NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1127245547821_1/?hub=Canada


NDP Leader Jack Layton says his party will bring in a bill this fall to ban private medicare.

A Supreme Court decision on a Quebec case earlier this year approved some forms of private health care and Layton says its time to draw the line.

His bill wouldn't ban existing private services but would stop any future expansion across the country.

It's time to ensure the survival of publicly funded medicare, he says.


Private services have been slowly but surely spreading throughout Canada, with Quebeckers being the freest of all Canadians when it comes to the ability to spend their own money on health care (Alberta is second).

The NDP believes that Canadians do not (and should not) possess the basic freedom to spend their own money in the manner of their choosing. Jack Layton and his party would prefer to force the Canadian taxpayer to shoulder 100% of the medical expense burden in Canada, even if that means that some Canadians will have to suffer longer than if they were allowed to buy treatments on their own.

Good job NDP :rolleyes:

Canada City']http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1127245547821_1/?hub=Canada



Private services have been slowly but surely spreading throughout Canada, with Quebeckers being the freest of all Canadians when it comes to the ability to spend their own money on health care (Alberta is second).

The NDP believes that Canadians do not (and should not) possess the basic freedom to spend their own money in the manner of their choosing. Jack Layton and his party would prefer to force the Canadian taxpayer to shoulder 100% of the medical expense burden in Canada, even if that means that some Canadians will have to suffer longer than if they were allowed to buy treatments on their own.

Good job NDP :rolleyes:

It's about bloody time someone stopped that privatized two-tiered mess. The ones that will suffer most are the ones who can't afford the Hilton Hospitals.

A more plausible idea would be to give tax breaks to corporations who donate equipment & services to the public system. It would be in corporate interest also to have their sick employees back at work asap. It would cut sick time, long term disability insurance etc. etc.

But the gov't will do whatever sucks most.

Canada City']http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1127245547821_1/?hub=Canada

Private services have been slowly but surely spreading throughout Canada, with Quebeckers being the freest of all Canadians when it comes to the ability to spend their own money on health care (Alberta is second).

The NDP believes that Canadians do not (and should not) possess the basic freedom to spend their own money in the manner of their choosing. Jack Layton and his party would prefer to force the Canadian taxpayer to shoulder 100% of the medical expense burden in Canada, even if that means that some Canadians will have to suffer longer than if they were allowed to buy treatments on their own.

Good job NDP :rolleyes:
I don't agree that people should always be free to spend their own money however they want. I'm very libertarian in terms of cutting non-essential government programs like the CRTC and multiculturalism, but I believe that the Big Three (education, health care, and welfare) should be the primary focus of the government. All three of these things promote more productive Canadians, which in turn benefits the whole country.

yeah, i like the private sector for a lot of things, but there are certain things that either shouldn't need to make money (highways, healthcare, education) or just don't (welfare, low income housing) and that's why we elect governments in the first place. what's the big deal when government makes decisions about these things, exactly?

Privatized medicine only helps the people who can afford it without mortgaging the house and selling the car. In which case they can get it cheaper by vacationing in India and buying their operation there anyway.

If they'd stop under-funding and under-resourcing health care and actually follow Romanow's suggestions we wouldn't have this trumped-up health care 'crisis'.

"We'll make the choices for you!"
-has a sort of condescending ring to it, doncha think?

"We'll make the choices for you!"
-has a sort of condescending ring to it, doncha think?

Yes. But it's not a Layton or NDP quote. The only person saying that is [NS]Canada City.

So Canada becomes more like Cuba and North Korea? Those are the only other places in the world that don't have private health care. Next policy, Canada will start measuring time from the year that Pierre Trudeau was born. Making this year 86.

NDP....smiling while they screw you with high taxes.

What is so wrong with an initiative that is aimed to stop our country to slip into the two-tiered system we can see in the US where the cost is prohibitive?

Some people seem to think that one national program is akin to totalitarian pseudo-communism. I fail to see their point.

So Canada becomes more like Cuba and North Korea? Those are the only other places in the world that don't have private health care. Next policy, Canada will start measuring time from the year that Pierre Trudeau was born. Making this year 86.

NDP....smiling while they screw you with high taxes.

Ah yes, trot out the communist boogeymen. :rolleyes:

Would you care to explain what would be wrong with a properly administrated universal health care system?

What is so wrong with an initiative that is aimed to stop our country to slip into the two-tiered system we can see in the US where the cost is prohibitive?

Some people seem to think that one national program is akin to totalitarian pseudo-communism. I fail to see their point.
We've argued this one over and over. Most recently when the Supreme Court struck down the ban on private insurance. My basic argument is that price controls on any resource will guarantee its scarcity. I could do the grocery store example again, or point out the reasons that the court struck down the government monopoly on health care in the first place.

I won't because the issue has been worn out. You either understand economics and buy my arguments or you believe the demagogues and can't understand how price and supply are related.

What is so wrong with an initiative that is aimed to stop our country to slip into the two-tiered system we can see in the US where the cost is prohibitive?

Some people seem to think that one national program is akin to totalitarian pseudo-communism. I fail to see their point.

We can't afford more doctors, and a private system will attract that. Specialists will flock to Canada, as will research companies. The current system is what, 40 some odd percent of our GDP, how much more, 50%? 60%? Gimme a break already. We already lose 40% of our cheques, 15-20% of that goes straight into a healthcare system that doesn't work.....

Of for goodness sakes, read up on things before you spout off.

In 2001, health care wss 9.1% of Canada's GDP. For the record, US health care spending was 13.9% of their GDP for the same year. I'm afraid I can't find an OECD study comparing countries with a later date. Average spending increase for Canada was 2.1% per year between 1991-2001.

In short, we pay 57% of what the US pays per person for health care, and we don't leave 45 million people uninsured.

I won't argue that our system needs improvement - it has been systematically under-funded and under-resourced. But privatization isn't the answer.

Want my source? http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/23/3/10/T1 But you need to be a subscriber. But I'm bad and have made their main chart available to all.

Lookee la chart:

http://67.18.37.14/32/176/upload/p852312.gif

Of for goodness sakes, read up on things before you spout off.

In 2001, health care wss 9.1% of Canada's GDP. For the record, US health care spending was 13.9% of their GDP for the same year. I'm afraid I can't find an OECD study comparing countries with a later date.

Lookee la chart:

http://67.18.37.14/32/176/upload/p852312.gif

hey! the fact that we pay less per person for a more comprehensive health care system has nothing to do with a debate on privatizing healthcare! you're out of order, ya' communist!!! :p

That chart is often a show-stopper. I rarely find people who still want to argue with me about the cost of not privatizing after I show the chart.

But debate about how to improve our health care system is still important and needs to be encouraged. But privatization is not a miracle cure-all for anyone but the pocketbooks of the executive and shareholders of the big HMOs.

Of for goodness sakes, read up on things before you spout off.

In 2001, health care wss 9.1% of Canada's GDP. For the record, US health care spending was 13.9% of their GDP for the same year. I'm afraid I can't find an OECD study comparing countries with a later date.

Lookee la chart:

http://67.18.37.14/32/176/upload/p852312.gif
I'm really tired of this comparison. I need to find a flaw in it. I suspect the flaw is that the cost of Canadian medical care is largely fixed by the government, whereas the cost in the U.S. is largely fixed by lawyers and jury awards.

I think I like health care the way it is. I've never had a problem with long waits (the longest I've ever had to wait in an emergency room was the only visit I had and it wasn't really an emergency... it was just that walk-in clinics weren't open yet, so it makes sense that they see the people coming in on stretchers before they saw me.) I've never had to wait more than a week for a doctor's appointment and when I need perscription drugs, they are reasonably affordable. But then I haven't had any major health problems.
My bf has had a few health issues lately, but appointments were available within days and he was treated alright. If OHIP still covered physio then he'd be better off... he can't afford it now, his old job didn't give him health coverage and they screwed him out of both workman's compensation (he was injured on the job) and employment insurance (they wouldn't renew his contract due to his injury).

I'm really tired of this comparison. I need to find a flaw in it. I suspect the flaw is that the cost of Canadian medical care is largely fixed by the government, whereas the cost in the U.S. is largely fixed by lawyers and jury awards.

And the cost for the rest of the countries on the chart?

A single-payer non-profit system keeps costs down because:

a) you don't need to generate profit for shareholders
b) you have one insurance system generating administrative costs, not multiple HMOs.

I'm sure there are other reasons, but those are the ones that occur to me immediately.

I should add that there are malpractice suits in Canada too, Myrmidonisia. Although I admit that I have never heard of awards the size of some that are won in the US, especially the southern US. I seem to recall a 60 Minutes episode that claimed that lawyers bringing forward class action suits did everything they could to have their suit tried in in particular towns known for awarding huge amounts. I think they might have been certain small towns in Georgia, but I could totally be wrong about that.

I'm very libertarian in terms of cutting non-essential government programs like the CRTC and multiculturalisms
Since when was multiculturalism anything more than a cliched idea, let alone a government programme?

I'm really tired of this comparison. I need to find a flaw in it. I suspect the flaw is that the cost of Canadian medical care is largely fixed by the government, whereas the cost in the U.S. is largely fixed by lawyers and jury awards.You mean you'd rather trust lawyers than the government? Or juries? I, personally, would rather trust the duly elected democratic representatives - but maybe you lack enough faith in the democratic process to go that route.

Anyway, congratulations to Jack Layton for figuring out a way to stop two-tier health care. Notice how existing facilities would remain open, but no new ones would be allowed. Its halting it, not destroying it.

I should add that there are malpractice suits in Canada too, Myrmidonisia. Although I admit that I have never heard of awards the size of some that are won in the US, especially the southern US. I seem to recall a 60 Minutes episode that claimed that lawyers bringing forward class action suits did everything they could to have their suit tried in in particular towns known for awarding huge amounts. I think they might have been certain small towns in Georgia, but I could totally be wrong about that.
We passed a tort reform law in our last legislature. The sky didn't fall. I think Mississippi was the real home of the jackpot juries. They also passed some tort reform and the sky didn't fall on them either.

The reason that two-tiered healthcare is wrong is that it promotes social inequality to a large degree because the rich people will be able to afford the quickest, best treatments, while the average joe will be stuck with the government funded healthcare (which is not that bad, but not a match for privatized healthcare). Now isn't the time to be giving such an important service to the same people who just want to make an extra dollar. What we need to do is totally overhaul the current healthcare system and fix it so that we don't have huge wait times.

Oh and by the way, the NDP isn't telling us what we want, the majority of Canadians WANT to keep healthcare government funded.

You mean you'd rather trust lawyers than the government? Or juries? I, personally, would rather trust the duly elected democratic representatives - but maybe you lack enough faith in the democratic process to go that route.

Think about it for a second...

Anyway, congratulations to Jack Layton for figuring out a way to stop two-tier health care. Notice how existing facilities would remain open, but no new ones would be allowed. Its halting it, not destroying it.
Just another demagogue that doesn't understand economics. This buys him votes. That buys him power. I'll bet he doesn't have to wait in line for a doctor.

Just another demagogue that doesn't understand economics. This buys him votes. That buys him power. I'll bet he doesn't have to wait in line for a doctor.
If people actually went to the proper facilities for the proper injuries then there wouldn't be obscene wait times. I mean, when you've got people who go to the emergency room for sprained ankles and then bitch about waiting 12 hours while the people being rolled in with heart attacks and severe injuries get seen first...

I know in the town I'm from a big part of the problem is that many immigrants will go to the emergency room for every little damn thing, ignoring the walk in clinics or hell, even basic first aid measures and they clog up emergency rooms like crazy.

The reason that two-tiered healthcare is wrong is that it promotes social inequality to a large degree because the rich people will be able to afford the quickest, best treatments, while the average joe will be stuck with the government funded healthcare (which is not that bad, but not a match for privatized healthcare). Now isn't the time to be giving such an important service to the same people who just want to make an extra dollar. What we need to do is totally overhaul the current healthcare system and fix it so that we don't have huge wait times.

Oh and by the way, the NDP isn't telling us what we want, the majority of Canadians WANT to keep healthcare government funded.
I hate getting drawn into these things.

If the worst thing you can say about the two-tiered system is that "life isn't fair", it isn't much of an indictment. The only argument against the two-tiered system is one that rejects personal achievement. Well, life isn't fair. Some people are going to have advantages that others _chose_ not to have.

As far as part two goes, you will never attract enough professionals into a system that regulates prices and wages. Can't be done. Won't work with gas, meat, or medicine. Socialized medicine only rations the scarcity.

I should add that there are malpractice suits in Canada too, Myrmidonisia. Although I admit that I have never heard of awards the size of some that are won in the US, especially the southern US. I seem to recall a 60 Minutes episode that claimed that lawyers bringing forward class action suits did everything they could to have their suit tried in in particular towns known for awarding huge amounts. I think they might have been certain small towns in Georgia, but I could totally be wrong about that.
Who gets sued? The government? The doctor? Does the government provide the malpractice insurance for the doctors? I never gave this aspect of the whole thing much thought.

Ah yes, trot out the communist boogeymen. :rolleyes:

Would you care to explain what would be wrong with a properly administrated universal health care system?

Yep, I make a comment about Cuba or North Korea and I'm nothing more then a communist boogeymen. But if I was to say that the USA is evil, or Conservatives are evil, I would be well liked on these forums. Why is everyone so scared of a two tier system? Many countries already have it, or do you hate the idea of private health care just because the US has private health care?

Call me a communist boogeyman, I call you a USA boogeyman. It is an evil circle, eh?

I hate getting drawn into these things.

If the worst thing you can say about the two-tiered system is that "life isn't fair", it isn't much of an indictment. The only argument against the two-tiered system is one that rejects personal achievement. Well, life isn't fair. Some people are going to have advantages that others _chose_ not to have.

As far as part two goes, you will never attract enough professionals into a system that regulates prices and wages. Can't be done. Won't work with gas, meat, or medicine. Socialized medicine only rations the scarcity.

This is where things are going to fall apart... I believe that one of the big responsibilities modern-day governments have to the people is providing social assistance. Obviously if you don't believe in welfare state economics, we're not going to be able to agree on anything.

And I would have to disagree with your second assesment because although we are having troubles getting medical professionals to stay in Canada, we're fixing this by providing incentives to people to stay in Canada. I read one example where in an effort to get doctors in rural areas, the government was providing interest free loans, free clinic space, and a bonus of up to $20,000. So I think it can be done, but it needs work.

Think about it for a second...

Just another demagogue that doesn't understand economics. This buys him votes. That buys him power. I'll bet he doesn't have to wait in line for a doctor.

His wife, Olivia Chow, has cancer. She didn't get any special treatment. But guess what, she received timely treatment. In fact, she could have received it sooner than she did, but she was in the middle of an election campaign at the time. She had this growth on her neck; if her scarf slipped it was visible. She had a number of doctors contact her after her appearances saying: "It appears you may have thyroid cancer, you should get that checked out."

And though I haven't met Olivia, I have met Jack Layton. He's a good guy, and his previous political history (former city councillor, former President of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities) is solid. That's better than I can say about other politicians I've met.

You appear to be unable to attack the numbers I provided, so now you are attacking politicians you know very little, if anything, about.

Yep, I make a comment about Cuba or North Korea and I'm nothing more then a communist boogeymen. But if I was to say that the USA is evil, or Conservatives are evil, I would be well liked on these forums. Why is everyone so scared of a two tier system? Many countries already have it, or do you hate the idea of private health care just because the US has private health care?

Call me a communist boogeyman, I call you a USA boogeyman. It is an evil circle, eh?

The difference between me and you is that I trotted out facts and numbers, while you made vague insinuations comparing Canada to a pair of poorly regarded communist countries.

And you still haven't explained what is wrong with a properly run public system.

I'm really tired of this comparison. I need to find a flaw in it. I suspect the flaw is that the cost of Canadian medical care is largely fixed by the government, whereas the cost in the U.S. is largely fixed by lawyers and jury awards.
Yes, the US system sure does have quite a few flaws alright. The biggest one is the exclusion of 45 Million citizens from basic healthcare.

BTW, those numbers are really not reflective of the total picture? The US government pays 13.9% of GDP, but the taxpayers or their employers still pay for insurance packages on top of that????

Correct me if I am wrong?

hey canada city, may I fix the thread title: Canada Convervative: We'll screw our country for you!
:rolleyes:

Do you know why BC's public healthcare is very crappy these days? Because the BC Liberals made massive cuts on healthcare. Public healthcare is crappy since they came to power.

You also wonderin' why the Americans travel up north to purchase drug.

Edit: I'm officially "sometimes deadly" :D

We've argued this one over and over. Most recently when the Supreme Court struck down the ban on private insurance. My basic argument is that price controls on any resource will guarantee its scarcity. I could do the grocery store example again, or point out the reasons that the court struck down the government monopoly on health care in the first place.

I won't because the issue has been worn out. You either understand economics and buy my arguments or you believe the demagogues and can't understand how price and supply are related.
Your basic argument has been shown to be flawed quite often. Maybe that's why you're tired of arguing this.

As for your claim that your way is the only way, many a great Economics Major has told us that nationalized healthcare is feasible. So, I'm sorry but I won't listen to your arguments because, as far as I know, you are not well versed in Economics.

[QUOTE=

The NDP believes that Canadians do not (and should not) possess the basic freedom to spend their own money in the manner of their choosing.
[/QUOTE]

yeah, I say people should die if they want to! :rolleyes: You can't seriously go against something like public healthcare, where you can get free care so you can spend your money elsewhere.

"We'll make the choices for you!"
-has a sort of condescending ring to it, doncha think?

That's his point

Who gets sued? The government? The doctor? Does the government provide the malpractice insurance for the doctors? I never gave this aspect of the whole thing much thought.

The doctor, if it's malpractice. After all, it's the doctor who allegedly malpracticed.

If there was a lawsuit against the food or drug regulatory agencies (government), then that would be because they passed something as safe, and it turns out it wasn't.

Pretty much like the US in that regard.

I would be very interested in knowing how well your tort reforms work after a trial period of 5-10 years. If it improves the system, maybe we can steal the idea. ;)

Yes, the US system sure does have quite a few flaws alright. The biggest one is the exclusion of 45 Million citizens from basic healthcare.

BTW, those numbers are really not reflective of the total picture? The US government pays 13.9% of GDP, but the taxpayers or their employers still pay for insurance packages on top of that????

Correct me if I am wrong?

Canuck Heaven, from the article (behind the subscription wall), it's clear that those numbers include both private and public spending in all the listed countries. So that would include both US government insurance (Medicare, etc) and private insurance costs as well.

The difference between me and you is that I trotted out facts and numbers, while you made vague insinuations comparing Canada to a pair of poorly regarded communist countries.

And you still haven't explained what is wrong with a properly run public system.

Nothing is wrong with a properly run public health system, except the one here in Canada isn't run properly and the solution isn't throwing more money at it. Maybe they should throw some money to the military instead, of course if Canadians hadn't elected the liberals in the first place the military wouldn't need more money thrown at it. The health care system in Canada needs something like the defence white paper, so we know what we what needs money and what doesn't and so we have some goals for the future. The problem with Canada is it is full of liberals politicans, not enough centre politicans.

Funny because poll after poll shows the majority of Canadians continue to support public healthcare. Not even the conservative party will come out in support to remove it. The mere suggestion of it by Klein probably cost the conservatives the last election.

The NDP should continue to stand up for all Canadians.

Canada City']http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1127245547821_1/?hub=Canada

The NDP believes that Canadians do not (and should not) possess the basic freedom to spend their own money in the manner of their choosing. Jack Layton and his party would prefer to force the Canadian taxpayer to shoulder 100% of the medical expense burden in Canada, even if that means that some Canadians will have to suffer longer than if they were allowed to buy treatments on their own.

Nothing is wrong with a properly run public health system, except the one here in Canada isn't run properly and the solution isn't throwing more money at it. Maybe they should throw some money to the military instead, of course if Canadians hadn't elected the liberals in the first place the military wouldn't need more money thrown at it. The health care system in Canada needs something like the defence white paper, so we know what we what needs money and what doesn't and so we have some goals for the future. The problem with Canada is it is full of liberals politicans, not enough centre politicans.

And I never said that Canada's system was perfect. I said it needed improvement, and that privatization is not the answer.

We don't necessarily need to throw money at the system. For a start, conservative politicians have convinced people that we spend too much on health care, when an international comparison shows that we're fairly middle of the road there. More money wouldn't hurt - but there are other things that would be better.

For example, stop closing hospitals. The BC Liberal government has closed major urban hospitals all to save a buck. The doctors are then either attached to other hospitals or just work out of their office without hospital privileges. You still have the same number of doctors, but suddenly you've drastically cut the number of beds and surgical rooms. How can they be surprised when waiting times and lists grow longer? But see, the BC gov't wants to further privatize health care, because some of them and their buddies would stand to profit by such a move. It's like giving the wolves the care of the lambs. :rolleyes:

My suggestion for cutting wait lists for voluntary surgeries (like knee and hip replacements) is to build surgical clinics that only perform those surgeries. It's very similar to having private clinics do these things; it's just that these are part of the national healthcare system. After all, it's not the medically necessary treatments that tend to have longer wait times, it's the non-medically necessary ones that get bumped because there aren't enough surgical rooms. Well, that problem won't be solved by closing hospitals. Dumbasses.

There is no reason that we can't have public clinics that specialize.

The problem with Canada is it is full of liberals politicans, not enough centre politicans.
The liberal party = centrist.

And of course Canada is full of liberal politicans compared to the states... the states is scarily conservative.

Since when was multiculturalism anything more than a cliched idea, let alone a government programme?

The government actively funds events that promote multicultural lifestyle, like Folklorama in Winnipeg.

Any, I did some research, and the average Canadian pays about 990 US dollars a year for health care while the average American pays over 3000. Basically the privatized system costs three times more or so.

Would anyone like the source for that?

It's about bloody time someone stopped that privatized two-tiered mess. The ones that will suffer most are the ones who can't afford the Hilton Hospitals.

You're right, let's make it so noone can afford Hilton Hospitals so everyone has to suffer equally, and under worse conditions than at present.

I can't believe the idiocy and unrestrained, illogical envy of some people.

yeah, i like the private sector for a lot of things, but there are certain things that either shouldn't need to make money (highways, healthcare, education) or just don't (welfare, low income housing) and that's why we elect governments in the first place. what's the big deal when government makes decisions about these things, exactly?

Well when things don't make money they are a waste of money and in general the resources of a nation, people who really care about their country don't like to see it's resources wasted on uneconomic ventures, and that's actually all the government does, steal money, waste it, oh, and threaten to kill people if they don't obey whatever other regulations and silly rules they pass.

And yet some people still look to them to solve their problems and provide them with everything they need, and loathe you if you express your dislike of the State.

The problem with Canada is it is full of liberals politicans, not enough centre politicans.
AAAHA!!! I knew it! You're not Canadian! :p

The government actively funds events that promote multicultural lifestyle, like Folklorama in Winnipeg.

Any, I did some research, and the average Canadian pays about 990 US dollars a year for health care while the average American pays over 3000. Basically the privatized system costs three times more or so.

Would anyone like the source for that?
Sure, why not.
I don't like private healthcare.

If people actually went to the proper facilities for the proper injuries then there wouldn't be obscene wait times. I mean, when you've got people who go to the emergency room for sprained ankles and then bitch about waiting 12 hours while the people being rolled in with heart attacks and severe injuries get seen first...

I know in the town I'm from a big part of the problem is that many immigrants will go to the emergency room for every little damn thing, ignoring the walk in clinics or hell, even basic first aid measures and they clog up emergency rooms like crazy.

If you understood basic economics you would understand why people walk in to the emergency room for a little scrape. Without a price system there is no reliable way of getting scarce resources with alternative uses to be put to their best use.

When you see a Rich person getting private health care you shouldn't want them to get worse health care, but yourself to get better health care, the best way to do that is to become rich or very powerful. If you attack in illogical envy all that will happen is that the rich will be forced to place more strain on a bad system, unable to get better health care for themselves, and you too will be unable to get better health care for yourself. It also takes away incentive for you to be productive and make a lot of money because your health care won't get any better.

Read a book called "Basic Economics" I can't remember the author, but I'm sure any book of that title will do. You will learn to judge policy on what it actually causes, not on what it intends to do.

You're right, let's make it so noone can afford Hilton Hospitals so everyone has to suffer equally, and under worse conditions than at present.

I can't believe the idiocy and unrestrained, illogical envy of some people.

Wrong. Healthcare in Canada is more affordable. Essentially, that means that everyone gets healthcare for less. Instead of some getting healthcare for a whole lot more and the others getting little or none.

Wrong. Healthcare in Canada is more affordable. Essentially, that means that everyone gets healthcare for less. Instead of some getting healthcare for a whole lot more and the others getting little or none.Is that why I'm seeing cruise ship tourists crowding around in every pharmacy and drug stores in town lol?

BTW, ur right, Canada's heathcare is affordable.

Canuck Heaven, from the article (behind the subscription wall), it's clear that those numbers include both private and public spending in all the listed countries. So that would include both US government insurance (Medicare, etc) and private insurance costs as well.
Thanks. Your chart sure does drive a huge whole through the US argument.

If one Googles US healthcare costs (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=us+healthcare+costs&meta=), there is some frightening statistics in there. US HMO's are making record profits and combined with increasing drug costs, and babyboomers retiring, US costs are going to get much worse.

If you understood basic economics you would understand why people walk in to the emergency room for a little scrape. Without a price system there is no reliable way of getting scarce resources with alternative uses to be put to their best use.

No, instead you price those scarce resources out of reach of the average person.

Look, if you get cancer (for example) in Canada, you get treated. Period. In the US, you only get treated for cancer if your insurance covers it. Which means that many people only get palliative care, not curative care.

Canadian life expectancy:

total population: 80.1 years
male: 76.73 years
female: 83.63 years (2005 est.)

Canadian infant mortality rate:

total: 4.75 deaths/1,000 live births
male: 5.21 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 4.27 deaths/1,000 live births (2005 est.)

American life expectancy:

total population: 77.71 years
male: 74.89 years
female: 80.67 years (2005 est.)

American infant mortality rate:

total: 6.5 deaths/1,000 live births
male: 7.17 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 5.8 deaths/1,000 live births (2005 est.)

Source: http://www.cia.gov/

Look, I'm not actually trying to diss the American health care system. There are things I don't like about it, but there are other things that I do like. Overriding everything else though is that I deplore the fact that health care is not provided for everyone in the US. Anyway, the real point that I'm trying to make is that Canada's national healthcare is not substandard, as some of you are trying to prove. It is comparable to or better than the healthcare in most other western countries.

As for you, Aggretia, why don't you read an economics book by Joseph Heath? It might explain a few things to you -- like who is paying the hidden cost of not providing health care to the entire population.

Wrong. Healthcare in Canada is more affordable. Essentially, that means that everyone gets healthcare for less. Instead of some getting healthcare for a whole lot more and the others getting little or none.

Nothing is free, and taking away the incentive of profit, the price system, and market competition is no way to run an efficient industry. America spends too much on health care because we grant monopolies to drug companies to produce certain drugs which drives their prices way, way up, while Canada makes these drugs regardless of what the FDA says which drives their prices way, way down. Canada does very little drug research, the United States does much. People in America desire and can afford more health coverage than people in Canada and thus spend more money on it. The United States also has a very large and very wasteful government health care system. All of these things conspire to cause America to spend more on Health Care and Canada to spend less.

The point I was making in my post is that there's absolutely no reason to restrict private health care, if rich people go to private health systems they put less strain on the State system and still pay taxes to support it. In addition, the private health care system pays taxes! This legislation isn't ending the public health care system, it's allowing people to not waste it's resources at their own expense, and at no loss of revenue to the State!

Nothing but blind envy and a lust for power on the part of politicians can produce such idiotic policy.

Nothing is free, and taking away the incentive of profit, the price system, and market competition is no way to run an efficient industry. America spends too much on health care because we grant monopolies to drug companies to produce certain drugs which drives their prices way, way up, while Canada makes these drugs regardless of what the FDA says which drives their prices way, way down. Canada does very little drug research, the United States does much. People in America desire and can afford more health coverage than people in Canada and thus spend more money on it. The United States also has a very large and very wasteful government health care system. All of these things conspire to cause America to spend more on Health Care and Canada to spend less.

The point I was making in my post is that there's absolutely no reason to restrict private health care, if rich people go to private health systems they put less strain on the State system and still pay taxes to support it. In addition, the private health care system pays taxes! This legislation isn't ending the public health care system, it's allowing people to not waste it's resources at their own expense, and at no loss of revenue to the State!

Nothing but blind envy and a lust for power on the part of politicians can produce such idiotic policy.

First of all, no Canadian makes the mistake of thinking health care is free. We know damn well that we pay for it through our taxes.

The biggest problem with adopting a parallel private system in Canada for the rich is that it competes for resources with the national system. Suddenly, you have two systems competing for doctors, medicines, machines, nurses, and so forth. And yes, the rich can afford to pay more than the taxpayers can. So what happens? The public health system is weakened, and people get worse care.

Given that Canada's public system functions well, despite the fact that there are things that need improvement, why should we knowingly take steps to make it worse? Sure we need to make changes, but they should be for the better.

Why does everyone always compare Canadian Healthcare to the American system? There are plenty of other countries out there, many of which have at least partially privatized healthcare systems, to which the Canadian system can be compared. The chart Equus provided shows pretty clearly that Canadains pay far less for their healthcare than Americans do, but we're still 5th from the top in terms of per capita spending. Why not try comparing Canada's system to some of the cheaper systems out there, like Australia's or France's or Sweden's? America's system doesn't have to be the model for privatized healthcare in Canada.

Also, when considering the costs of a healthcare system, waiting times have to be taken into account, because time is money. For instance, if a person can earn ten dollars an hour at work, but needs to go to the hospital for something and ends up waiting two hours for treatment, the trip to the hospital costs that person $20, in addition to whatever he or she might be paying for the actual treatment. It is difficult to calculate how much a nation "pays" into lost wages due to waiting lists, but I think that since Americans tend to wait less for their treatment than Canadians, the difference between the cost of the Canadian system and the cost of the American system isn't as large as it looks on paper.

Thanks. Your chart sure does drive a huge whole through the US argument.

If one Googles US healthcare costs (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=us+healthcare+costs&meta=), there is some frightening statistics in there. US HMO's are making record profits and combined with increasing drug costs, and babyboomers retiring, US costs are going to get much worse.

Babyboomers retiring is a problem in both Europe and North America. The US aren't the only ones who have to figure out how to deal with increased health care and social security costs. I just hope we can do so gracefully.

Why does everyone always compare Canadian Healthcare to the American system? There are plenty of other countries out there, many of which have at least partially privatized healthcare systems, to which the Canadian system can be compared. The chart Equus provided shows pretty clearly that Canadains pay far less for their healthcare than Americans do, but we're still 5th from the top in terms of per capita spending. Why not try comparing Canada's system to some of the cheaper systems out there, like Australia's or France's or Sweden's? America's system doesn't have to be the model for privatized healthcare in Canada.

Also, when considering the costs of a healthcare system, waiting times have to be taken into account, because time is money. For instance, if a person can earn ten dollars an hour at work, but needs to go to the hospital for something and ends up waiting two hours for treatment, the trip to the hospital costs that person $20, in addition to whatever he or she might be paying for the actual treatment. It is difficult to calculate how much a nation "pays" into lost wages due to waiting lists, but I think that since Americans tend to wait less for their treatment than Canadians, the difference between the cost of the Canadian system and the cost of the American system isn't as large as it looks on paper.

Comparisons between US and Canadian health care happen mostly because:

a) Europeans don't usually jump into these threads to provide their perspective.
b) Most Canadians pushing for privatization encourage an American style system. European models rarely enter the debate.

But you're right, if Canada wants to improve its system, it should be studying western European as well as American models. I have no compunction against stealing the best elements from any system. :D

Do you have any health care implementation suggestions that you think Canada should adopt?

No, instead you price those scarce resources out of reach of the average person.

As for you, Aggretia, why don't you read an economics book by Joseph Heath? It might explain a few things to you -- like who is paying the hidden cost of not providing health care to the entire population.

When you consider economic policy you have to consider the economy as a whole, not as separate parts. When your government steals money from people to pay for health care they are using that money towards less immediate ends than health care, otherwise it would be spent on health care already. When you redistribute revenues from one sector of an economy to another you keep the economy from having what it as a whole values the most.

Health Care is a scarce resource, just like diamonds, or Bentleys, the fact that people desire health care more than they desire bentleys dosn't change the fact that not everyone is going to get health care for everything. Price is a way of rationing the scarce resource so that a kid with a splinter doesn't go into the emergency room instead of a man who lost two legs. This may not happen in Canada becuase of different methods of rationing, but for all we know, the kid values treatment much more than the man who lost two legs, price allows the rationing to be done according to the subjective valuation of the consumer as opposed to that of a third party.

Another thing you must realize is that noone has a right to the fullfillment of their desires, if I want a diamond, I sure as hell had better work for it. I may desire a diamond more than I desire treatment for cancer, your opinion of what is best for me is irrelevant. It is the individual's responsibility to gain the ability to fullfill his will and satisfy his desires. No objective knowledge of the value of anything is possible, to make a choice that health care for everyone is more valuable than anything else those resources would be used for necessitates waste, and in this situation gross waste.

The purpose of economic policy isn't to provide things you think people need, but to allow individuals to satisfy their desires to the best of their abilities.

Look, if you get cancer (for example) in Canada, you get treated. Period.

Okay, take out that period and replace it with a comma followed by the phrase "As long as you you don't die while on the waiting list". Then point out that, due to the long waiting lists for MRI scans in Canada, there is a distinct possibility that you might die before the doctors realize you have cancer, or be diagnosed only after it is too late for treatment.

The purpose of economic policy isn't to provide things you think people need, but to allow individuals to satisfy their desires to the best of their abilities.

That's not economic policy, Aggretia, that's ideology. Our ideology wants to provide health care to everyone. Neither is wrong in and of itself. I prefer one, you prefer the other.

Okay, take out that period and replace it with a comma followed by the phrase "As long as you you don't die while on the waiting list". Then point out that, due to the long waiting lists for MRI scans in Canada, there is a distinct possibility that you might die before the doctors realize you have cancer, or be diagnosed only after it is too late for treatment.

You tell me -- is that better or worse than not receiving health care at all?

Lack of MRI equipment actually is something we can throw money at (although that is not a solution I normally endorse): those hospitals with MRI waiting lists should be receiving the equipment they need.

The fact is that life expectancy in Canada is better than that in the US. It's better than life expectancy in Denmark and France, equivalent to the one in Sweden, and so on and so forth. Our citizens are not dying of cancer or any other disease or condition at a faster rate than those of other countries. In fact, its not major medical conditions that have wait lists in Canada. Its the minor surgeries that get bumped down the line, so that major surgeries can take place.

Which is why I advocate specialized surgical clinics for the most common not major surgeries, such as hip and knee replacements. That would reduce waiting lists overall as it takes the burden off larger, more generalized hospitals. And it can still be part of the public system.

Do you have any health care implementation suggestions that you think Canada should adopt?

Well, I would certainly lean toward privatization (As you may have guessed from my signature). I like the idea of at least having some private healthcare, even if we have to keep the public system, since that would allow people more choices when it comes to healthcare. It really seems strange to me that universal healthcare is often seen as some sort of divine institution that ought not even be questioned (like in the last couple of elections, when no party dared to even suggest tampering with it). We have public schools, but we also have private schools, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone say we should make private schools illegal so that all children will get the same basic education and so that teachers won't be lured away to the private sector. If two-tier education is acceptable, why is two-tier healthcare taboo?

Well, I would certainly lean toward privatization (As you may have guessed from my signature). I like the idea of at least having some private healthcare, even if we have to keep the public system, since that would allow people more choices when it comes to healthcare. It really seems strange to me that universal healthcare is often seen as some sort of divine institution that ought not even be questioned (like in the last couple of elections, when no party dared to even suggest tampering with it). We have public schools, but we also have private schools, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone say we should make private schools illegal so that all children will get the same basic education and so that teachers won't be lured away to the private sector. If two-tier education is acceptable, why is two-tier healthcare taboo?

Offhand? There are a surplus of teachers in Canada. (Anecdotal evidence from the number of trained teachers I know who are not working in their field or go teach in other countries because no teaching positions are available. I guess I should just go Google this.) There are enough to go around without depriving either system. Unfortunately, we can't say the same for doctors and nurses. And its not just Canada -- no nation in the world has enough health care professionals, which is why rich countries do their best to lure them away from their home countries. (The rightness of which is a whole different arguement, so let's not go there.)

We'd go a long way to alleviating the health care professional shortage in Canada if we were better at recognizing (or at least testing and accepting) the credentials of foreign medical practitioners who come to Canada. This is a very popular news item these days, so I'm not adding anything new to the discourse by saying DUH! let's allow these immigrants to use their skills! Talk about under-utilization; that sort of thing really cheezes me off.

Frankly, if there wasn't a world-wide shortage of healthcare professionals, I probably wouldn't be as leery about parallel private and public systems.

You tell me -- is that better or worse than not receiving health care at all?

It's better, but it is false to claim that all Canadian cancer victims (or victims of other diseases) receive treatment.

The fact is that life expectancy in Canada is better than that in the US. It's better than life expectancy in Denmark and France, equivalent to the one in Sweden, and so on and so forth.

But according to this website:

http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/BasicFactsheet____6856.aspx

Sweden has a partially privatized system, and according to the table you posted previously, they are paying less per capita for theirs than we are for ours. Why shouldn't we at least be considering a Swedish-style private/public health system instead of banning private care because of fear of the American system?

Sweden has a partially privatized system, and according to the table you posted previously, they are paying less per capita for theirs than we are for ours. Why shouldn't we at least be considering a Swedish-style private/public health system instead of banning private care because of fear of the American system?

Well, what are the aspects of the Swedish system that you think we should take? Given that Canada's public system ranks better and cheaper than a number of public-private systems, the mere act of privatization obviously isn't the solution in and of itself.

As I said before, I am happy to steal aspects of other successful implementations if they will improve Canada's system.

Anyway, Spartiala, I've enjoyed talking to you, but it's time I headed for bed. The older I get, the more sleep I need before work in the morning. :(

I'll try and check on this thread tomorrow.

Anyway, Spartiala, I've enjoyed talking to you, but it's time I headed for bed. The older I get, the more sleep I need before work in the morning. :(

I'll try and check on this thread tomorrow.

Yes, it was a pleasure meeting you. I always enjoy coming across a well-informed individual, even when that individual disagrees with me. I'm off to bed as well. I've got classes in the morning, and I've already spent far too much time on this forum.

His wife, Olivia Chow, has cancer. She didn't get any special treatment. But guess what, she received timely treatment. In fact, she could have received it sooner than she did, but she was in the middle of an election campaign at the time. She had this growth on her neck; if her scarf slipped it was visible. She had a number of doctors contact her after her appearances saying: "It appears you may have thyroid cancer, you should get that checked out."

And though I haven't met Olivia, I have met Jack Layton. He's a good guy, and his previous political history (former city councillor, former President of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities) is solid. That's better than I can say about other politicians I've met.

You appear to be unable to attack the numbers I provided, so now you are attacking politicians you know very little, if anything, about.
I told you I was looking for a flaw in the numbers. GDP percent alone just doesn't seem like a true measure of health care quality. There is a combination like GDP percent to hours in line that will be a better measure, but I haven't figured it out, yet.

Good for her. I have a friend that grew up in BC and he beat Hodgkins, despite the best efforts of the Canadian government to delay and mistreat. Fortunately, he's on his way to becoming a citizen of the US, so he doesn't have to depend on rationed scarcity as a substitute for medicine.

I wasn't attacking politicians as much as I was alluding to the special privileges they grant themselves. Our Congress is probably the biggest bunch of hypocrites in the world. They have the best medical care that the Army can provide, so they have far less interest in making the improvements that are needed to control costs here. Same goes for retirement pensions and about anything else that you can imagine.

Yes, the US system sure does have quite a few flaws alright. The biggest one is the exclusion of 45 Million citizens from basic healthcare.

Just think for a minute, does everyone _need_ wall-to-wall health care? Of course not. When I started my consulting business, I just carried cheap major medical insurance policy. I found a doctor that was happy to take cash and avoid the delays and paperwork that are rampant with insurance. He gave me a discount because of the reduced effort on his account clerk.

Most single and probably most married families don't need health insurance as much as they need major medical, so the idea that 45 million people don't have insurance isn't as bad as it seems. Even the ones with absolutely nothing can go to a charity hospital and get treated for a couple bucks.

Your basic argument has been shown to be flawed quite often. Maybe that's why you're tired of arguing this.

As for your claim that your way is the only way, many a great Economics Major has told us that nationalized healthcare is feasible. So, I'm sorry but I won't listen to your arguments because, as far as I know, you are not well versed in Economics.
And a lot of economists will tell you that communism will work too, if only given a chance in a perfect world. Well it won't and price controls won't. One doesn't even have to be an economist to see that. I, as a lowly physicist, can see that when there are price controls on gasoline, there are shortages. When there are wage controls on workers, there are shortages of workers. It doesn't take an economist to notice that. In fact, there isn't any evidence that price and wage controls have _ever_ worked to the achieve ends for which they were meant. All the controls have ever done is to create scarcity.

And so it is with medical care. It's just another service that relies on the same rules for production and consumption as meat and gas. Setting price and wage controls will just result in long lines and shortages of professionals. But isn't that what's happened in Quebec? So unless your head is buried in the sand, you must agree that you have heard about these conditions. This is the result of "free" medical care. Rationed scarcity.

And a lot of economists will tell you that communism will work too, if only given a chance in a perfect world. Well it won't and price controls won't. One doesn't even have to be an economist to see that. I, as a lowly physicist, can see that when there are price controls on gasoline, there are shortages. When there are wage controls on workers, there are shortages of workers. It doesn't take an economist to notice that. In fact, there isn't any evidence that price and wage controls have _ever_ worked to the achieve ends for which they were meant. All the controls have ever done is to create scarcity.

And so it is with medical care. It's just another service that relies on the same rules for production and consumption as meat and gas. Setting price and wage controls will just result in long lines and shortages of professionals. But isn't that what's happened in Quebec? So unless your head is buried in the sand, you must agree that you have heard about these conditions. This is the result of "free" medical care. Rationed scarcity.

Funny, we don't seem to be missing any electricity (nationalized), medecine (price-controled), healthcare (price-controled, mostly nationalized) or any other goods that are price-controled.

Hell, I could go so far as to say price control actually works the way it is intended. So we come to this: one case of personnal observations for and one case against. So who is right? Why should I believe your observations over mine?

It's better, but it is false to claim that all Canadian cancer victims (or victims of other diseases) receive treatment.



But according to this website:

http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/BasicFactsheet____6856.aspx

Sweden has a partially privatized system, and according to the table you posted previously, they are paying less per capita for theirs than we are for ours. Why shouldn't we at least be considering a Swedish-style private/public health system instead of banning private care because of fear of the American system?


The issue is generally of what sectors the private industry caters to.

Canada has NEVER had total coverage. There was always the differentiation between required care and elective care. For example, except for cases of reconstruction required after accident or other medical procedure plastic surgery has never been covered. Which is to say that they'll put in a false breast if you loseone to cancer, but won't give you bigger ones to shake on the dance floor.

So those industries have always had a private component in Canda.

Now my issue is that the bulk of the privatization lately has dealt with diagnostics that the government has been slow to fund. Technological advances have been rapid and expensive, and so the private sector stepped in to things like the MRI business as it has taken time for the pblic system to purchase enough of them to meet demand.

At this point I object as I firmly believe that medical care IS a neccessary service that should be univversal, and that the first step in treatment is diagnosis. When poor people can't afford to get the immediate tests that rich people can, then the medical system is failing its mandate.


But if rich people want bigger tits, I say let them. Many of em are big boobs anyway... might as well look the part!
:D

Funny, we don't seem to be missing any electricity (nationalized), medecine (price-controled), healthcare (price-controled, mostly nationalized) or any other goods that are price-controled.

Hell, I could go so far as to say price control actually works the way it is intended. So we come to this: one case of personnal observations for and one case against. So who is right? Why should I believe your observations over mine?
You should give more weight to my observations because I'm right and I can spell.

Way back in the last discussion over the Quebec decision, I had a lot to say. I'll say the same thing now. One of the tricks I've learned has been to save decent posts in a file so that I can repost them as the attention span of NS wanes. Unfortunately, the links don't copy and paste, so I've tried to reconstruct them.


The Fraser Institute, a Vancouver, B.C.-based think tank, has done a solid job keeping track of Canada's socialized health-care system. It has just come out with its 13th annual waiting-list survey. It shows that the average time a patient waited between referral from a general practitioner to treatment rose from 16.5 weeks in 2001-02 to 17.7 weeks in 2003. Saskatchewan had the longest average waiting time of nearly 30 weeks, while Ontario had the shortest, 14 weeks. Waiting lists also exist for diagnostic procedures such as CT scans, MRIs and ultrasound. Depending on what province and the particular diagnostic procedure, the waiting times can range from two to 24 weeks.

But wait. There's more. The waiting times for procedures are so long, that some patients die while waiting for treatment. In a report (http://ff.org/centers/ccfsp/pdf/CCSFP-PP-Winter-03.pdf) called, "Access Denied: Canada's Healthcare System Turns Patients Into Victims," in some instances, patients die on the waiting list because they become too sick to tolerate a procedure. The article goes on to say that hip-replacement patients often end up non-ambulatory while waiting an average of 20 weeks for the procedure, after having waited 13 weeks just to see the specialist. Add this with waiting to get diagnostic scans and then waiting for the radiologist to read them, and you have just arrived in Cleveland—the hipreplacement capital of Canada.

But wait. There's even more. Adding to Canada's medical problems is the exodus of doctors. By reading the report above, we can see that about 10,000 doctors left Canada during the 1990s. Compounding the exodus of doctors is the drop in medical school graduates. According to the Canadian Medical Association, there were only1,530 medical school graduates in 2002—the lowestnumber since the 1970s. Lastly, the report shows that Ontario has chosen to resort to using nurses to replace its bolting doctors. It's "creating" 369 new positions for nurse practitioners to take up the slack for the doctor shortage. This despite the anticipated shortage of 78,000 nurses by 2011.

Now we get back to my point about price controls and scarcity. A service can be free to the user, but that doesn't mean it has a zero cost. The problem with a good or service having a zero price is that demand is going to exceed supply. When price isn't allowed to make demand equal supply, other measures must be taken. One way to distribute the demand over a given supply is through queuing -- making people wait.

In conclusion, you certainly do have a problem with supplying all the "free" medical care that is demanded. The waiting times are a serious effect of the zero price affixed to care. The doctor shortages are another effect of the wage ceilings that are applied to their practices. Neither is being solved by continued "free" care. Only the Supreme Court has had the wisdom to allow the free market enter into the fray.

You should give more weight to my observations because I'm right and I can spell.
Seeing as english is not my first language, I think I spell alright. But, please, tell me where I made mistakes so I can correct them in the future.

And saying "I'm right" does not make you right. Why should I disregard my own observation for someone who's only credential is that he thinks he's right?

Way back in the last discussion over the Quebec decision, I had a lot to say. I'll say the same thing now. One of the tricks I've learned has been to save decent posts in a file so that I can repost them as the attention span of NS wanes. Unfortunately, the links don't copy and paste, so I've tried to reconstruct them.


In conclusion, you certainly do have a problem with supplying all the "free" medical care that is demanded. The waiting times are a serious effect of the zero price affixed to care. The doctor shortages are another effect of the wage ceilings that are applied to their practices. Neither is being solved by continued "free" care. Only the Supreme Court has had the wisdom to allow the free market enter into the fray.
And if I recall correctly we told you that the Fraser institute is a think tank that can argue one thing one day and the reverse the next. We also said that they were painting a far bleaker picture that it actually is.

And I would say that we have about the same problems supplying all the medical care that is demanded as a great many systems out there. I fail to see how a private parallel system would help. But, please, enlighten me again about how right you are and how we are all failing to see what is obvious since we are living it and you are way down there, in your comfortable piece of land that has no problem and have absolutely no nationalized program whatsoever.

...snip...

Oh wait, in 2004, more doctors returned to Canada then left. Yes, that's "returned". As in doctors who left and came back. Those numbers don't include doctors who came to Canada for the first time.

The Fraser Institute works hard at making universal healthcare sound bad. Those stats they show are an average of ALL waiting lists. But Canadian health care prioritizes. Those who need major surgery, such as a bypass get treatment sooner, while the poor bugger with the dicky knee has to wait longer.

Wait list info in many provinces is publically available.

Here's the Saskatchewan list:

http://www.sasksurgery.ca/wait-list-info.html

Oh look, 96% of appendectomies are performed within 24 hrs.
96% of vascular access surgeries are perfomed within 3 weeks.
Nothing has an average wait of 17 weeks.

Here's the BC list:

http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/waitlist/

Unfortunately this site isn't the same format as Saskatchewan's so it's not easy to compare data. I gotta say I prefer the Sask format.

Anyway, none of those sites show an average wait time of 17 weeks for anything -- and your post says that Saskatchewan was the worst! Has Sask improved so much since 2002, or has the Fraser Institute been mucking with numbers again?

Seeing as english is not my first language, I think I spell alright. But, please, tell me where I made mistakes so I can correct them in the future.

It was a little barb. The misspelled word was "personnal". Should be "personal".

And saying "I'm right" does not make you right. Why should I disregard my own observation for someone who's only credential is that he thinks he's right?


And if I recall correctly we told you that the Fraser institute is a think tank that can argue one thing one day and the reverse the next. We also said that they were painting a far bleaker picture that it actually is.

And I would say that we have about the same problems supplying all the medical care that is demanded as a great many systems out there. I fail to see how a private parallel system would help. But, please, enlighten me again about how right you are and how we are all failing to see what is obvious since we are living it and you are way down there, in your comfortable piece of land that has no problem and have absolutely no nationalized program whatsoever.
Think tank or not, they collected some pretty damning statistics that I've never see refuted. Except by disparaging the source, as you have just done. Further validation of their report is found in the Supreme Court decision that struck down the Quebec government only Medicare plans. The plaintiff argument was that the waits were too long and patients were dying. The court agreed that prompt medical care was a right and that it was not being provided by the government.

The plaintiff argument was that the waits were too long and patients were dying. The court agreed that prompt medical care was a right and that it was not being provided by the government.

The plaintiff may have argued that, but his problem was a bad knee. He may have won the case, but he wasn't dying. He was complaining because he was expected to wait longer because dying people had a higher priority for surgery than he.

And you're right - he shouldn't have had to wait. As I've said at least twice before in this thread, Canada needs to set up specialized surgical clinics to deal with minor surgeries like knee and hip replacements. That would take some pressure off of wait lists, and there's no particular need for those clinics to be privatized.

Think tank or not, they collected some pretty damning statistics that I've never see refuted.

No? Please see my post - #74.

One of the tricks I've learned has been to save decent posts in a file so that I can repost them as the attention span of NS wanes.
You'ren't alone, but my links should still work. Here goes:



The proof, in health care at least, stacks up against you.

Let's look at some numbers:
Annual Medical Cost for "American Family of Four" Is $12,214 (http://www.milliman.com/).
That's $3053.50 (US) per American.

41 billion dollars for the entire Canadian population in 2005 (http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget03/images/bpc3_1e.gif).
That's $1171.43 (Cdn) per Canadian.

Adjust the Canadian figures for exchange rates (http://www.x-rates.com/d/USD/CAD/graph120.html).
That's $990.90 (US) per Canadian.

Basically, Americans, when they're covered at all, pay three times more than Canadians for that coverage.

Now consider the WHO's ranking (http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_systems.html).
That puts Canada 30th and The United States 37th.

Wondering what that chart means and where I got it?
It's the UN's World Health Report for 2000 (http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_annex_en.pdf), which you can go through if you like to check how they reached their conclusions.

A lot of people seem to forget that the federal government is not only almost doubling it's funding for health care over this decade (this link again (http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget03/images/bpc3_1e.gif)), but it's also still running a surplus, which gives us plenty of room to adress any problems that come along. That UN health report was made in 2000, and things have only gotten better in Canada for health care since that time.

But the gov't will do whatever sucks most.
Best. Quote. Ever! :fluffle:

This is kind of interesting stuff. I actually like the BC data in the second link better because it is easier to understand.
Let's look at some procedures in BC.
Procedure Patients Waiting Completions in previous 3 months
Hip Repl 2825 823
Cardiac 414 319
Cataract 12467 8128
Vascular 784 1052

This isn't exhaustive, but it is good enough. Probably more representative of a populated area. Saskatchewan is about as populated and Montana and the Dakotas, so I don't know how it figures compared to metropolitan regions.

Emergencies should be treated immediately. No one ever suggested that anything other than that happens. The prioritization is where the system falls apart. Obviously, people are waiting in BC for hip replacement surgery. Looks like they are waiting for cardiac and cataract surgery, too. Not for vascular surgery, though, and that's probably good.

But didn't the Canadian government, itself, say that waits were too long in Quebec? Why they certainly did. That's what the whole court case was about. The court did certainly find that the Canadian citizen's right to prompt healthcare was violated by the government only Medicare system that was instituted by the Quebec government. Or as the CBC says, "As a result of delays in receiving tests and surgeries, patients have suffered and even died in some cases, justices Beverley McLachlin, Jack Major, Michel Bastarache and Marie Deschamps found for the majority". Pretty persuasive stuff.

As far as the doctors returning, a whopping 317 returned last year, compared to the 262 that left. That's a net gain of 55. Pretty impressive. More impressive, though are the long term numbers. A CIHI report shows "that the number of doctors across the country rose by five per cent between 2000 and 2004 - to 60,612 from 57,803."

The report continues to give rosy news by pointing out "growth in the country's population kept pace during that period, leaving the number of doctors per 100,000 residents relatively stable - a status quo that has not made it easier for Canadians to find a family physician or get access to a specialist". I guess you have to find solace where it's available.

Tag, you're it.

Oh wait, in 2004, more doctors returned to Canada then left. Yes, that's "returned". As in doctors who left and came back. Those numbers don't include doctors who came to Canada for the first time.

The Fraser Institute works hard at making universal healthcare sound bad. Those stats they show are an average of ALL waiting lists. But Canadian health care prioritizes. Those who need major surgery, such as a bypass get treatment sooner, while the poor bugger with the dicky knee has to wait longer.

Wait list info in many provinces is publically available.

Here's the Saskatchewan list:

http://www.sasksurgery.ca/wait-list-info.html

Oh look, 96% of appendectomies are performed within 24 hrs.
96% of vascular access surgeries are perfomed within 3 weeks.
Nothing has an average wait of 17 weeks.

Here's the BC list:

http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/waitlist/

Unfortunately this site isn't the same format as Saskatchewan's so it's not easy to compare data. I gotta say I prefer the Sask format.

Anyway, none of those sites show an average wait time of 17 weeks for anything -- and your post says that Saskatchewan was the worst! Has Sask improved so much since 2002, or has the Fraser Institute been mucking with numbers again?

The plaintiff may have argued that, but his problem was a bad knee. He may have won the case, but he wasn't dying. He was complaining because he was expected to wait longer because dying people had a higher priority for surgery than he.

And you're right - he shouldn't have had to wait. As I've said at least twice before in this thread, Canada needs to set up specialized surgical clinics to deal with minor surgeries like knee and hip replacements. That would take some pressure off of wait lists, and there's no particular need for those clinics to be privatized.
Specialized clinics would be great, but the reason that there are waits for orthopedic surgery to begin with is that there aren't enough specialists. Building a new clinic and waiting for the doctors is a nice idea, but it only works in Kevin Costner baseball movies

I don't think that the amount, alone, spent on health care is a valid indicator of the quality that the patient receives. If that was true, then Soviet Russia would have been a healthcare paradise. So would Cuba. But I wouldn't want to get a cold in either place, let alone have heart surgery.

You'ren't alone, but my links should still work. Here goes:



The proof, in health care at least, stacks up against you.

Let's look at some numbers:
Annual Medical Cost for "American Family of Four" Is $12,214 (http://www.milliman.com/).
That's $3053.50 (US) per American.

41 billion dollars for the entire Canadian population in 2005 (http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget03/images/bpc3_1e.gif).
That's $1171.43 (Cdn) per Canadian.

Adjust the Canadian figures for exchange rates (http://www.x-rates.com/d/USD/CAD/graph120.html).
That's $990.90 (US) per Canadian.

Basically, Americans, when they're covered at all, pay three times more than Canadians for that coverage.

Now consider the WHO's ranking (http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_systems.html).
That puts Canada 30th and The United States 37th.

Wondering what that chart means and where I got it?
It's the UN's World Health Report for 2000 (http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_annex_en.pdf), which you can go through if you like to check how they reached their conclusions.

A lot of people seem to forget that the federal government is not only almost doubling it's funding for health care over this decade (this link again (http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget03/images/bpc3_1e.gif)), but it's also still running a surplus, which gives us plenty of room to adress any problems that come along. That UN health report was made in 2000, and things have only gotten better in Canada for health care since that time.

Specialized clinics would be great, but the reason that there are waits for orthopedic surgery to begin with is that there aren't enough specialists. Building a new clinic and waiting for the doctors is a nice idea, but it only works in Kevin Costner baseball movies

If there aren't enough doctors for specialized clinics, where do the doctors for a parallel privatized system come from?

Anyway, at the moment there actually are a lack of surgical rooms. Surgeries are operating 24/7 in some places. Some provinces seem to think that closing major urban hospitals is a good cost cutting measure. :rolleyes: (For example, the hospital in Delta, BC (part of Greater Vancouver) was a typical modern hospital with excellent facilities that the BC Liberals closed for 'duplicating services available elsewhere in Vancouver' -- and then couldn't seem to understand why wait lists lengthened. Dumbasses. We need to improve health care, not make it worse. Bloody politicians.)

Have you read post #74 yet?

Last question first. Yes, and I thought I responded in #80.

Yes, if there is a way to screw up something, a politician can do it.

Last, the doctors have to choose where they are going to practice. It's like the Medicaid/Medicare system, here. Well not really, but close. Some docs don't accept M/M claims because they don't like the red tape that goes with them. Plus the fees are fixed and not always sufficient to cover the docs costs. Some do accept M/M claims and they probably provide commensurate treatment. Not bad, not great, just sufficient.

My doc is one that doesn't accept M/M, nor does he participate in any HMO. I have to pay him and then file the claim. But I get good service. It's just one of those "life's not fair" things I talked about earlier.

If there aren't enough doctors for specialized clinics, where do the doctors for a parallel privatized system come from?

Anyway, at the moment there actually are a lack of surgical rooms. Surgeries are operating 24/7 in some places. Some provinces seem to think that closing major urban hospitals is a good cost cutting measure. :rolleyes: (For example, the hospital in Delta, BC (part of Greater Vancouver) was a typical modern hospital with excellent facilities that the BC Liberals closed for 'duplicating services available elsewhere in Vancouver' -- and then couldn't seem to understand why wait lists lengthened. Dumbasses. We need to improve health care, not make it worse. Bloody politicians.)

Have you read post #74 yet?

Sorry, somehow I missed your response. I apologize.

You'ren't alone, but my links should still work. Here goes:



The proof, in health care at least, stacks up against you.

Let's look at some numbers:
Annual Medical Cost for "American Family of Four" Is $12,214 (http://www.milliman.com/).
That's $3053.50 (US) per American.

41 billion dollars for the entire Canadian population in 2005 (http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget03/images/bpc3_1e.gif).
That's $1171.43 (Cdn) per Canadian.

Adjust the Canadian figures for exchange rates (http://www.x-rates.com/d/USD/CAD/graph120.html).
That's $990.90 (US) per Canadian.

Basically, Americans, when they're covered at all, pay three times more than Canadians for that coverage.

Now consider the WHO's ranking (http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_systems.html).
That puts Canada 30th and The United States 37th.

Wondering what that chart means and where I got it?
It's the UN's World Health Report for 2000 (http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_annex_en.pdf), which you can go through if you like to check how they reached their conclusions.

A lot of people seem to forget that the federal government is not only almost doubling it's funding for health care over this decade (this link again (http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget03/images/bpc3_1e.gif)), but it's also still running a surplus, which gives us plenty of room to adress any problems that come along. That UN health report was made in 2000, and things have only gotten better in Canada for health care since that time.
Excellent post and awesome research!! :)

My doc is one that doesn't accept M/M, nor does he participate in any HMO. I have to pay him and then file the claim. But I get good service. It's just one of those "life's not fair" things I talked about earlier.

Life's not fair, you say?

You're right. That's why I don't feel it's necessary for people with money to be able to skip the queue.

You're essentially claiming that it's not fair for a wealthy person to have to wait for treatment like everybody else. I'm claiming that it's unfair for a wealthy person to get preference. And I think it's particularly unfair when some people can't get any treatment at all.

We all have to choose the level of unfairness we're willing to accept.

As for the case in Quebec: it's not that the guy with the bad hip (I said knee earlier, that was wrong) was never going to get treatment. The question was how long a wait was reasonable. The judges in Quebec determined that his wait was indeed unreasonable. They gave their legal opinion that the man had a right to healthcare within a reasonable timeframe. That is all. I don't think any of us can argue with that basic conclusion. I can't, and I doubt that you would.

That opened up the option of further privatization of services. But privatization in and of itself is not a pancea for the ills of the healthcare system. A parallel private system does not immediately increase the number of available doctors and nurses. It doesn't solve the problem of keeping health care professionals in northern and rural communities.

Yes, Canada needs to look at other models and see what implementations work. In the meantime, our health stats still rank pretty highly when compared to other modern western nations, but there is always room for improvement.

The reason our arguments keep coming back to the cost of our healthcare system is because our politicians keep shouting about how expensive it is. And yet, our system is less expensive than some other countries. Right wing think tanks like the Fraser Institute blow wait lists out of proportion. I'm not saying that there aren't wait lists, I am saying that median wait times are much better than the 17 weeks (with "Saskatchewan being the worst") claimed by the Fraser Institute.

It's not that I am vehemently against privatization of health care services per say - I have not advocated placing my chiropractor under the universal health care program, although I could make a case for dentistry - but I want to see a well-thought out, structured plan based on "best-of-breed" practices and implementations from other countries to make the best system possible - and one that ensures that health care is available to all Canadians.

Just opening the door to privatization and yelling "GO! GO! GO!" Isn't going to solve our problems and could very easily make things worse.

It is an absolutely true statement when one says that no process is immune to the need for improvement. It is especially true for the process of providing medical services. One other thing that is absolutely true is that medical care and the method of delivery to the recipients is too important to leave to politicians alone.

Now, let's go have a drink.

It is an absolutely true statement when one says that no process is immune to the need for improvement. It is especially true for the process of providing medical services. One other thing that is absolutely true is that medical care and the method of delivery to the recipients is too important to leave to politicians alone.

Now, let's go have a drink.

:D Sounds like a plan.

I don't think that the amount, alone, spent on health care is a valid indicator of the quality that the patient receives. If that was true, then Soviet Russia would have been a healthcare paradise. So would Cuba. But I wouldn't want to get a cold in either place, let alone have heart surgery.
I'm not saying that this is a sign of the strength or weakness of the health care system. Rather, I'm saying that the Canadian government can certainly afford to spend more on health care without it being too much of a burden. In fact, that's what it's doing right now.

Amazing that a thread debating NDP healthcare policy can go for 6 pages and a thread debating the effectiveness for Stephen Harper dies a quick death for lack of anyone to support his case against uniform criticism. :D

We're strange like that.

Amazing that a thread debating NDP healthcare policy can go for 6 pages and a thread debating the effectiveness for Stephen Harper dies a quick death for lack of anyone to support his case against uniform criticism. :D
I looked at the thread on Harper. I don't know much more about him than I was able to read in a short bio. What I notice about a lot of threads is that they turn into mutual admiration society meetings. When everyone agrees on something, it isn't much fun to discuss it. Here, we had a decent discussion. There, no one chimed in with an opposing viewpoint. I do wonder where the Canadian conservatives are, though. I've heard one or two exist.

I've heard one or two exist.

And we're still hoping to change that to none. :)

And we're still hoping to change that to none. :)
Meh, I can stand to have fiscal conservatives around. *points at Paul Martin* It's the social conservatives I can't stand.

And we're still hoping to change that to none. :)
Yeah, last time I checked, they were in line for a green card. :)

Yep. If you guys just want conservative folk we'd happily take the whole West Coast off your hands.

Yep. If you guys just want conservative folk we'd happily take the whole West Coast off your hands.
How about trading our West coast for your West coast? I've always liked Victoria better than Seattle and Vancouver better than L.A./San Diego.

Meh, I can stand to have fiscal conservatives around. *points at Paul Martin* It's the social conservatives I can't stand.

That's basically where I sit. Though Paul Martin is not my choice.

I think the reason no one in NS is leaping up to defend Stephen Harper is:

o There are fewer Canadian conservatives on this board than Canadian progressives.

o Even the Conservatives are divided on whether or not Harper should stay.

How about trading our West coast for your West coast? I've always liked Victoria better than Seattle and Vancouver better than L.A./San Diego.

But Victoria and Vancouver are full of liberals! That doesn't sound like you, Myrmidonisia. In fact, if you took Victoria, you'd have to put up with me ALL the time! ;)

Shutting down or limiting an entire industry because it works better than the government-funded one is not just a violation of fundamental economic principles, but is also intellectual dishonesty at it's most egregious form. I have no problem with a government who gives the poor and the disadvantaged a chance at quality health care, but that is a quantum leap from such lame-brained dog-in-the-manger logic. Canadians should respond by trying to make their national health care system better, instead of raging because private health care is more desirable for certain people.

well unfair or not people should be able to make their own choices, whats next? martial law?

well unfair or not people should be able to make their own choices, whats next? martial law?
Nope. Traffic Lights.

"I say I should get to choose whether or not I go through the intersection!"

But Victoria and Vancouver are full of liberals! That doesn't sound like you, Myrmidonisia. In fact, if you took Victoria, you'd have to put up with me ALL the time! ;)
So are Seattle and SoCal. The difference is that I was always a visitor to BC, never a resident. I really liked the airshows at Abbotsford. When I was stationed at Whidbey Island NAS, I flew an A-6 Intruder in for a static display one year. Drove to see a pal in the Blue Angles another year.

Shutting down or limiting an entire industry because it works better than the government-funded one is not just a violation of fundamental economic principles, but is also intellectual dishonesty at it's most egregious form. I have no problem with a government who gives the poor and the disadvantaged a chance at quality health care, but that is a quantum leap from such lame-brained dog-in-the-manger logic. Canadians should respond by trying to make their national health care system better, instead of raging because private health care is more desirable for certain people.
But the whole point of having a nationalized system to is create a mynopsyny on the behalf of the people to demand lower costs from big businesses like pharmaceutical companies that could otherwise gouge the Canadian citizen by taking advantage of their desperation in the areas of health. The demand for health is too inelastic for the government to just do nothing about it. A private system would destroy this bargaining ability, like scabs who work in a strike.

"I say I should get to choose whether or not I go through the intersection!"

thats a government law to save lives, who is gonna die by going to a private hospital? if you've been in the public hospital you would see how bad it gets, i get in there and they know that i can pass out if left too long without help, i wait three hours, now i would like a choice, if you dont like having a choice, move to china

thats a government law to save lives, who is gonna die by going to a private hospital? if you've been in the public hospital you would see how bad it gets, i get in there and they know that i can pass out if left too long without help, i wait three hours, now i would like a choice, if you dont like having a choice, move to china
If we open private hospitals, the cost of medical care for impoverished Canadians will go up as Canada loses control over the system and is forced to pay medical personal and drug companies more. I'm friends with a lot of very wealthy people with Canadian doctors for parents, but that doesn't mean that their parents wouldn't jump at a pay increase if they could. Anyone would. Basically, if we let private systems in, the government is forced to compete with a profit driven organization for its resources, which will make those resources more costly as two entities compete for their business and make health care cost more for lower income Canadians (or all Canadians in the form of taxation really).

If we open private hospitals, the cost of medical care for impoverished Canadians will go up as Canada loses control over the system and is forced to pay medical personal and drug companies more. I'm friends with a lot of very wealthy people with Canadian doctors for parents, but that doesn't mean that their parents wouldn't jump at a pay increase if they could. Anyone would. Basically, if we let private systems in, the government is forced to compete with a profit driven organization for its resources, which will make those resources more costly as two entities compete for their business and make health care cost more for lower income Canadians (or all Canadians in the form of taxation really).

even so people should be able to choose if they want, democracy doesnt apply only when we want it to

even so people should be able to choose if they want, democracy doesnt apply only when we want it to

I agree. The majority of Canadians support the current system.

and the minority should still have a choice

The minority's choice would cause taxes to go up and for poor people to suffer as I explained above. I say people should only be free to make their own choices when those choices don't hurt others.

I realise that I am entering this discussion a little on the late side...and for those of you who wondered where the conservatives are in Canada, what about the person who started this thread, NS Canada City? I notice that NS left the board rapidly after Equus et al began their deliberations on how to make Canada perfect.
Actually, there has been a very quiet two tiered system in place for a long time. The Shouldice clinic in Toronto, for an example, is not part of the public system to my knowledge. I think this creeping privatisation is being addressed only now by politicians like Jack Layton...who is a capital fellow in my view. I'm all for making the system better and I read all of Equus' statistics with interest. Thank you for the intelligent discourse...all of you, I'm sorry that I can only remember Equus' name, I know that there were many other participants.

I believe that in a civilised society, citizens deserve health. It's not something I've ever questioned. My desire to favour Canada above America makes me incredibly biased on the matter, but when I read that 45 million people are not insured in the US, I blanch. How can a country that says it is the greatest nation on earth...the most free, the most happy - blah blah blah, treat a high percentage of it's citizens with such reckless contempt? I suppose I badmouth the US because it is really darn convenient, but I do go to Europe about twice a year (I travel a lot) and all my friends who live in Europe, in different nations, never complain about their healthcare systems, but my US friends do.

Question: Why do the liberals produce leaders that resemble cadavers?

Thanks for the reading!

But the whole point of having a nationalized system to is create a mynopsyny on the behalf of the people to demand lower costs from big businesses like pharmaceutical companies that could otherwise gouge the Canadian citizen by taking advantage of their desperation in the areas of health. The demand for health is too inelastic for the government to just do nothing about it. A private system would destroy this bargaining ability, like scabs who work in a strike.

If we open private hospitals, the cost of medical care for impoverished Canadians will go up as Canada loses control over the system and is forced to pay medical personal and drug companies more. I'm friends with a lot of very wealthy people with Canadian doctors for parents, but that doesn't mean that their parents wouldn't jump at a pay increase if they could. Anyone would. Basically, if we let private systems in, the government is forced to compete with a profit driven organization for its resources, which will make those resources more costly as two entities compete for their business and make health care cost more for lower income Canadians (or all Canadians in the form of taxation really).

I doubt this fear is at all justified, with the largest private system in the world just to the south of Canada. If Canada's national system can compete with THAT, I think it will do just fine competing with a few private hospitals. Besides, on what grounds would a private licensed doctor's prescription not be able to be filled under the public system? Makes no sense to me.

well unfair or not people should be able to make their own choices, whats next? martial law?

You still get choice. You choose which doctor, clinic, emergency room, or alternative care you get. You choose whether or not to undergo surgery and you choose whether to accept medical treatment.

You can even choose, as people in many other nations do, to travel to another country for treatment.

The only thing you can't choose is the method of payment for medical care while in Canada. And, as a matter of fact, you can't choose that in the States either, since apparently you can't choose a taxpayer funded option (under most circumstances).

Seems like you have a whole lot of health care choices there, Captain2.