|
Welcome Private Health Care (Quebec first, Canada next?) (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by preylude
Maybe if we bordered France or Germany.
Where we're sitting, there are just too many factors pushing us towards the US model.
Which -- by the way -- _is_ a public / private mix (Yes, there are public hospitals in the States - http://www.naph.org/). The public system there is just _severely_ underfunded to the point where it is practically unusable.
I think eventually the Europeans will be dragged down to this level too, as the price for professionals and equipment in this industry continue to get bid up. They are just more insulated by geography and immigration policies. (As a Canadian doctor, you could pack up in the morning, get a TN visa at the border, and start working that day in the States)
Like I said, only time will tell. |
So what do u want? The status quo which is going bankrupt? Throw more money at the system? Funny how the more money we send into the healthcare system, the more dysfunctional it becomes.
Sure lets keep our current system so they raise taxes for it and delist services all at the same time. Yeah, lovely!
Anyone care for some chiropractic care or an eye exam? |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by preylude
Don't even get me started on other basic needs like water, food and shelter.
Look -- You and everyone else supporting this argument have obviously always had their basic needs taken care of and now want "that little bit extra". That's all good and fine. I wholeheartedly agree that people that work harder should be rewarded proportionately. But only with nonessential (ie. luxury) goods.
Basic needs should not be tiered. Otherwise you end up with a whole group of people that are stuck. The one group (lets call them "upper class" for argument's sake) has all the best water, the best food, filtered air, the best health care and the best shelter. The other group (ie "lower class") gets all of the leftovers -- contaminated water, less nutritional food, poluted air, and poor health care to help them get better when they get sick from the aforementioned conditions.
The lower class group has so many disadvantages (health, education, etc) that compound with each other such that they can never climb out of the hole. Furthermore, this condition is quite favorable for the upper class group since they end up with a nearly endless supply of cheap labour to provide them with luxuries for less than it would cost in a truly fair economy. |
So you are saying we should ban bottled water too? since water too is a basic need, and hence everyone should be provided with the same standard according to you.
I agree with you that everyone has the right to basic things, such as shelter, healthcare and food/water. However, basic needs doesnt mean that you must have the best of all of them. The healthcare in canada today is good and enough for most ppl, however, some ppl simply dont want to wait 8 months to get their hip surgery, so then let them have a better/faster service if they choose to pay for it (in the same way as ppl can choose to buy bottled water instead of drinking tap water if they feel like that). In this way you would also make that 8 months waiting time, one person shorter.
You are right when you say this will increase the rift between the rich and the poor, however, this doesnt mean that the poor will get it worse, they will still enjoy pretty much the same care, but others will have better.
However the greatest thing of a two tier system is competition. at least in sweden (i am from sweden, thats why i compare it with there), the semi privatization of the healthcare system made both the public and the private system a lot more efficient than it used to be. During all swedens modern history the only solution to a problem in society has been, put some more money on it and we will solve the problem. And yes it does, for a while, but in the long run it doesnt really solve a whole lot (and this was one of the things that lead to a huge economic crisies in the '90s for sweden). Competition on the other hand seem to solve a lot more. So i guess canada could make their healthcare system better by pumping in more money into it, but after a while you would be back at status quo. But to really solve your problem something else needs to be done, and i guess privatization is not the only soloution, but it is one of them. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by preylude
Which -- by the way -- _is_ a public / private mix (Yes, there are public hospitals in the States - http://www.naph.org/). The public system there is just _severely_ underfunded to the point where it is practically unusable. |
well, as far as my understanding goes, you still need a private insurence to go there? |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
Health care is expensive and unreliable TODAY. It's expensive in terms of the high taxes we pay, and unreliable in that there are long waiting lists, no innovations, doctors leaving the country, etc. |
well obviously privatization alone is not the solution, just look at the states. they have huge problems with beuocracy and increasing costs. |
|
|
| preylude |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
well, as far as my understanding goes, you still need a private insurence to go there? |
Well, it still costs money, if that's what you mean. But typically most people who go to a public hospital have state-funded insurance (like Medicare, etc.)
The reason public hospitals are necessary in the States is because there are areas (inner-city, or otherwise poor) that would not have any hospital coverage otherwise. It is much more profitable to build a hospital near people that have money. Meanwhile good, private hospitals tend to cluster (often 2 or 3 of them) close to afluent areas. |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
People 'take responsibility' for becoming ill by doing what everyone else in the world except Canadians do in preperation for unexpected health-care costs. BUDGET and SAVE MONEY! (Or get private health insurance).
|
This is so narrow minded. What about people who are disabled and cannot work? What about students who aren't making a load of cash and need every penny just to eat? Sorry but not all of us have an extra $5000 laying around to pay to an institution if they were to get hurt.
If a person is ill, common human decency is to help them out. We need each other, and putting a blockade such as the dollar to hinder a persons right to be taken care of is not right. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
This is so narrow minded. What about people who are disabled and cannot work? What about students who aren't making a load of cash and need every penny just to eat? Sorry but not all of us have an extra $5000 laying around to pay to an institution if they were to get hurt.
If a person is ill, common human decency is to help them out. We need each other, and putting a blockade such as the dollar to hinder a persons right to be taken care of is not right. |
And thats why the public system will still exist. And the public system will actually be better able to take care of them than it is now. |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
This is so narrow minded. What about people who are disabled and cannot work? What about students who aren't making a load of cash and need every penny just to eat? Sorry but not all of us have an extra $5000 laying around to pay to an institution if they were to get hurt.
If a person is ill, common human decency is to help them out. We need each other, and putting a blockade such as the dollar to hinder a persons right to be taken care of is not right. |
Narrow-minded? No, what's narrow-minded is you forgetting that the public system will still exist to take care of those people. And because all the evil rich people will be paying into the private system, the public system will even be able to take BETTER care of them than it is currently able to now. |
|
|
| loca |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
If a person is ill, common human decency is to help them out. We need each other, and putting a blockade such as the dollar to hinder a persons right to be taken care of is not right. |
Funny it doesn't seem that way to me when it comes to every type of illness or person... aren't Canadians the ones who complain when smokers get lung cancer that we're "draining their public healthcare"? |
|
|
| starsearcher |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
If a person is ill, common human decency is to help them out. We need each other, and putting a blockade such as the dollar to hinder a persons right to be taken care of is not right. |
lol wishful thinking :toothless I want to see someone actually excercise that... |
|
|
| preylude |
| quote: | Originally posted by loca
Funny it doesn't seem that way to me when it comes to every type of illness or person... aren't Canadians the ones who complain when smokers get lung cancer that we're "draining their public healthcare"? |
Lung cancer is an exception that falls under the category of "preventable diseases". If you don't smoke, and you are never exposed to second-hand smoke, you have a near zero percent chance of developing lung cancer.
This is one of the reasons cigarette taxes are so high. Some of that tax money is diverted into the health care system. Essentially smokers are pre-paying for health care they will almost certainly need in the future. |
|
|
| loca |
| quote: | Originally posted by preylude
Lung cancer is an exception that falls under the category of "preventable diseases". If you don't smoke, and you are never exposed to second-hand smoke, you have a near zero percent chance of developing lung cancer.
This is one of the reasons cigarette taxes are so high. Some of that tax money is diverted into the health care system. Essentially smokers are pre-paying for health care they will almost certainly need in the future. |
Ahhh i see. So alcoholics should be paying more taxes on alcohol too no? Considering they will almost certainly die of an alcohol related disease (if not even kill someone in the process), right? |
|
|
|
|
