets exactly the healthcare they need to ensure a happy healthy life.

That can be expressed in both a public system and a private system, but the downfalls are different in each situation.

In a public system, the demand grows unchecked because there's nothing keeping abusers of the system away. For example, hypochondriacs that go to the doctor every day for something that's wrong with them. Or people who go to the emergency room for a cold. The demands on the system override the supply - causing the overall quality to decrease.

In a private system, the demand stays checked because frequent users have to pay - often serving as a valuable deterrent. The quality stays high. The problem is that, while deterring abusers of the system, it also keeps away poor users of the system who cannot afford treatment. You essentially sacrifice the people in greatest need to favour speedy treatment.

The two systems cannot live together - if both exist in the same space, the private system will swallow all the good doctors.

The question of "Is Free Healthcare Good" depends on your utility valuation of the situation. It is assumed that paid healthcare is better and more effective (possibly false) - so the question is: would you rather save, say 80% of your population 80% of the time (private healthcare) or would you rather save 100% of your population 64% of the time (public healthcare)?

I think your answer will largely depend on where you are? If you're middle-class and above and gainfully employed, you'll probably say private. If you're middle-class and below or unemployed, you'll probably save public.

Part of the Declaration of Independence states that people are given the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. By that stretch, just as the government protects those liberties, you would think it is also the duty of the government to protect against that which would infringe upon one's life. We don't pay for the police to protect us from gun-wielding thugs (directly), but we think it's morally acceptable to have to pay to save your life when it comes to heart surgery or cancer? We don't pay to have soldiers protect the country from invaders, but when those same invaders come in the form of bacteria, we have to pay for the medical 'soldiers' to help us?

Free healthcare should be the right of every citizen on the planet. Is it good? The alternative to it is worse - a system where people who cannot afford it cannot receive it, to die in poverty, where life is only a privledge to those who can afford it.

The I have the right to have an ultrasound tomorrow instead of having to wait a week. Also, if you define food as neccessary for a good health (which it is) then food must be distributed evenly as well. Obviously the person eating organic must be healthier than the person eating junk food.

Therefore I can argue that having public healthcare and a private food system hypocritical. The person earning $10,000/year has every right to eat $5.00/pound organic spinach. The poor person must also have free access to yoga lessons and other things which improves his mental health. It's not fair that he isn't able to relax whenever he wants. Hey, I also have the inalienable right to pursue happiness right? So if I feel pissed that I don't have a $200,000 ferrari then the government should buy me one. But if that's the case why the hell should I even work? I'll just party all day and wait for the government to deliver my rights. I don't care if I drink so much that I have a broken liver afterall its up to the government to pay whatever amount to preserve my inalienable right to health.

"a system where people who cannot afford it cannot receive it" if that's so bad then why should I pay for my computer. Without the internet I would no longer be able to pursuit happiness (afterall it's rated higher than sex).

The is your stupid utility graph:

Public: Rich=1 Poor=1
Private: Rich=3 Poor=1.25

Education hasn't diminished even though we have private schools. And they don't steal all the good teachers. Actually private schools pay teachers less. That's probably what's going to happen for private healthcare as well.

You'd rather kill everyone then to have some people get better healthcare, that's just sick. no pun intended

danfromwaterloo

Jul 8th, 2009, 10:00 PM

The I have the right to have an ultrasound tomorrow instead of having to wait a week. Also, if you define food as neccessary for a good health (which it is) then food must be distributed evenly as well. Obviously the person eating organic must be healthier than the person eating junk food.

Therefore I can argue that having public healthcare and a private food system hypocritical. The person earning $10,000/year has every right to eat $5.00/pound organic spinach. The poor person must also have free access to yoga lessons and other things which improves his mental health. It's not fair that he isn't able to relax whenever he wants. Hey, I also have the inalienable right to pursue happiness right? So if I feel pissed that I don't have a $200,000 ferrari then the government should buy me one. But if that's the case why the hell should I even work? I'll just party all day and wait for the government to deliver my rights. I don't care if I drink so much that I have a broken liver afterall its up to the government to pay whatever amount to preserve my inalienable right to health.

"a system where people who cannot afford it cannot receive it" if that's so bad then why should I pay for my computer. Without the internet I would no longer be able to pursuit happiness (afterall it's rated higher than sex).

The is your stupid utility graph:

Public: Rich=1 Poor=1
Private: Rich=3 Poor=1.25

Education hasn't diminished even though we have private schools. And they don't steal all the good teachers. Actually private schools pay teachers less. That's probably what's going to happen for private healthcare as well.

You'd rather kill everyone then to have some people get better healthcare, that's just sick. no pun intended

There are two real questions I have that you raise:

1) Should healthcare be equivocated to a ferrari and a computer - a luxury you only deserve if you earn enough? Or is it more like food, education and police protection - a basic social right. I think there's no black and white answer to this, more like shades of grey. Here in Canada, I think a majority of us feel that healthcare is a right.

2) If you think that public healthcare saves less people than private healthcare, it should be borne out in statistics somewhere. How many people in the US die from preventable deaths (ie. illnesses that could have been diagnosed and treated) versus people in Canada that die while on a waiting list because of the backlog of people. And if that's your arguement - that public healthcare is less effective, and detrimental to health overall - shouldn't you be arguing that public healthcare receive the necessary funds to make it effective?

Troodon

Jul 8th, 2009, 10:19 PM

There are two real questions I have that you raise:

1) Should healthcare be equivocated to a ferrari and a computer - a luxury you only deserve if you earn enough? Or is it more like food, education and police protection - a basic social right. I think there's no black and white answer to this, more like shades of grey. Here in Canada, I think a majority of us feel that healthcare is a right.

2) If you think that public healthcare saves less people than private healthcare, it should be borne out in statistics somewhere. How many people in the US die from preventable deaths (ie. illnesses that could have been diagnosed and treated) versus people in Canada that die while on a waiting list because of the backlog of people. And if that's your arguement - that public healthcare is less effective, and detrimental to health overall - shouldn't you be arguing that public healthcare receive the necessary funds to make it effective?

1. Food is just as basic as healthcare, yet it is not free nor is it controlled by the government. I can't just go to the supermarket and start eating apples without paying for them. That's my fundamental argument, if food is not free then how can you still use the argument of equal rights? There's no question that healthcare is a right but to what extent? To the extent that those with the ability to create new services can not do so?

2. There's demographic differences between the US and Canada that affects the statistics. In the US the poverty gap is much much greater than that of Canada. Unless you severely tax the rich then the US can't even afford public healthcare. So you can't compare the US to Canada. The Canadian government simply receives more tax dollars per capita (even at the same rate) because the difference in income is not skewed. If Obama tries to establish public healthcare without cutting costs elsewhere the US will simply have debts that bigger than their annual GDP.

My point is simple. Deregulate healthcare industry, since its a basic right then keep is as it is. But allow people to set up private clinics. Since you're so fond of the US then the fact that Canadian doctors don't travel to the US (eg. brain drain) proves that in a private healthcare system the salary isn't much higher than that of a public one. Basically, you now have no more argument to say how a private system will harm the public one.

Krox

Jul 8th, 2009, 10:44 PM

IronMac

Jul 9th, 2009, 06:04 AM

There's no question that healthcare is a right but to what extent? To the extent that those with the ability to create new services can not do so?

The problem with this sort of argument is, as I've already pointed out:

A. Only the wealthy areas of a city or even a region will have adequate healthcare.
B. The private healthcare system will eventually ruin the public one; yes, you may argue that private school teachers earn less than public ones but that is not necessarily true. Some private schools do pay very well.

If you can show a private healthcare system that works great for everyone and bankrupts no one then do so.

Setz

Jul 9th, 2009, 06:17 AM

I think a hybrid system works best: give people the option to utilize public healthcare, and wait for medical attention, but if a person flashes some dough they can be bumped to the front of the line. There is no morality debate here: he who has money reigns supreme, at least in this situation.

But, I guess it depends on who you ask. Obviously a very well-to-do person would prefer private healthcare, whereas a not-very-well-to-do person would opt for public healthcare. Why not have both?

Free healthcare should be the right of every citizen on the planet. Is it good? The alternative to it is worse - a system where people who cannot afford it cannot receive it, to die in poverty, where life is only a privledge to those who can afford it.

I don't think so, buddy. Free healthcare should be available to nations whom can afford it, and which are developed enough so that health concerns such as AIDs or malaria or etc are not a commonplace occurrence. If public healthcare was universal to all of Earth, who would be able to fund practitioners who are sent to Africa, where the above ailments I listed are common? We're taxed to hell and back as well as the rest of the civilized world and thus we're able to have free healthcare; giving healthcare with no return is foolish at best.

nalababe

Jul 9th, 2009, 06:17 AM

The problem with this sort of argument is, as I've already pointed out:

A. Only the wealthy areas of a city or even a region will have adequate healthcare.
B. The private healthcare system will eventually ruin the public one; yes, you may argue that private school teachers earn less than public ones but that is not necessarily true. Some private schools do pay very well.

If you can show a private healthcare system that works great for everyone and bankrupts no one then do so.

Private teachers pay as well, have the same pension plan...plus don't have the limitations on classroom spending, worries about students having acess to computers, get killer gifts (Prada/Coach).

danfromwaterloo

Jul 9th, 2009, 07:21 AM

1. Food is just as basic as healthcare, yet it is not free nor is it controlled by the government. I can't just go to the supermarket and start eating apples without paying for them. That's my fundamental argument, if food is not free then how can you still use the argument of equal rights? There's no question that healthcare is a right but to what extent? To the extent that those with the ability to create new services can not do so?

Basic food is provided to those who cannot afford it (read: welfare).

2. There's demographic differences between the US and Canada that affects the statistics. In the US the poverty gap is much much greater than that of Canada. Unless you severely tax the rich then the US can't even afford public healthcare. So you can't compare the US to Canada. The Canadian government simply receives more tax dollars per capita (even at the same rate) because the difference in income is not skewed. If Obama tries to establish public healthcare without cutting costs elsewhere the US will simply have debts that bigger than their annual GDP.

The reason why all that exists is directly because of free healthcare. During the election, there was a stat that was thrown about regarding the number of bankruptcies directly caused by health problems (ie. someone gets cancer and spends all their money to get cured). The "rich" are likely covered by health insurance - the result is a seperation between those who are covered and don't have to go bankrupt, and those who aren't and must.

Also, the biggest reason why our taxes is higher is because of public healthcare.

My point is simple. Deregulate healthcare industry, since its a basic right then keep is as it is. But allow people to set up private clinics. Since you're so fond of the US then the fact that Canadian doctors don't travel to the US (eg. brain drain) proves that in a private healthcare system the salary isn't much higher than that of a public one. Basically, you now have no more argument to say how a private system will harm the public one.

There are a number of reasons why doctors stay in Canada, but for the most part it's the same reason why I stay in Canada - sure you can make more in the States, but you have to live there. Doctors in Ontario have a 500K cap - there are many doctors in the States who make over a million dollars.

TCWeasel

Jul 9th, 2009, 08:13 AM

There are many things which are socialized that we, the collective, pay for. Police, fire, armed services, roads, street lights, sidewalks, libraries so on and so forth. While some of them could be privatized (police, fire) some of them cannot as easily (roads, sidewalks).

Now, there are few who would advocate the privatization of police or firm services because both of them serve the public good at large. There doesn't seem to be many questioning we wouldn't privatize police, fire or libraries for that matter, yet there is the question for health care. Is health care less important then those things? Less important than a library?

The majority of Canadians are content with the type of system we have for health care (not necessarily its implementation).

At this point would we, as Canadians, accept 2,500 of our fellow citizens dying because they did not have proper access to health care? Unlikely. Would we accept 4 million of our fellow citizens not covered? I'd hate to think so.

The comparison is with the US most of the time because they're really isn't any western nation that does not have public health care in one form or another. What does it say, then, that near three quarters of them want to be able to choose public health care. The majority would willingly pay more taxes to have everyone covered.

Hybrid systems might work. Do we risk our health care system to try them out? Tough call. It may not be a top flight health care system, but I think most of us would agree that it is better than the alternatives. Most of us are willing to accept the shortcomings of the system in order for it to serve everyone.

If we were to pay what the average US citizen pays for health care, we'd have no problems with our system. It's underfunded for the care that some expect and while making it more efficient would help, it would still require an increase of tax dollars. That's a tough sell. People hate paying taxes. Promise a tax cut, and you'll get your voters regardless of what it actually means (see: GST).

CanadianMike

Jul 9th, 2009, 02:32 PM

The majority of Canadians are content with the type of system we have for health care (not necessarily its implementation).
what do the 'majority of canadians' really know about our system beyond the (misleading) notion of 'lawl i think its free to see a doktor here unliek the AMERIKANZZ'?

when you say the 'majority of canadians are content with the type of system' but 'not necessarily its implementation'.....its obvious the majority would support it, because its not based in reality. you are taking the good of the theory (free/available to all) and ignoring the bad of the reality ('not content with implementation'......hmm, so canadians like the concept, but not how it ACTUALLY WORKS?)

everyone would like things that are a) free and b) available to all. in theory, of course everyone will say they are 'content' with receiving something covered. problem is in reality, there are limitations like COST.
At this point would we, as Canadians, accept 2,500 of our fellow citizens dying because they did not have proper access to health care? Unlikely. Would we accept 4 million of our fellow citizens not covered? I'd hate to think so.
well....canadians seem to accept the rationing of care. doctor lotteries. excessive wait times.

so id say, yes.....in a sense, canadians do 'accept' the concept of thousands dying as a result of failures in health care.
Hybrid systems might work. Do we risk our health care system to try them out? Tough call. It may not be a top flight health care system, but I think most of us would agree that it is better than the alternatives. Most of us are willing to accept the shortcomings of the system in order for it to serve everyone.
i dont know where you get this notion that allowing private care will 'risk our system'.....we are in lonely company by banning such services. even you mentioned how most countries have a public system, what you failed to state was of those with a public system, the VAST majority (outside of canada) offer a so called 'hybrid system'.

CanadianMike

Jul 9th, 2009, 02:36 PM

The problem with this sort of argument is, as I've already pointed out:

A. Only the wealthy areas of a city or even a region will have adequate healthcare.
this problem exists in canada.

re: doctor lotteries, treatment varying by area.
B. The private healthcare system will eventually ruin the public one.
if the public system refuses to pay competitive rates, then yes.

as stated countless times, THE MARKET FOR HEALTH PROFESSIONALS IS GLOBAL. you cannot assume canada lives in some kind of bubble in regards to this.
If you can show a private healthcare system that works great for everyone and bankrupts no one then do so.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

im guessing you have examples lined up of public systems that 'work great for everyone' and 'bankrupt no one'? :rolleyes:

Troodon

Jul 9th, 2009, 02:59 PM

Basic food is provided to those who cannot afford it (read: welfare).

The reason why all that exists is directly because of free healthcare. During the election, there was a stat that was thrown about regarding the number of bankruptcies directly caused by health problems (ie. someone gets cancer and spends all their money to get cured). The "rich" are likely covered by health insurance - the result is a seperation between those who are covered and don't have to go bankrupt, and those who aren't and must.

Also, the biggest reason why our taxes is higher is because of public healthcare.

There are a number of reasons why doctors stay in Canada, but for the most part it's the same reason why I stay in Canada - sure you can make more in the States, but you have to live there. Doctors in Ontario have a 500K cap - there are many doctors in the States who make over a million dollars.

1. Welfare is not specific to food whereas its different from healthcare. If someone receives welfare he can use it to buy an iPod. But if I don't receive any money for public healthcare. The person receiving welfare has an incentive to buy discounted food and not waste money on going out/junk food. Whereas there's no incentive for someone to go to the clinic for the flu.

2. The bankruptcies are caused mostly by wasteful spending and misuse of credit cards. In planning you learn that you should at least save 10% of your income for emergency purposes like cancer. Since most cancer doesn't happen until you're around 40 then they should have sufficient savings. Except they waste it on late credit card bills and subprime mortgages.

3. What you don't understand is that the US government can't afford public healthcare at its current tax rate. The US public won't accept a higher tax rate. So you can't say the US will be better off with public healthcare since that's impossible. It's like saying the US will be better off with free food falling from the sky. Obviously the US views the right to pursue happiness much higher than Canadians.

TCWeasel

Jul 9th, 2009, 07:10 PM

2. The bankruptcies are caused mostly by wasteful spending and misuse of credit cards. In planning you learn that you should at least save 10% of your income for emergency purposes like cancer. Since most cancer doesn't happen until you're around 40 then they should have sufficient savings. Except they waste it on late credit card bills and subprime mortgages.

3. What you don't understand is that the US government can't afford public healthcare at its current tax rate. The US public won't accept a higher tax rate. So you can't say the US will be better off with public healthcare since that's impossible. It's like saying the US will be better off with free food falling from the sky. Obviously the US views the right to pursue happiness much higher than Canadians.

1. The majority of bankruptcies in the US are related to medical bills.

2. More US citizens are willing to pay more in taxes if it means all citizens are covered, then those who'd chose not to pay more in tax.

mazdubb

Jul 9th, 2009, 07:37 PM

Psubs

Jul 9th, 2009, 07:44 PM

There are parts of our system that I could do without. For one thing, families pay much less in taxes than singles. Therefore singles end up paying the medical bills for people who decide they want children. I could do without that. If I have children one day I'd have no problem paying my fair share of taxes to support the extra services my children would have to receive.
You only need to live with someone for something less than 6 months to be considered common-law married. Do common-law couples get the same rates as ceremony married people?

TCWeasel

Jul 9th, 2009, 07:47 PM

There are parts of our system that I could do without. For one thing, families pay much less in taxes than singles. Therefore singles end up paying the medical bills for people who decide they want children. I could do without that. If I have children one day I'd have no problem paying my fair share of taxes to support the extra services my children would have to receive.

There definitely is a tax advantage to being married. Although, children are expensive so any tax savings is gone pretty damned quick.

Troodon

Jul 9th, 2009, 07:53 PM

1. The majority of bankruptcies in the US are related to medical bills.

2. More US citizens are willing to pay more in taxes if it means all citizens are covered, then those who'd chose not to pay more in tax.

1. If they had saved 10% of their income each year for emergencies then they shouldn't be bankrupt. The US culture reinforces the idea that bankruptcies are fine and one should borrow as much as possible from home equity. Those are bad consumer decisions.

2. US citizens definitely do not want to be taxed heavily that's why Bush was so popular with his tax cuts despite fighting several conflicts. Most people are covered by medical insurance from their employers, so there's no incentive for them to pay more in taxes when healthcare is already "free" for them.

There are parts of our system that I could do without. For one thing, families pay much less in taxes than singles. Therefore singles end up paying the medical bills for people who decide they want children. I could do without that. If I have children one day I'd have no problem paying my fair share of taxes to support the extra services my children would have to receive.

If that's the case then people who smoke or eat junk food should pay more taxes too since they are more likely to get sick.

TCWeasel

Jul 9th, 2009, 08:39 PM

1. If they had saved 10% of their income each year for emergencies then they shouldn't be bankrupt. The US culture reinforces the idea that bankruptcies are fine and one should borrow as much as possible from home equity. Those are bad consumer decisions.

2. US citizens definitely do not want to be taxed heavily that's why Bush was so popular with his tax cuts despite fighting several conflicts. Most people are covered by medical insurance from their employers, so there's no incentive for them to pay more in taxes when healthcare is already "free" for them.
.

It isn't free to any of them in any way. Medicare and medicaid are covered by taxpayers. Private health insurance is paid for by the citizens in whole or in part. If their employer pays for it, then they pay for it in wages or other benefits. It's a benefit, and their employers take no more the hit than employers here who give benefits. The are not sacrificing profit in order to provide the healthcare. The majority of Americans work for small companies, most of which cannot afford to offer full coverage for all their workers, certainly not without the workers giving up something in another area. The average US citizen pays, on average, more than twice what the average Canadian does. That money comes from somewhere.

No one wants to be heavily taxed, but many are willing to pay more taxes if it means everyone is covered. http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm will give you an idea what the average citizen is thinking, and the choice of having a publicly funded option is rather apparent.

Troodon

Jul 9th, 2009, 09:24 PM

It isn't free to any of them in any way. Medicare and medicaid are covered by taxpayers. Private health insurance is paid for by the citizens in whole or in part. If their employer pays for it, then they pay for it in wages or other benefits. It's a benefit, and their employers take no more the hit than employers here who give benefits. The are not sacrificing profit in order to provide the healthcare. The majority of Americans work for small companies, most of which cannot afford to offer full coverage for all their workers, certainly not without the workers giving up something in another area. The average US citizen pays, on average, more than twice what the average Canadian does. That money comes from somewhere.

No one wants to be heavily taxed, but many are willing to pay more taxes if it means everyone is covered. http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm will give you an idea what the average citizen is thinking, and the choice of having a publicly funded option is rather apparent.

"Which do you think is the more important goal for health care legislation: reducing health care costs or covering those who don't have health insurance?"

54% for reducing costs, while 38% for universal healthcare

"Would you be willing or unwilling to pay more in taxes for a health care overhaul plan that reduces health care costs and covers those who don't have health insurance?"

Only 49% agree versus 45% who disagree. It's pretty divided and people have no idea how to implement it while 34 states are bankrupt and the federal government's debt is almost equal to US's annual GDP.

"How much more would you be willing to pay in taxes each year: less than 500 dollars, between 500 and 1,000 dollars, between 1,000 and 3,000 dollars, or over 3,000 dollars?"

54% says less than $500. That's pretty useless if you consider that a major surgery costs (including all fees) $100,000 so basically if one person out of 200 needs a major surgery then the rest 199 can't get anything.

Again, the support for public healthcare in the US is based on a thinking that goes along the lines of I'm only willing to pay $1 in healthcare if I get $10 in savings. That means the government is paying for the $9 which is unlikely.

IronMac

Jul 9th, 2009, 09:53 PM

this problem exists in canada.

re: doctor lotteries, treatment varying by area.

It will exacerbate the problem.

if the public system refuses to pay competitive rates, then yes.

In the end, this would drive up costs for everyone.

im guessing you have examples lined up of public systems that 'work great for everyone' and 'bankrupt no one'?

Yes, ours.

Where's your example?

IronMac

Jul 9th, 2009, 09:58 PM

2. The bankruptcies are caused mostly by wasteful spending and misuse of credit cards. In planning you learn that you should at least save 10% of your income for emergency purposes like cancer. Since most cancer doesn't happen until you're around 40 then they should have sufficient savings. Except they waste it on late credit card bills and subprime mortgages.

Absolutely wrong, at least half of all personal bankruptcies in the US are directly caused by medical problems.

3. What you don't understand is that the US government can't afford public healthcare at its current tax rate. The US public won't accept a higher tax rate. So you can't say the US will be better off with public healthcare since that's impossible. It's like saying the US will be better off with free food falling from the sky. Obviously the US views the right to pursue happiness much higher than Canadians.

I believe that a growing number of Americans are willing to accept higher taxes for better medical coverage.

IronMac

Jul 9th, 2009, 10:07 PM

1. If they had saved 10% of their income each year for emergencies then they shouldn't be bankrupt.

Oh puleeze!!! LOL!!!

Let's play a bit here...let's take your earlier contention that cancer generally does not manifest itself until age 40. So, we have someone who may be in the workforce for about 16 years. Assume that they earn about 40k for each of those years on average so they should have a health nest egg of about 64k.

Cancer treatment and hospital stay will run about 10k a day. (http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb37.pdf).

Here's a quote:

Adult cancer stays remained stable at about 1.8 million hospitalizations each year, but mean costs increased by over 15 percent (from $10,500 to $12,100 per stay)

Well, my friend, be prepared to be bankrupt after a week.

Troodon

Jul 9th, 2009, 10:20 PM

Oh puleeze!!! LOL!!!

Let's play a bit here...let's take your earlier contention that cancer generally does not manifest itself until age 40. So, we have someone who may be in the workforce for about 16 years. Assume that they earn about 40k for each of those years on average so they should have a health nest egg of about 64k.

Cancer treatment and hospital stay will run about 10k a day. (http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb37.pdf).

Here's a quote:

Adult cancer stays remained stable at about 1.8 million hospitalizations each year, but mean costs increased by over 15 percent (from $10,500 to $12,100 per stay)

Well, my friend, be prepared to be bankrupt after a week.

Researchers from Harvard�s law and medical schools said the findings underscore the inadequacy of many private insurance plans that offer worst-case catastrophic coverage (that includes cancer), but little financial security for less severe illnesses.

Illness and medical bills were cited as the cause, at least in part, for 46.2 percent of the personal bankruptcies in the study. Himmelstein said the figure rose to 54.5 percent when three other factors were counted as medical-related triggers for bankruptcies: births, deaths and pathological gambling addiction. (the Canadian government doesn't cover gambling...)

Out-of-pocket medical expenses covering co-payments, deductibles and uncovered health services averaged $13,460 for bankruptcy filers who had private insurance at the onset of illness, compared with $10,893 for those without coverage. Those who initially had private coverage but lost it during their illness faced the highest cost, an average of $18,005.

This is significantly below $64,000. If they had saved that amount then they could've easily paid their medical expenses even without insurance. Therefore, if they had followed traditional advice then they would not have bankrupted.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6895896/

IronMac

Jul 9th, 2009, 10:25 PM

I'd like to know if you actually read what you posted?

You may be heartened what you cut and pasted:

"Out-of-pocket medical expenses covering co-payments, deductibles and uncovered health services averaged $13,460 for bankruptcy filers who had private insurance at the onset of illness, compared with $10,893 for those without coverage. Those who initially had private coverage but lost it during their illness faced the highest cost, an average of $18,005."

But, that's NOT the cost of treatment!!! Helloooooooo...

Check the report that I linked to!

For example,, treating leukemia will destroy you financially:

"Leukemia, by far, was the most expensive pediatric cancer to treat (mean cost of $47,000 per stay) and had the longest average length of stay (16.1 days)."

IronMac

Jul 9th, 2009, 10:30 PM

Another thing that these private health care pushers seem to forget is that hospital stays for treating chronic illnesses can lead to thousands of dollars per stay. Don't believe me? I've got the stack of bills here to prove it.

And what about families who don't have both parents working? How will the one parent be able to pay for both his/hers hospital bills and that's not including their children? What about their parents who may not have been able to save that laughable 10% figure-of-revenue over the past 40 years of their working lives?

IronMac

Jul 9th, 2009, 10:39 PM

if they had followed traditional advice then they would not have bankrupted.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6895896/

Is this the same traditional advice that got so many Americans into bankruptcy and dragged the world economy into recession? You want that sort of advice, you can have it. :mad:

Now, I am getting angry...

Let me recount an example of what happened to my wife when her Dad went into the hospital last August for a hip fracture. He was in and out of there for months at a time. The costs for his treatments came to tens of thousands of dollars before he finally died of pneumonia that he caught at the hospital.

Now, her Mom has been in and out of hospital three times in the past year. This is not including her first and second heart attacks nor does it include her cancer treatments that she had in decades past. Any idea how much that costs in a private health care system? My wife has this crazy laugh if you bring up the cost issue.

I told her that some Canadians were thinking that it was a good idea to privatize health care in Canada; her comment is unprintable but it involves mental health care.

Troodon

Jul 9th, 2009, 10:45 PM

Troodon

Jul 9th, 2009, 10:49 PM

That happens to very, very few people. The statistics show that the average cost is between 13K-18K. That proves that the cost is affordable had they saved enough money.

Is this the same traditional advice that got so many Americans into bankruptcy and dragged the world economy into recession? You want that sort of advice, you can have it. :mad:

Now, I am getting angry...

Let me recount an example of what happened to my wife when her Dad went into the hospital last August for a hip fracture. He was in and out of there for months at a time. The costs for his treatments came to tens of thousands of dollars before he finally died of pneumonia that he caught at the hospital.

Now, her Mom has been in and out of hospital three times in the past year. This is not including her first and second heart attacks nor does it include her cancer treatments that she had in decades past. Any idea how much that costs in a private health care system? My wife has this crazy laugh if you bring up the cost issue.

Heart attacks and cancer should be fully covered under even the most basic insurance. It's a big loss for the insurance company but she would not have paid very much if she had private insurance.

Also the reason why the US economy failed was because they didn't listen to the traditional advice of not going into debt and borrowing 100% of your home. Traditional advice would've been save 10% of your savings for emergencies and don't buy Hummers.

Another thing that these private health care pushers seem to forget is that hospital stays for treating chronic illnesses can lead to thousands of dollars per stay. Don't believe me? I've got the stack of bills here to prove it.

And what about families who don't have both parents working? How will the one parent be able to pay for both his/hers hospital bills and that's not including their children? What about their parents who may not have been able to save that laughable 10% figure-of-revenue over the past 40 years of their working lives?

Another thing that these public healthcare advocates assume is that there is an infinite number of beds and there'll be no wait time for treatment.

But in reality... the median for wait times in Canada for specific treatments:

9.3 weeks orthopedic surgery
2.7 weeks vascular surgery
3.0 weeks endarterectomy (surgical procedure to prevent a stroke due to blocked artery)
9.4 weeks cataract surgery
5.1 weeks gall bladder surgery
21.8 weeks hip replacement
28.3 weeks knee replacement (seems like things involved with being able to walk takes the longest...)
10 weeks CT scans in Manitoba (see below for risk)
12.6 weeks for MRI: If someone has a tumor in their brain his chance for survival would've significantly decreased... (remember it probably takes at least one to two weeks to make a diagnosis and arrange treatment). That means 5 months without treatment for a brain tumor.
8.4 + 9.5 weeks: GP to being consulted with specialist + seeing specialist then getting treatment: You think someone with leukemia can survive a 5 month wait time?

On average, U.S. citizens experience some of the shortest wait times for non-emergency
surgeries among industrialized countries, although the waiting times vary considerably by
procedure

Minimizes the chance that someone will die because they had to wait 4 months to see if there's a tumor in his brain.

The Canadian experience with waiting times will necessarily be uneven, as waiting times
vary by specialty, procedure, province, and region. That is, any given individual
Canadian will have different experiences with waiting times. This may partly explain the
existence of anecdotal reports of intolerable waits from certain individual Canadians
(such stories often are dramatized in the media), juxtaposed with the denial of the
problem from other Canadians.

How is it fair that while everyone pays their share of taxes waiting times vary by province and region. Should those in high waiting time areas pay less taxes?

BTW: I actually provide evidence for my posts:

http://www.amsa.org/studytours/WaitingTimes_primer.pdf

You're lucky that people you know didn't have to face the long wait times but someone people aren't so lucky.

gg no re

IronMac

Jul 10th, 2009, 12:25 AM

That happens to very, very few people. The statistics show that the average cost is between 13K-18K. That proves that the cost is affordable had they saved enough money.

Hellooooooooooooo.....the 13k-18k that you post is NOT for the total cost of treatment!

"Out-of-pocket medical expenses covering co-payments, deductibles and uncovered health services averaged $13,460 for bankruptcy filers who had private insurance at the onset of illness, compared with $10,893 for those without coverage. Those who initially had private coverage but lost it during their illness faced the highest cost, an average of $18,005."

How many stays can you afford at 13-18k a pop? The average income per household iin Canada is approximately 45k. What happens if you don't earn more than 30K?

My father-in-law's six month in and out stay of the hospital cost my wife over C$80k. That was for his treatment alone. It did not cover additional items such as a special hospital bed to alleviate and avoid bed sores, it did not cover some additional tests, etc. In order to cut costs down he had to stay in a room with five other patients.

In the economic world of the private health care pushers, that means that the rest of his family would have to do without health care.

IronMac

Jul 10th, 2009, 12:35 AM

Heart attacks and cancer should be fully covered under even the most basic insurance. It's a big loss for the insurance company but she would not have paid very much if she had private insurance.

What a joke! This is the argument?

Tell me something, what is the difference between paying taxes and insurance for health care? In the end, there is no difference.

Also the reason why the US economy failed was because they didn't listen to the traditional advice of not going into debt and borrowing 100% of your home. Traditional advice would've been save 10% of your savings for emergencies and don't buy Hummers.

That's not traditional advice. Traditional advice is to have 3 months' emergency funds and that's it. The vast majority of Americans have saved barely above the rate of inflation for the past two decades.

Another thing that these public healthcare advocates assume is that there is an infinite number of beds and there'll be no wait time for treatment.

Where did anyone assume that?

Did you miss my mother-in-law's example of her having to wait five hours for a bed that was not even in her area of care when one became available? Did you miss my question of have you ever been put on hold by a company or told that your auto part won't be in for weeks? Yeah, big assumption that there won't be any waiting times for treatment in a private care setting.

What happens to those who can't afford insurance? Oh wait, no treatment..so no worries about wait times. ;)

Here's a good quote from the link that you provided for American wait times.

"Furthermore, the short waiting times apply mainly to those who have insurance; for those who do not, the waiting line is arguably infinite."

IronMac

Jul 10th, 2009, 12:47 AM

That happens to very, very few people. The statistics show that the average cost is between 13K-18K. That proves that the cost is affordable had they saved enough money.

Very, very few people? Is that how you would characterize the number of people stricken with leukemia?

Ok...divide all numbers provided by ten in order to get an approximate number for Canadian cases:

http://www.leukemia-lymphoma.org/all_page.adp?item_id=9346

"An estimated 245,225 people in the United States are living with, or are in remission from, leukemia. An estimated 44,790 new cases of leukemia will be diagnosed in the United States in 2009. Chronic leukemias account for 11 percent more cases than acute leukemias. Most cases occur in older adults; the median patient age at diagnosis is 66 years. Leukemia is expected to strike more than 10 times as many adults as children in 2009. (About 44,790 adults compared with 3,509 children, aged 0-14 years). About 33 percent of cancers in children aged 0-14 years are leukemia. The most common cancer in children 1 to 7 years old is acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL).

The most common types of leukemia in adults are acute myelogenous leukemia (AML), with an estimated 12,810 new cases in 2009, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), with about 15,490 new cases this year. Chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) is estimated to affect about 5,050 persons this year. The most common type of leukemia in children is acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), which will account for about 5,760 new cases this year."

According to the private health care pushers, having a few thousand families thrown into bankruptcy every year is acceptable due to health care costs if they can't afford insurance.

mazdubb

Jul 10th, 2009, 12:49 AM

There definitely is a tax advantage to being married. Although, children are expensive so any tax savings is gone pretty damned quick.

That's true, however why should I pay more than my fair share as a single person so that those with children can have a tax break? I cost the system less and I pay much more in taxes.

Having children is a decision that someone makes. They shouldn't have the children if they can't afford the extra's such as health care for them. This is one reason why I resent the current system and would be open to opting out of the public insurance for a private option.

mazdubb

Jul 10th, 2009, 12:50 AM

If that's the case then people who smoke or eat junk food should pay more taxes too since they are more likely to get sick.

Sounds good to me. I work hard to stay in good health.

IronMac

Jul 10th, 2009, 12:54 AM

This is one reason why I resent the current system and would be open to opting out of the public insurance for a private option.

On another tangent, did anyone catch that Marketplace episode concerning mortgage health insurance? Everyone assumes that they can be covered but the banks and insurance companies made the contracts up in such a way that hardly anyone was eligible.

Troodon

Jul 10th, 2009, 01:18 AM

On another tangent, did anyone catch that Marketplace episode concerning mortgage health insurance? Everyone assumes that they can be covered but the banks and insurance companies made the contracts up in such a way that hardly anyone was eligible.

It's your fault if you don't get covered because you eat at McDonalds. The difference between a tax and insurance is that the latter rewards you for good behaviour with lower fees. That the same reason why people driving cars safely for several years get lower rates than those who crash every year.

Taxes gives you no incentive to exercise and eat well. Here's another thing you still haven't told me why waiting 5 months to diagnose and treat a brain tumor is a good thing.

CanadianMike

Jul 10th, 2009, 01:49 AM

It will exacerbate the problem.
In the end, this would drive up costs for everyone.
Yes, ours.

Where's your example?
this is exactly why i havent bothered responding to your many posts. your head is located in the sand. you keep throwing out loads of concepts that you dont back up in the slightest way.

my 'example' is virtually every nation outside of canada/NK/cuba.....nations which have public healthcare, but dont make it ILLEGAL to offer/receive so called 'private care'. canada is very much in the minority of the world as far as barring private care goes.

you are in denial of the failures of our public system. you speak of the public system while essentially reading directly from the canada health act.......ignoring real world realities.

you throw out statements like "it will exacerbate the problem" without stating at all why or how....even the vaguest sense.

Troodon

Jul 10th, 2009, 02:23 AM

Very, very few people? Is that how you would characterize the number of people stricken with leukemia?

Ok...divide all numbers provided by ten in order to get an approximate number for Canadian cases:

http://www.leukemia-lymphoma.org/all_page.adp?item_id=9346

"An estimated 245,225 people in the United States are living with, or are in remission from, leukemia. An estimated 44,790 new cases of leukemia will be diagnosed in the United States in 2009. Chronic leukemias account for 11 percent more cases than acute leukemias. Most cases occur in older adults; the median patient age at diagnosis is 66 years. Leukemia is expected to strike more than 10 times as many adults as children in 2009. (About 44,790 adults compared with 3,509 children, aged 0-14 years). About 33 percent of cancers in children aged 0-14 years are leukemia. The most common cancer in children 1 to 7 years old is acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL).

The most common types of leukemia in adults are acute myelogenous leukemia (AML), with an estimated 12,810 new cases in 2009, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), with about 15,490 new cases this year. Chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) is estimated to affect about 5,050 persons this year. The most common type of leukemia in children is acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), which will account for about 5,760 new cases this year."

According to the private health care pushers, having a few thousand families thrown into bankruptcy every year is acceptable due to health care costs if they can't afford insurance.

44790/300 million = 0.01493% of the population

TCWeasel

Jul 10th, 2009, 08:38 AM

http://www.amsa.org/studytours/WaitingTimes_primer.pdf

You're lucky that people you know didn't have to face the long wait times but someone people aren't so lucky.

The study is a good read, but cherry picking information out of the way you did provides the entire article out of context. Waiting lists are a problem, but not the problem they're being made out to be and that it isn't a problem inherent to the single payer system.

Also. Wait times are substantially less in Toronto than say, Kirkland Lake.

Don't forget for those in the US without insurance (more than the entire population of Canada), there is no wait period as there is nothing to wait for.

There is plenty of room for improvement in Canada's system, but things could be much worse. Could we benefit from a two tier system? It's probable, so long as it is implemented properly.

Troodon

Jul 10th, 2009, 02:13 PM

The study is a good read, but cherry picking information out of the way you did provides the entire article out of context. Waiting lists are a problem, but not the problem they're being made out to be and that it isn't a problem inherent to the single payer system.

Also. Wait times are substantially less in Toronto than say, Kirkland Lake.

Don't forget for those in the US without insurance (more than the entire population of Canada), there is no wait period as there is nothing to wait for.

There is plenty of room for improvement in Canada's system, but things could be much worse. Could we benefit from a two tier system? It's probable, so long as it is implemented properly.

I'm not cherry picking out words like "waiting lists are long", what I found are raw statistics. Doesn't matter how I read the article the numbers for the weeks are going to be the same. Also it's the median so it's not disproportionately skewed like the average. What that means is that exactly 50% of the population will wait longer than the median while 50% wait less. I just think you shouldn't have to wait 5 months to diagnosis and treatment something in one's head.

So what people in Toronto has to wait less than people in Kirkland Lake? They pay the same tax rate and morally have equal rights. If you think people in Toronto deserve better healthcare than people from other areas then the discrimination isn't much different from private healthcare.

Another fallacy is to compare with the US. First the US has a flood of illegal immigrants there who doesn't provide taxes but still have kids and use the social services. So how can the US provide $5000 worth of healthcare if say 90% of its citizens pay only $4000 in taxes. In the US the public healthcare system is impossible to implement. So the US has no alternative. Just because it'll happen in the US doesn't mean it'll happen in Canada.

danfromwaterloo

Jul 10th, 2009, 04:17 PM

Another fallacy is to compare with the US. First the US has a flood of illegal immigrants there who doesn't provide taxes but still have kids and use the social services. So how can the US provide $5000 worth of healthcare if say 90% of its citizens pay only $4000 in taxes. In the US the public healthcare system is impossible to implement. So the US has no alternative. Just because it'll happen in the US doesn't mean it'll happen in Canada.

Canada has illegal immigrants too - that's why we have health cards. Those who are Canadian citizens get free healthcare. Those who are illegal do not.

In the end, if the US wants free healthcare, they have to increase taxes - pure and simple. Canadians would pay substantially less taxes if we didn't have healthcare.

IronMac

Jul 10th, 2009, 06:30 PM

It's your fault if you don't get covered because you eat at McDonalds. The difference between a tax and insurance is that the latter rewards you for good behaviour with lower fees. That the same reason why people driving cars safely for several years get lower rates than those who crash every year.

Taxes gives you no incentive to exercise and eat well. Here's another thing you still haven't told me why waiting 5 months to diagnose and treat a brain tumor is a good thing.

A. So, the majority of those people who can't get health insurance because they can't afford it are being penalized for bad behaviour?
B. Doesn't a public health care system reward you with lower taxes, indirectly?
C. I never said that a five month waiting time is a good thing. It's awful but it's no reason to chuck the entire system and leave a good proportion with no health care.

So, what do you say to those people who can't save 64k in their lifetimes for their private health care?

CanadianMike

Jul 10th, 2009, 06:32 PM

Waiting lists are a problem, but not the problem they're being made out to be and that it isn't a problem inherent to the single payer system.
whats inherent to our 'single payer' system is the notion that there is no personal remedy allowed to be used for waiting lists.

if you are told care is not available, you will be told to go home and die......your only recourse is to travel abroad (if possible).
Also. Wait times are substantially less in Toronto than say, Kirkland Lake.
unfortunate part of the public system.

a lot of supporters of single payer (including in this thread) seem to have this notion that because our system is 'public', it means it hence has the resources spread 'based on need'.

unfortunately, this simply isnt the case. care costs $$$.....hence, care is rationed.....hence, one may be told there simply isnt care available for them (regardless of their actual 'need').
Don't forget for those in the US without insurance (more than the entire population of Canada), there is no wait period as there is nothing to wait for.
false. in fact, that is one reason the U.S. has had issues with the amount their government has spent on the health care system.

when people toss out how many people are uninsured in the U.S., they ignore those who opt out of insurance as a choice. i.e. a young person, relatively healthy, and so on. if they happen to get hit by a car (for example), their coverage ends up being picked up by the government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKCWbq18bNk

note the part of the vid: 'how much was the bill?....do you remember?'......'honestly, i dont, because i didnt bother to pay for it'
There is plenty of room for improvement in Canada's system, but things could be much worse. Could we benefit from a two tier system? It's probable, so long as it is implemented properly.
+1

i really feel its a matter of compassion. i dont feel like the canadian system is being compassionate when it denies care, then also bars one from paying for their own care. hence, you have people with serious conditions, told by canada that they should go home and die.....who have to run to another country to try to save their life. why?

IronMac

Jul 10th, 2009, 06:34 PM

this is exactly why i havent bothered responding to your many posts. your head is located in the sand. you keep throwing out loads of concepts that you dont back up in the slightest way.

my 'example' is virtually every nation outside of canada/NK/cuba.....nations which have public healthcare, but dont make it ILLEGAL to offer/receive so called 'private care'. canada is very much in the minority of the world as far as barring private care goes.

you are in denial of the failures of our public system. you speak of the public system while essentially reading directly from the canada health act.......ignoring real world realities.

you throw out statements like "it will exacerbate the problem" without stating at all why or how....even the vaguest sense.

Have you ever personally experienced being in a private/public health care system? Where is your "real world realities"?

Is it just limited to what you read in the paper? Is it just limited to you being in the emergency unit?

If someone's credibility is based on their "real world realities" then the vast majority of you all should just shut up unless you've had to pay C$80k in hospital bills. So, tell us, what is YOUR own personal experience outside of Canada?

koft

Jul 10th, 2009, 06:40 PM

Canada has illegal immigrants too - that's why we have health cards. Those who are Canadian citizens get free healthcare. Those who are illegal do not.

In the end, if the US wants free healthcare, they have to increase taxes - pure and simple. Canadians would pay substantially less taxes if we didn't have healthcare.

Even though we have health card. There are still ways that illegal immigrants and US citizens come up to drain our system. For example, we won't denied access if someone having a heart attack or suffered a trauma (MVA).

Our system is not perfect, but it is better than the US (if you look at the overall picture).. Of course if you are wealthy, US system is better for you, but if you are dirt poor that is another story.

As a primary care provider, it can be frustrating working here, access to diagnostic tool and amount of paper work needed to submit to government for catastropic medications coverage for patient. At the end of the day, I feel great being north of 44.

I have colleagues who worked in the states, can get MRI right away (if you can pay for it), as for medications that is another issue, US meds are more expensive than Canada.

we should give a printout of cost for this visit or hospital stay. At least they are aware how much it cost for each visit.. hopefully they can be a responsible citizen.

IronMac

Jul 10th, 2009, 06:42 PM

44790/300 million = 0.01493% of the population

Ooo...good...stats can hide anything.

You're forgetting families...so 44791*average household size of four = 179,000 people affected.

You're also forgetting the quarter of a million people who are in remission and may still need care in the future.

CanadianMike

Jul 10th, 2009, 06:46 PM

Have you ever personally experienced being in a private/public health care system? Where is your "real world realities"?
if you want to deny reality, then thats fine. personally, i dont base my views on the healthcare system based on a couple anedotal stories of my own usage of it......'oh i went to the emergency room and got out in an hour.....i guess its always like this' :rolleyes:

canada is in rare company as far as barring private care goes. the vast majority of other nations DO offer 'universal health care' of some form.....however, unlike canada, they do not necessarily deny any form of private care.

is that distinction so hard to grasp? :confused:
Is it just limited to what you read in the paper? Is it just limited to you being in the emergency unit?
its not 'just limited' to either.

anecdotal stories of people saying "oh i used the system, and...." are only so useful. beyond that, you have to look at the factual differences between systems.

regardless, i dont get what you are trying to get at. it looks like you responded to my questions with further questions.
If someone's credibility is based on their "real world realities" then the vast majority of you all should just shut up unless you've had to pay C$80k in hospital bills. So, tell us, what is YOUR own personal experience outside of Canada?
having to pay hospital bills is better than having to make funeral arrangements......

id rather be $80k in debt than be told to go home and die because the yearly allotment for that procedure has been used up in my region......

but nonetheless, i didnt mean 'real world realities' in that sense. with the private system, you cite 'practical' effects involving cases of people being screwed over. when it comes to the public system, you cite its theoretical basis......ignoring the real world failures.

are you going tell a family who has lost a loved one due to wait times: "hey, at least you arent in debt"..........:rolleyes:

IronMac

Jul 10th, 2009, 06:56 PM

if you want to deny reality, then thats fine. personally, i dont base my views on the healthcare system based on a couple anedotal stories of my own usage of it......'oh i went to the emergency room and got out in an hour.....i guess its always like this' :rolleyes:

canada is in rare company as far as barring private care goes. the vast majority of other nations DO offer 'universal health care' of some form.....however, unlike canada, they do not necessarily deny any form of private care.

is that distinction so hard to grasp? :confused:

its not 'just limited' to either.

anecdotal stories of people saying "oh i used the system, and...." are only so useful. beyond that, you have to look at the factual differences between systems.

regardless, i dont get what you are trying to get at. it looks like you responded to my questions with further questions.

having to pay hospital bills is better than having to make funeral arrangements......

id rather be $80k in debt than be told to go home and die because the yearly allotment for that procedure has been used up in my region......

but nonetheless, i didnt mean 'real world realities' in that sense. with the private system, you cite 'practical' effects involving cases of people being screwed over. when it comes to the public system, you cite its theoretical basis......ignoring the real world failures.

are you going tell a family who has lost a loved one due to wait times: "hey, at least you arent in debt"..........:rolleyes:

A. So, in other words, you say that I have my head in the sand while I sit here in a country where there is a public/private healthcare system and with a stack of bills in hand while you sit in Canada?
B. Ahhh...the "you're going to die because of wait times" argument...what about "you're going to die because you can't afford health insurance"? Trust me, if you're not insured up to the hilt where I am you're not going to get treatment no matter that you got in with no wait times.

CheapScotsman

Jul 10th, 2009, 07:33 PM

We already have a two tier system. The "signup fee" is less than $100 (the cost of a passport) and two hour drive (75% of Cdns live with 160km of the US).

If they can't afford that, they wouldn't be able to afford a "pay" system in Canada anyways.

CanadianMike

Jul 10th, 2009, 07:43 PM

A. So, in other words, you say that I have my head in the sand while I sit here in a country where there is a public/private healthcare system and with a stack of bills in hand while you sit in Canada?
as stated, anecdotal evidence only goes so far.

you ignored just about every inquiry in my other posts in this thread.......instead responding with questions about where i reside/what healthcare services i have received.
B. Ahhh...the "you're going to die because of wait times" argument...what about "you're going to die because you can't afford health insurance"? Trust me, if you're not insured up to the hilt where I am you're not going to get treatment no matter that you got in with no wait times.
i dont know exactly where you are at the moment (location says toronto), and hence cannot address these specific claims.

the reason for the focus of 'dying due to wait times' is because the only alternative to this is essentially banned by law.

when one lacks insurance.......there is some degree of recourse. people without insurance receive subsidized care in the united states.....why do you think their government health spending is so high, such a high % of their budget? if a private company denied a worker their health coverage, they could get subsidized care from a hospital. contrastingly, in canada, if 'your company' (the gov't) says you arent getting treatment, you have no other choices within the nation. they are the only game in town.

its unfortunate that these discussions always seem to fall into canada vs. US comparisons. im not trying to say there are no issues with health insurance (especially down south)......but to portray the only alternative as being canada's system is being disingenuous.

there is a gap in the coverage in canada. rather than telling these individuals to go **** off to another nation if they want care.....why not provide it here? why is one denied the right to give their human companion prompt medical care, especially in light of the fact they would be allowed to fund the same care for their animal companion?

this is less about defending canada's health ranking, and more about asking tough questions about the individuals that fall through the cracks. success stories in the health care system are all well and good.....but the horror stories are what must be addressed. people being denied proper care in canada is not the myth you seem to imply it is.
We already have a two tier system. The "signup fee" is less than $100 (the cost of a passport) and two hour drive (75% of Cdns live with 160km of the US).

If they can't afford that, they wouldn't be able to afford a "pay" system in Canada anyways.
what about those too ill to travel?

what about those who cannot enter the united states for whatever reason?

why not keep that cash in canada?

CheapScotsman

Jul 10th, 2009, 08:16 PM

what about those too ill to travel?Some people will be too ill to travel or make it to the local hospital (public or private)

If you are too ill to travel to the States (can't afford the air ambulance and Dr/Nurses to get you across the border) then you won't be able to afford private treatment whether it is here in Canada or in the US.

what about those who cannot enter the united states for whatever reason?Yep, stuff happens.

why not keep that cash in canada?How much cash? How many Cdns make use of the current two tier system such that we should ensure that we aren't loosing out to the "competition"?

Troodon

Jul 10th, 2009, 09:08 PM

Have you ever personally experienced being in a private/public health care system? Where is your "real world realities"?

Is it just limited to what you read in the paper? Is it just limited to you being in the emergency unit?

If someone's credibility is based on their "real world realities" then the vast majority of you all should just shut up unless you've had to pay C$80k in hospital bills. So, tell us, what is YOUR own personal experience outside of Canada?

I have experienced the difference between public and private healthcare. In China my appendix got infected during the afternoon and I had a surgery that same night. If that happened in Canada then it would've probably ruptured and I would've had to stay at the hospital for weeks.

I don't know how much my parents paid but our friend was a doctor there and helped us skip the lines.

Your notion that everyone's going to pay 80K for private healthcare is just false. But that's assume that's the case then where do you think the government gets the 80K? It probably taxed 80K from us so doesn't matter what system you use you'll still pay 80K on average.

Except the private system rewards good behaviour.

B. Ahhh...the "you're going to die because of wait times" argument...what about "you're going to die because you can't afford health insurance"? Trust me, if you're not insured up to the hilt where I am you're not going to get treatment no matter that you got in with no wait times.

One's random the other one can be solved by working. If you need to check your brain for possible tumors and you live in some remote town then you better pray that the tumor doesn't grow for 6-7 months. Doesn't matter if you're some hobo or the CEO of RBC. Whether you live or die has nothing to do with how hard you've worked.

The private system rewards you for not taking unhealthy risks and paying the right insurance.

I'd rather have predictability than random deaths.

A. So, the majority of those people who can't get health insurance because they can't afford it are being penalized for bad behaviour?
B. Doesn't a public health care system reward you with lower taxes, indirectly?

So, what do you say to those people who can't save 64k in their lifetimes for their private health care?

A. Having a home insurance sometimes require you to prudently lock the door, install smoke alarms, and not rent it out to 20 different people. Some people can't afford car insurance because they never bothered to learn how to drive and crash their cars too often.

B. No. People pay the same rate for healthcare but not everyone get sick equally. People are rewarded for being sick often since they get the most out of their taxes.

You don't need to save 64K. Buy the right insurance please. If someone's house goes on fire it's going to cost their probably over $1,000,000 to build another one. That doesn't mean everyone with houses need to have $1,000,000 in their bank accounts.

bigshotceo

Jul 10th, 2009, 09:19 PM

Troodon

Jul 10th, 2009, 09:26 PM

One of the problems is that when people compare the US' private system to ours, they tend to point out cases of long wait times. However, in Canada there are really only two types of cases where treatment has a longer wait time than in the US:

1) Treatment that requires a really expensive machine (for example, a MRI)
2) Surgery that is necessary but not immediately needed.

These two cases are a small fraction of people's medical needs, and most types of treatment are just as fast here as under the US private system.

How do you know if surgery is immediately needed if it takes two months to get referred to a specialist and of course the specialist might need to do a CT scan which means you won't know anything for 3-4 months.

Right. It's fair that you call MRI scans a "small fraction" of people's medical needs but apparently according to IronMac everyone who get sick gets leukemia.

jerrysiz

Jul 11th, 2009, 02:30 AM

I had just been reading along with this thread so far, trying to convince myself that nothing productive ever came of entering into this type of discussion. But, at this point I just can't help myself.

The private system rewards you for not taking unhealthy risks and paying the right insurance.

A. Silly me, I've always assumed that the reward for not taking unhealthy risks was not getting sick/injured in the first place so you don't have to go thorugh a lot of pain and suffering, whether you have insurance or not. No one thinks "Oh, I'll just smoke three packs a day and drive without my seatbelt because if I get lung cancer or get in a car accident it's okay, I've got free health insurance!" Stupid risks have to do with illusions of invincibility, not availability of insurance.

B. Paying the right insurance is no gurantee of anything. Just ask all the people in the U.S. who are routinely denied coverage for procedures because they had a "pre-existing condition" like a hangnail or somesuch. Or those who reach a arbitrary cap on spending for a certain condition/drug and find themselves with no insurance despite having "paid for the right insurance".

People are rewarded for being sick often since they get the most out of their taxes.

This is just...I can't even describe. I can just picture that lucky person with a chronic illness (or maybe just the bad luck to get sick a lot) being so happy that they're getting their money's worth. Great reward, really. Somehow I think most people would be happy to get the least out of their taxes where this is concerned.

Troodon

Jul 11th, 2009, 03:02 AM

A. Silly me, I've always assumed that the reward for not taking unhealthy risks was not getting sick/injured in the first place so you don't have to go thorugh a lot of pain and suffering, whether you have insurance or not. No one thinks "Oh, I'll just smoke three packs a day and drive without my seatbelt because if I get lung cancer or get in a car accident it's okay, I've got free health insurance!" Stupid risks have to do with illusions of invincibility, not availability of insurance.

If that's the case then insurance shouldn't be increased for those who crash their cars often, and insurance shouldn't be lowered for those who drive safely for decades. To supporters of public health-care everything that works for the rest of society (competitive markets, financial incentives, tax credits) won't work for the health-care industry.

To me that's just absurd. Price plays an important role in our society. For example, if tax credits don't make more people donate then the government wouldn't bother doing that. Think about buffets. People always eat much more than when they pay more anything they eat. This proves that price plays an important role. Of course, not one thinks it's all-you-can eat so I can just gorge myself but subconciously that's what they do.

nalababe

Jul 11th, 2009, 08:11 AM

jerrysiz

Jul 11th, 2009, 01:28 PM

If that's the case then insurance shouldn't be increased for those who crash their cars often, and insurance shouldn't be lowered for those who drive safely for decades. To supporters of public health-care everything that works for the rest of society (competitive markets, financial incentives, tax credits) won't work for the health-care industry.

That's right, it won't. Because not everything is about money. The "rewards" you keep talking about are not primarily monetary when it comes to health care, you are rewarded for taking care of yourself by being healthy and not having to go through painful procedures and treatments. This is regardless of whether you have to pay for your health care out of pocket or not. People make smart health decisions to be healthy, not because they think they might have to pay more in the future.

It is also interesting that you keep refering to a financial model and personal responsibility as if every healthcare need is a result of a personal choice. What about the people that are unlucky enough to be frequently ill through no fault of their own. In your previous example about your appendix surgery, you got care because you had money. In Canada you would have recieved care regardless (and, no, I don't agree your appendix would have ruptured, there is such a thing as emergency surgery, I know many people who have had same-day appendix surgery in Canada as well), but do you really think that someone in a country with no national health care should have to either die or live the rest of their lives in debt to pay off hospital bills? Your "you should pay more if you're irresponsible enough to need health care" model doesn't make much sense when you're talking about unavoidable or unexpected illnesses.

Think about buffets. People always eat much more than when they pay more anything they eat. This proves that price plays an important role. Of course, not one thinks it's all-you-can eat so I can just gorge myself but subconciously that's what they do.

Again, this is nonsense. You can't compare health care to other industries because it is unique in that it is the only system that people want to use LESS of. Health care is not akin to an all you can eat buffet because people do not want to have to avail themselves of this service, regardless of how much of it is available and regardless of price. Whatever you may think, I assure you people do not, conciously or subconciously, gorge themselves on health care ("Well, I don't really NEED bypass surgery, but since it's free, why not?"), nor do they feel "rewarded" when they need to use it (a point which I see you failed to address at all from the previous post). I mean, really, you've had surgery, right? All that pain and fear, very nice. So now that you're back in Canada I guess you're looking for more of that, because, hey, what a bargin.

Troodon

Jul 11th, 2009, 02:11 PM

Ok that's fine. You can argue that most people don't change their behaviour regardless of how much they pay for healthcare. I'll agree with that for now.

But the other problem with Canadian public healthcare is that it is forced upon its citizens. Other countries with public healthcare like the British also allow private hospitals and clinics. For example, BMI Healthcare in the UK has 59 hospitals across the country and only 10% of its patients are funded publicly. Meaning 90% of its business is due to private consumers.

The ethical argument for 100% publich healthcare is flawed when you realize that you're destroying other people's ability to choose how they want to be treated. Someone who worked hard for his money can buy a house, a vacation, burn it, buy cigarettes with them, give it to some random charity, but can't use it to prolong their own life. That's a bit ridiculous.

And also the UK is ranked higher than Canada for healthcare by the WHO.

IronMac

Jul 11th, 2009, 07:38 PM

as stated, anecdotal evidence only goes so far.

Anecdotal? I'm living it, pal.

the reason for the focus of 'dying due to wait times' is because the only alternative to this is essentially banned by law.

It's not banned. Would you say that a treatment not covered by private health insurance is "banned"?

when one lacks insurance.......there is some degree of recourse. people without insurance receive subsidized care in the united states.....why do you think their government health spending is so high, such a high % of their budget? if a private company denied a worker their health coverage, they could get subsidized care from a hospital. contrastingly, in canada, if 'your company' (the gov't) says you arent getting treatment, you have no other choices within the nation. they are the only game in town.

Did you ever stop to think that one potential reason (and I'm talking just out of speculation) for such a high cost is that the private health care side is just driving up costs?

What sort of treatments are not provided for? Does this "banning" affect such a significant proportion of the population that it means that we chuck the current system?

its unfortunate that these discussions always seem to fall into canada vs. US comparisons. im not trying to say there are no issues with health insurance (especially down south)......but to portray the only alternative as being canada's system is being disingenuous.

I am not in the US. I am in one of those numerous other countries with a two-tier health care system so trust me, I know the "reality". From what I gather, you've never experienced a two-tier system.

there is a gap in the coverage in canada. rather than telling these individuals to go **** off to another nation if they want care.....why not provide it here? why is one denied the right to give their human companion prompt medical care, especially in light of the fact they would be allowed to fund the same care for their animal companion?

Why not push the government to provide such services out of our taxes?

and more about asking tough questions about the individuals that fall through the cracks. success stories in the health care system are all well and good.....but the horror stories are what must be addressed. people being denied proper care in canada is not the myth you seem to imply it is.

Fall through the cracks? Horror stories? Like my father-in-law's $80k one? Like my mother-in-law's current one where the costs are spiraling upwards with every doctor's visit? Her endocronologist costs $500 per hour and I am sure that a private health insurance plan would "ban" such visits to a specialist not of my wife's choosing.

Like those 45 million Americans without health insurance?

IronMac

Jul 11th, 2009, 07:46 PM

I have experienced the difference between public and private healthcare. In China my appendix got infected during the afternoon and I had a surgery that same night. If that happened in Canada then it would've probably ruptured and I would've had to stay at the hospital for weeks.

Oh puleeze!!! LOL!!!

Look, any competent doc in Canada would figure out the symptoms and push you through to surgery. Both private and public systems don't want you to have to stay in a hospital for weeks.

I don't know how much my parents paid but our friend was a doctor there and helped us skip the lines.

Ask them. BTW, why are there lines of patients waiting in this particular private health care setting?

Your notion that everyone's going to pay 80K for private healthcare is just false. But that's assume that's the case then where do you think the government gets the 80K? It probably taxed 80K from us so doesn't matter what system you use you'll still pay 80K on average.

Wow...

A. Thanks for repeating what I've said all along...private or public...you still pay.
B. Please teach yourself how the insurance industry works with particular emphasis on "actuarial tables".

You don't need to save 64K. Buy the right insurance please. If someone's house goes on fire it's going to cost their probably over $1,000,000 to build another one. That doesn't mean everyone with houses need to have $1,000,000 in their bank accounts.

Wow...

A. Did it ever occur to you that you might be uninsurable?
B. Did it ever occur to you when buying insurance coverage that you may not tick off a particular box...say, "Depression" and two years down the line you are diagnosed with it?

IronMac

Jul 11th, 2009, 07:57 PM

Don't think that the US is the land of milk and honey and that you can get anything you want in a shorter amount of time.

Like cars accidents up here, since everything is under scrutiny by the insurance companies, they can decide what you need and where you are going to get it done.

Add to that costs are artificially inflated for insurance.

Real world example: My sister is pregnant and due to 1) age and 2) being on BP medication there was concern about the viability of the fetus, the doctor requested additional ultrasounds and genetic testing/counseling. It took almost four weeks for the insurance company to approve the process.

Real-world example from a place NOT US but with a private/public health care system. My mother-in-law went in over a month ago for a gallstone that shifted and that set off a bunch of symptoms. The hospital decided that they want to run a gamut of tests "just to be sure" where according to her $500-an-hr specialist he only needed a blood test to diagnose and recommend treatment.

This hospital (third most profitable in the country) loves running tests, which of course is billed to the insurance company or the individual patient's family. My wife prayed that the costs of everything was over a certain amount ($5k) because then the government will chip in a small amount to help out with the bill.

Welcome to the reality of an alternative private health care system!

Churo1

Jul 11th, 2009, 07:59 PM

Real-world example from a place NOT US but with a private/public health care system. My mother-in-law went in over a month ago for a gallstone that shifted and that set off a bunch of symptoms. The hospital decided that they want to run a gamut of tests "just to be sure" where according to her $500-an-hr specialist he only needed a blood test to diagnose and recommend treatment.

This hospital (third most profitable in the country) loves running tests, which of course is billed to the insurance company or the individual patient's family. My wife prayed that the costs of everything was over a certain amount ($5k) because then the government will chip in a small amount to help out with the bill.

Welcome to the reality of an alternative private health care system!

Well it looks like someone is on a power trip. Unfortunate, really. Quite.

IronMac

Jul 11th, 2009, 08:04 PM

But the other problem with Canadian public healthcare is that it is forced upon its citizens.

Spoken by someone who's never lived in a private health care system.

The ethical argument for 100% publich healthcare is flawed when you realize that you're destroying other people's ability to choose how they want to be treated.

Insurance CSR: I'm sorry, Mr Troodon but your private health care insurance plan does not cover that since it is considered an elective procedure.

Mr. Troodon: I am outraged! You've destroyed my ability to choose how I want to be treated.

Insurance CSR: Thank you for choosing GTN Insurance. Good day.

IronMac

Jul 11th, 2009, 08:10 PM

Well it looks like someone is on a power trip. Unfortunate, really. Quite.

I'm sorry...I guess I am still upset when someone who's probably never left North America says that I have my head stuck in the sand.

This is not some sort of economic or political theory exercise to me especially when it means that if I purchase an insurance plan here I will have to make sure that it covers EVERYTHING. Even then, you may not be covered for EVERYTHING.

Experimental procedures? Forget it. The insurance company won't cover that.

Out of country health visits? Forget it. The insurance company won't cover that.

Even better bedding may not be allowed by the insurance company.

Government help? What a laugh. You have to incur a certain amount before they even look at you.

The best that you can hope for is that your insurance company will get you into the best hospitals in this country (don't know how they can do that when every other policyholder wants in to one of the two or three top private hospitals here) and get you the proper treatment. If it is not covered, you're dead, maybe not literally but financially for sure.

Churo1

Jul 11th, 2009, 08:15 PM

I'm sorry...I guess I am still upset when someone who's probably never left North America says that I have my head stuck in the sand.

This is not some sort of economic or political theory exercise to me especially when it means that if I purchase an insurance plan here I will have to make sure that it covers EVERYTHING. Even then, you may not be covered for EVERYTHING.

Experimental procedures? Forget it. The insurance company won't cover that.

Out of country health visits? Forget it. The insurance company won't cover that.

Even better bedding may not be allowed by the insurance company.

Government help? What a laugh. You have to incur a certain amount before they even look at you.

The best that you can hope for is that your insurance company will get you into the best hospitals in this country (don't know how they can do that when every other policyholder wants in to one of the two or three top private hospitals here) and get you the proper treatment. If it is not covered, you're dead, maybe not literally but financially for sure.

On further inspection it appears you are justifiably bitter over the reality of private health cares systems. I retract my previous comment. Good day.