Canada's private health care surge.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ripclawe

Banned
The looking the other way policy may catch up to them in the long run, but interesting read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/i...canada.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
As Canada's Slow-Motion Public Health System Falters, Private Medical Care Is Surging
By CLIFFORD KRAUSS

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Feb. 23 — The Cambie Surgery Center, Canada's most prominent private hospital, may be considered a rogue enterprise.

Accepting money from patients for operations they would otherwise receive free of charge in a public hospital is technically prohibited in this country, even in cases where patients would wait months or even years in discomfort before receiving treatment.

But no one is about to arrest Dr. Brian Day, who is president and medical director of the center, or any of the 120 doctors who work there. Public hospitals are sending him growing numbers of patients they are too busy to treat, and his center is advertising that patients do not have to wait to replace their aching knees.

The country's publicly financed health insurance system — frequently described as the third rail of its political system and a core value of its national identity — is gradually breaking down. Private clinics are opening around the country by an estimated one a week, and private insurance companies are about to find a gold mine.

Dr. Day, for instance, is planning to open more private hospitals, first in Toronto and Ottawa, then in Montreal, Calgary and Edmonton. Ontario provincial officials are already threatening stiff fines. Dr. Day says he is eager to see them in court.

"We've taken the position that the law is illegal," Dr. Day, 59, says. "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years."

Dr. Day may be a rebel (he keeps a photograph of himself with Fidel Castro behind his desk), but he appears to be on top of a new wave in Canada's health care future. He is poised to become the president of the Canadian Medical Association next year, and his profitable Vancouver hospital is serving as a model for medical entrepreneurs in several provinces.

Canada remains the only industrialized country that outlaws privately financed purchases of core medical services. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other politicians remain reluctant to openly propose sweeping changes even though costs for the national and provincial governments are exploding and some cancer patients are waiting months for diagnostic tests and treatment.

But a Supreme Court ruling last June — it found that a Quebec provincial ban on private health insurance was unconstitutional when patients were suffering and even dying on waiting lists — appears to have become a turning point for the entire country.

"The prohibition on obtaining private health insurance is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services," the court ruled.

In response, the Quebec premier, Jean Charest, proposed this month to allow private hospitals to subcontract hip, knee and cataract surgery to private clinics when patients are unable to be treated quickly enough under the public system. The premiers of British Columbia and Alberta have suggested they will go much further to encourage private health services and insurance in legislation they plan to propose in the next few months.

Private doctors across the country are not waiting for changes in the law, figuring provincial governments will not try to stop them only to face more test cases in the Supreme Court.

One Vancouver-based company launched a large for-profit family medical clinic specializing in screening and preventive medicine here last November. It is planning to set up three similar clinics — in Toronto, Ottawa and London, Ontario — next summer and nine more in several other cities by the end of 2007. Private diagnostic clinics offering MRI tests are opening around the country.

Canadian leaders continue to reject the largely market-driven American system, with its powerful private insurance companies and 40 million people left uninsured, as they look to European mixed public-private health insurance and delivery systems.

"Why are we so afraid to look at mixed health care delivery models when other states in Europe and around the world have used them to produce better results for patients at a lower cost to taxpayers?" the premier of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell, asked in a speech two weeks ago.

While proponents of private clinics say they will shorten waiting lists and quicken service at public institutions, critics warn that they will drain the public system of doctors and nurses. Canada has a national doctor shortage already, with 1.4 million people in the province of Ontario alone without the services of a family doctor.

"If anesthetists go to work in a private clinic," Manitoba's health minister, Tim Sale, argued recently, "the work that they were doing in the public sector is spread among fewer and fewer people."

But most Canadians agree that current wait times are not acceptable.

The median wait time between a referral by a family doctor and an appointment with a specialist has increased to 8.3 weeks last year from 3.7 weeks in 1993, according to a recent study by The Fraser Institute, a conservative research group. Meanwhile the median wait between appointment with a specialist and treatment has increased to 9.4 weeks from 5.6 weeks over the same period.

Average wait times between referral by a family doctor and treatment range from 5.5 weeks for oncology to 40 weeks for orthopedic surgery, according to the study.

Last December, provincial health ministers unveiled new targets for cutting wait times, including four weeks for radiation therapy for cancer patients beginning when doctors consider them ready for treatment and 26 weeks for hip replacements.

But few experts think that will stop the trend toward privatization.

Dr. Day's hospital here opened in 1996 with 30 doctors and three operating rooms, treating mostly police officers, members of the military and worker's compensation clients, who are still allowed to seek treatment outside the public insurance system. It took several years to turn a profit.

Today the center is twice its original size and has yearly revenue of more than $8 million, mostly from perfectly legal procedures.

Over the last 18 months, the hospital has been under contract by overburdened local hospitals to perform knee, spine and gynecological operations on more than 1,000 patients. Since the Supreme Court ruling in June, it began treating patients unwilling to wait on waiting lists and willing to pay their own money.

Now Dr. Day says he is considering building a full-service private hospital somewhere in Canada with a private medical school attached to it.

"In a free and democratic society where you can spend money on gambling and alcohol and tobacco," Dr. Day said, "the state has no business preventing you and me from spending our own money on health care."
 
im basing this purely on a conversation i had with a canadian on xbox live...canada's free health care is pretty much garbage (which seems to be the point of this article).

pretty interesting.
 
Joe said:
im basing this purely on a conversation i had with a canadian on xbox live...canada's free health care is pretty much garbage (which seems to be the point of this article).

pretty interesting.

It is actually really great unless you need a serious operation. Most things are pretty well free like having a baby and getting Cancer doesn't end up costing you everything you have.
 
It's a misconception that's it free to. It costs 40 bucks a month to get alberta red cross coverage , wether you use it or not. What sucks about the setup for basic medical problems is that pretty well every clinic is a walk in clinic out here now, you go to get a persistant cough checked and you usually have to wait atleast 1 hour to see a doctor becuase there is only 1 or 2 docs on staff at a time.
 
Having universal health care in a country as geographically large and diverse as Canada just doesn't make sense. A combination of both systems, heavily regulated so one doesn't signifigantly edge out the other in terms of performance, is probably the best solution to our health care woes.
 
I wait minimum an hour to see a doctor if i show up before the doors open early in the morning. Otherwise its at least 2 hours...usually 3. But yeah i dont pay a dime.
I have also several other personnal reasons why I am not happy at all with canadas health care system.

All in all I am very dissapointed.
 
Pachinko said:
It's a misconception that's it free to. It costs 40 bucks a month to get alberta red cross coverage , wether you use it or not. What sucks about the setup for basic medical problems is that pretty well every clinic is a walk in clinic out here now, you go to get a persistant cough checked and you usually have to wait atleast 1 hour to see a doctor becuase there is only 1 or 2 docs on staff at a time.

That is nothing. I went to the hospital and its a 3 hour wait minimum unless you are dying. So 1 hour vs possibly 5 hours??? I giggle everytime I see US comedies when they bring someone to a hospital and you have to fill out a form and show proof of insurance. I mean would you rather have basically free health care or find out WTF an HMO is. I hear HMO and just laugh.
 
In the last 4 years the most I've had to wait to see a doc is about 20 minutes. I do live in Vancouver and there are quite a few clinics in and around where I live so perhaps I'm just lucky or spoiled or something.
 
From talking with doctors who've worked in a variety of both Canadian and American hospitals, Canada's health care is simply better, on average. That said, the best US hospitals are generally better than the best Canadian hospitals.
 
Social health isn't the problem, it's the implimentation. Blame beauracrats. For all the praise the US's private system gets, it means nothing for a lot of people b/c they simply don't have health insurance. If your job doesn't offer it as a benefit, you can expect to pay an arm and a leg and have lots of hidden costs included. That and you'll still have to wait or deal with incompetent staff. It's only better than Canada's system if you can afford it. PEACE.
 
Why should you pay for your healthcare? I mean you could take the money you give in health care tax towards your quartly visits and have a bunch of money left over...

...Until you know, you get something like cancer and need to spend $10k for treatments when you're making $30k a year in the first place. Then your opinion would change.

...and even if you didn't, and you lived your entire life healthy. Do you really feel comfortable with yourself knowing that without giving that little bit extra for your taxes, you're denying the above person a chance at a better quality of life.

Whether it takes long or not. Something is better than nothing.

Canadian Health Care just needs to be managed better by the government.
 
Here's a bunch of interesting stats. Not very old (some data is getting close to 10 years though), has a Canada-US focus but includes plenty of data about other G7 nations as well. (Check out how *little* money physicians make in some of those countries, that was a real eye opener)

http://www.pnrec.org/2001papers/DaigneaultLajoie.pdf

Edit: The Canadian government spends less per capita on health than the US government does, yet the US depends far more heavily on private expense as well (Page 10 of report). There's major waste in the US system for sure. Plenty of problems in Canada. Efficeincy aint one of them.

One of the advantages of the single payer (administrative) system that people tend to not note is that the amount of money you spend on *administration* is extremely low. You flash your health card, you get care. You don't have to worry about who's paying for what, how, and when. So nobody else does either and it doesn't suck up time and resources to handle it.

Another interesting thing about the Canadian healthcare system is that all the different provinces have different strengths in their different approaches to implement public healthcare. BC has best provision of cancer drugs while Alberta has done the most to cut down waiting times etc. Applying the best practices of each province to the others would improve the universal health care system across the board. The amount of self obsession that each region of Canada has works against this sort of cooperation sadly.
 
Animal said:
I wait minimum an hour to see a doctor if i show up before the doors open early in the morning. Otherwise its at least 2 hours...usually 3. But yeah i dont pay a dime.
I have also several other personnal reasons why I am not happy at all with canadas health care system.

All in all I am very dissapointed.

You could make an appointment you know.
I rarely wait more than 20 minutes if I have an appointment set up and it's usually within the same day.
 
Tabris said:
Why should you pay for your healthcare? I mean you could take the money you give in health care tax towards your quartly visits and have a bunch of money left over...

...Until you know, you get something like cancer and need to spend $10k for treatments when you're making $30k a year in the first place. Then your opinion would change.

...and even if you didn't, and you lived your entire life healthy. Do you really feel comfortable with yourself knowing that without giving that little bit extra for your taxes, you're denying the above person a chance at a better quality of life.

Whether it takes long or not. Something is better than nothing.

Canadian Health Care just needs to be managed better by the government.

Health insurance should cover cancer. At least with insurance, the individual is giving consent to use their money for such a system.

The biggest problem with universal healthcare is that we treat symptoms with drugs, and not the problems. It establishes a permanent recurring cost. Combine Universal healthcare, high cost drugs (those TV ads aren't free), our method of treatment with the rising rates of obesity and personal negligance towards health, and you have a financial distaster. Or poor service.

There's no profit in teaching people to really eat right and exercise, both of which are very inexpensive. Instead, the best we've got are TV ads about subway, yogurt that's actually 50% surgar, juice, and lean TV dinners, which if anything promote obesity.
 
teh_pwn said:
There's no profit in teaching people to really eat right and exercise, both of which are very inexpensive.
But isn't that something that the public system would handle better than the private system? The private system is *about* profit where the best thing is to keep shoving expensive drugs down consumer throats. The public system isn't.

Of course we haven't had good leadership in this country for a very long time. Cretien was a street fighter concerned with holding on to power, Martin was a complete doof. Harper is a lot like Cretien except he wants power in order to permanently reduce services provided by Canadian governments, Cretien just wanted to hold onto power for the sake of holding on to power.
 
Azih said:
But isn't that something that the public system would handle better than the private system? The private system is *about* profit where the best thing is to keep shoving expensive drugs down consumer throats. The public system isn't.

Of course we haven't had good leadership in this country for a very long time. Cretien was a street fighter concerned with holding on to power, Martin was a complete doof. Harper is a lot like Cretien except he wants power in order to permanently reduce services provided by Canadian governments, Cretien just wanted to hold onto power for the sake of holding on to power.

Yeah, I believe there should be a lot more government regulation on prescription drugs, and deceptive advertising. Unfortunately Congress is representing corporations more than citizens it seems.

I don't think we should jump into universal healthcare. Switching over to that alone would take enormous amounts of money. Simply regulating the free market more is a cheaper solution, IMO.

Generally I'm economically conservative, but I'm really sick of these prescription drug commercials. I remember recently reading an article that we're spending an enormous percentage of money on "health" stuff.

We're spending hundreds of billions of dollars on heart disease and cancer research, when the vast majority of cases could be prevented by doing things like putting down that $1.00 soda from the vending machine, and making some $0.05 green tea.
 
I see absolutely *no* reason for advertising prescription drugs. The only thing that should be allowed is dry academic papers sent to professionals, period.

Severe severe restrictons on over the counter stuff also.
 
Tabris said:
Why should you pay for your healthcare?

Because people are providing a service for which they should be directly compensated? Try telling your mechanic, lawyer, financial planner, or accountant that you're not going to pay them what they're asking, or what the market will bear, but rather what some third party deems appropriate for the service. See how far you get.
 
Azih said:
But isn't that something that the public system would handle better than the private system? The private system is *about* profit where the best thing is to keep shoving expensive drugs down consumer throats. The public system isn't.
The issue is fairly complex. Both systems would rather prescribe cheap generics as opposed to expensive new drugs in order to reduce costs. But in any case, prescribing some of the newer drugs may actually save money in the long run by preventing more costly medical expenses.

teh_pwn said:
There's no profit in teaching people to really eat right and exercise, both of which are very inexpensive.
Unfortunately, changing someone's behavior is one of the most difficult things to do.
 
Threads like this are where I miss Loki. :( I loved his assertion that he didn't support socialized medicine but that it had nothing to do with the fact that he was going to be a doctor. Well, that and religion threads too.
 
Triumph said:
Threads like this are where I miss Loki. :( I loved his assertion that he didn't support socialized medicine but that it had nothing to do with the fact that he was going to be a doctor. Well, that and religion threads too.

As I recall (long-time lurker here), he provided ample reasoning in support of his stance. For you to now imply that he only held those beliefs due to self-interest when you couldn't argue the points he raised when he raised them strikes me as a tad juvenile. After all, he's still banned, isn't he? No use maligning someone who can't speak for himself.
 
Cloak said:
As I recall (long-time lurker here), he provided ample reasoning in support of his stance. For you to now imply that he only held those beliefs due to self-interest when you couldn't argue the points he raised when he raised them strikes me as a tad juvenile. After all, he's still banned, isn't he? No use maligning someone who can't speak for himself.
You should go back and re-read those threads. :lol Loki provided ample reasoning for EVERYTHING he said. Doesn't mean it was true or the reasoning wasn't flawed.
 
Triumph said:
You should go back and re-read those threads. :lol Loki provided ample reasoning for EVERYTHING he said. Doesn't mean it was true or the reasoning wasn't flawed.

Of course not, and of course you're entitled to disagree. I was just saying that to imply that someone only believed something due to self-interest when they provided adequate reasoning is a bit tactless on your part, especially when they're not around to defend themselves. I'm sure you can see why that's wrong, no? Still, enough defending people I don't know on internet forums for one day. :p
 
Pachinko said:
It's a misconception that's it free to. It costs 40 bucks a month to get alberta red cross coverage , wether you use it or not. What sucks about the setup for basic medical problems is that pretty well every clinic is a walk in clinic out here now, you go to get a persistant cough checked and you usually have to wait atleast 1 hour to see a doctor becuase there is only 1 or 2 docs on staff at a time.

You're talking about the alberta health care premium, not alberta red cross. The AHC premium is unique to Alberta.
 
I quit reading about halfway ... but the only axiom I have learned in my short life is:


NEVER LET THE GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE They can't even run a fucking VA hospital (Armed Force Veterans) ... Hell, they can't even clean up a hurricane, conduct a war, or appropriate taxes correctly.


And you want them to be in charge of your health? You're out of your mind.

------


The only people that get screwed in America (for health care) are the middle class business owners. Too poor to pay thier own, and too rich to get freebies. Oftentimes they run shops/businesses with 6-9 employees and can barely afford to give them insurance.

One hydraulic cylinder shop I deal with had one of thier VP's in. He mentioned that health insurance for 2005 went up 13% for his employees. 35% since 2000. Those are costs that are almost impossible to swallow. Who suffers? Well, the employee who is given a minimal raise over that same time frame .. or business because they have to raise prices on thier services to cover those losses, then become less competitive.

It's too a point where companies of a certain level need to have subsidized health care. Otherwise we face a job market where there are corporations that keep few employees working insane amount of hours (see: GM) ... or we have corporations that keep people in a continual part time status (see: Krogers).
 
Cloak said:
Because people are providing a service for which they should be directly compensated? Try telling your mechanic, lawyer, financial planner, or accountant that you're not going to pay them what they're asking, or what the market will bear, but rather what some third party deems appropriate for the service. See how far you get.

Except the difference is this is dealing with the very basic human needs.

Life and death here. Not insurance on my car or whatever else you mentioned.

So even if I never actually have to use "what I pay into health care", I'm comfortable knowing at least part of that money (I know a bunch is lost in government handling it poorly) went to helping people that wouldn't be able to afford the health care they deserve under a private system.

Stop being such selfish jerks!
 
I usually wait about two hours every visit to the doctor. I'd switch, but I'm highly doubtful I'd be able to find another clinic that won't be exactly the same. Plus, my doctor delivered me and is pretty thorough when I see him.

The waiting is terrible, though. I'm always hesitant to go to the doctor because I hate the wait.
 
ToxicAdam said:
The only people that get screwed in America (for health care) are the middle class business owners. Too poor to pay thier own, and too rich to get freebies. Oftentimes they run shops/businesses with 6-9 employees and can barely afford to give them insurance.

:lol :lol :lol

wow, what kind of fantasyland do you live in?
 
I think the Canadian system is a good idea but there are a million different problems that make it not work for a lot of people. Not enough space and not enough doctors to go around for one thing. I've waited at hospitals with people for over 8 hours just to see a doctor. At the same time, it's free and general visits to the doctor aren't that painful once you get to know your family doctor's style. In short it could be a lot better but it could also be a lot worse.
 
Nerevar said:
:lol :lol :lol

wow, what kind of fantasyland do you live in?


How is that fantasyland?



By the way:


The largest group of the newly uninsured — some 800,000 people — had incomes in excess of $75,000. They either lost their jobs, or were priced out of the health care market by rapidly rising insurance premiums, or, like Ms. MacPherson, both.


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1125-07.htm


New York Times article from 2002. Maybe you should look at the world around you. Maybe you are the one in fantasyland. So, instead of sitting there and throwing lazy, snide remarks at comments that do not fit your myopic worldview ... maybe you should check it out first.

If those people are hit with a premee twins, cancer or other major health complications. All that money is coming out of thier pockets, since thier incomes preclude them from any type of handouts.
 
ToxicAdam said:
How is that fantasyland?



By the way:


The largest group of the newly uninsured — some 800,000 people — had incomes in excess of $75,000. They either lost their jobs, or were priced out of the health care market by rapidly rising insurance premiums, or, like Ms. MacPherson, both.


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1125-07.htm


New York Times article from 2002. Maybe you should look at the world around you. Maybe you are the one in fantasyland. So, instead of sitting there and throwing lazy, snide remarks at comments that do not fit your myopic worldview ... maybe you should check it out first.

If those people are hit with a premee twins, cancer or other major health complications. All that money is coming out of thier pockets, since thier incomes preclude them from any type of handouts.

You're quote does nothing to back up the assertion that "middle class Americans are the only people screwed by health care in America". I never said that middle class Americans weren't being squeezed, or even that they weren't being squeezed the most. I simply stated that you're living in a fantasyland if those are the only people who you think are being screwed by poor health care in the United States. The only one with a myopic worldview in this discussion is you, because you refuse to look outside your own economic-tier family and friends to those who truly are poor (or elderly, or disabled, or any one of a number of people with high health risks) and how they struggle with heatlh care and America as well. What you fail to grasp is that these "problems" that you associate so strongly with the "downtrodden" middle class in America have traditionally been problems for the working class that everyone ignored. Look at the tone of the articles you quote: Problem of Lost Health Benefits Is Reaching Into the Middle Class. These problems aren't new, just new to families like the ones you grew up in.
 
Having lived in both Canada and the US, I'd rather have a public system than to have none at all.

When I was in the US, I knew a guy who got really, really sick, but just couldn't afford to go to the hospital. Finally a bunch of his friends agreed to pay his bills if he just went ... it looked like he was on the brink of death or something, lol.

I agree the waiting times are quite bad, and something really needs to be done, but the above scenario is just appalling.
 
Richard Cranium said:
Unfortunately, changing someone's behavior is one of the most difficult things to do.

While that's true, the majority of people don't even know what they need to do to become healthy. They're bombarded by bullshit from the media and from commercials.

People are good at losing weight. They've got the motivation. But the way they go about it is derived from that bullshit. People think they can diet their way out with things like Atkins diet, and lean dinners with "low fat" as if that's supposed to help. Or yogurts that are loaded with high fructose corn syrup. Or subway, which has no healthy fats, and loads of poor quality high GI carbs, and a few canned veggies.

If we regulated the system to weed this out, people would have genuine information to base their changes on. If people still don't do anything about their problems, they have no right to mandate universal health care because of their own irresponsibility. If we did have universal healthcare, then we should put in costly taxes of junk food.

We could set up a mandatory nutrition class in public schools and have strict standards. This would be of little cost, and it would decrease health costs and increase productivity in the future.
 
foxship.gif
 
Tabris said:
Except the difference is this is dealing with the very basic human needs.

Life and death here. Not insurance on my car or whatever else you mentioned.

So even if I never actually have to use "what I pay into health care", I'm comfortable knowing at least part of that money (I know a bunch is lost in government handling it poorly) went to helping people that wouldn't be able to afford the health care they deserve under a private system.

Stop being such selfish jerks!

Food, shelter, and utilities are all more basic and vital needs than health care. Yet none of these are subject to provision by socialist mechanisms. While we as a society do offer subsidized food (in the form of food stamps etc.), shelter (in the form of rent control and subsidized housing), and utilities-- and rightly so-- we only do so for those who cannot pay their own way for whatever reasons. It's a sensible standard, and there are valid reasons why that standard exists. We don't go around giving food stamps and subsidized housing to those who can afford it; neither should we do so for health care. This is why a mixed system is best, and it's the model that many socialized nations (e.g., Canada and Britain) are moving towards for good reason.


People can disagree with socialized medicine without being "selfish jerks," you know. I know, I know-- hard to imagine, huh? Too many totalitarian, "my way or the highway" ideologues on this board, really.
 
Cloak said:
Food, shelter, and utilities are all more basic and vital needs than health care. Yet none of these are subject to provision by socialist mechanisms. While we as a society do offer subsidized food (in the form of food stamps etc.), shelter (in the form of rent control and subsidized housing), and utilities-- and rightly so-- we only do so for those who cannot pay their own way for whatever reasons. It's a sensible standard, and there are valid reasons why that standard exists. We don't go around giving food stamps and subsidized housing to those who can afford it; neither should we do so for health care. This is why a mixed system is best, and it's the model that many socialized nations (e.g., Canada and Britain) are moving towards for good reason.


People can disagree with socialized medicine without being "selfish jerks," you know. I know, I know-- hard to imagine, huh? Too many totalitarian, "my way or the highway" ideologues on this board, really.

I agree.

In my arguments, I keep associating health care with people that want to get cheaper prescription drugs. That's because this health care movement seems to be centered around that. I'm not arguing against the case of the small percentage of people that may need help, especially children.
 
Until people start taking resposibility for their own actions, I don't think its my responsibility to pay for the consequences of such astions. Why is it fair to tax me more just so Bob (a three pack a day smoker) or Jerry (who's classification of excercise is the 10 ft walk to the frig for another beer) can have access to free healthcare?

That said, I do think its the absolute right thing for kids 18 and under to have access to free healthcare.

Also, presciption drug advertisements are the most ridiculous thing in the world. The classic example is the ad for a drug called Nuelasta. Nuelasta is a drug that boosts your white blood cell count after chemotherapy. Its given to EVERYONE who is on chemo. Its just one shot the day you get done with your round. And its um.........$6,000 a pop. I know as I had six of them during my cancer treatment last year. Its the dumbest thing to advertise because the doctor isn't not going to give it to you. Its been a huge breakthrough in cancer treatment as it allows you to stay on shcedule.
 
Azih said:
I see absolutely *no* reason for advertising prescription drugs. The only thing that should be allowed is dry academic papers sent to professionals, period.

Severe severe restrictons on over the counter stuff also.

Why advertise anything?
 
ToxicAdam said:
I quit reading about halfway ... but the only axiom I have learned in my short life is:


NEVER LET THE GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE They can't even run a fucking VA hospital (Armed Force Veterans) ... Hell, they can't even clean up a hurricane, conduct a war, or appropriate taxes correctly.


And you want them to be in charge of your health? You're out of your mind.

------


The only people that get screwed in America (for health care) are the middle class business owners. Too poor to pay thier own, and too rich to get freebies. Oftentimes they run shops/businesses with 6-9 employees and can barely afford to give them insurance.

One hydraulic cylinder shop I deal with had one of thier VP's in. He mentioned that health insurance for 2005 went up 13% for his employees. 35% since 2000. Those are costs that are almost impossible to swallow. Who suffers? Well, the employee who is given a minimal raise over that same time frame .. or business because they have to raise prices on thier services to cover those losses, then become less competitive.

It's too a point where companies of a certain level need to have subsidized health care. Otherwise we face a job market where there are corporations that keep few employees working insane amount of hours (see: GM) ... or we have corporations that keep people in a continual part time status (see: Krogers).


You might want to sit down and chat with a doctor sometime too. They are getting screwed as well. Both parties are getting screwed by the insurance companies and in the end the people paying the premiums are getting screwed by the insurance companies as well.
 
maharg said:
You're talking about the alberta health care premium, not alberta red cross. The AHC premium is unique to Alberta.

There is a health-care premium charged in B.C. as well. The difference is the Alberta government could really afford to can AHC premiums.

IIRC, Ontario had charged a premium, but I think it's a thing of the past now (probably a McGuinty change)

The public system is frequently maligned, but Alberta ran a pilot project on hip and knee surgeries last year that cost $20M (not a big number in the huge health-care picture) and trimmed average wait times from 47 weeks to 5.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/12/19/waittime-051219.html

I don't think everything can be fixed with good ideas alone, but this project shows there are some glaring inefficiencies in the current organization of health care, and that innovation, not necessarily huge amounts of new money or more private care, could be the best way of dealing with them.
 
siamesedreamer said:
Until people start taking resposibility for their own actions, I don't think its my responsibility to pay for the consequences of such astions. Why is it fair to tax me more just so Bob (a three pack a day smoker) or Jerry (who's classification of excercise is the 10 ft walk to the frig for another beer) can have access to free healthcare?

Do cigarettes and booze not have additional taxes where you live? Serious question.
 
teh_pwn said:
People are good at losing weight. They've got the motivation. But the way they go about it is derived from that bullshit. People think they can diet their way out with things like Atkins diet, and lean dinners with "low fat" as if that's supposed to help.
That's part of the problem, though. Tell people they need to make lifestyle changes and compliance drops to near zero. As I recall, the success rates for fad and healthy diets are approximately equal. It's just not that easy to change a behavior that's been ingrained for years. Most of my friends are overweight and they know what a healthy diet is and they know that physical activity and exercise are essential. Like smoking, most people already know what's bad for them, but they don't care.
If we regulated the system to weed this out, people would have genuine information to base their changes on. If people still don't do anything about their problems, they have no right to mandate universal health care because of their own irresponsibility. If we did have universal healthcare, then we should put in costly taxes of junk food.
I don't think we need a universal healthcare system to tax junk food, and I'm not sure making junk food more expensive is going to have a positive effect in the inner cities where much of the problem lies.
We could set up a mandatory nutrition class in public schools and have strict standards. This would be of little cost, and it would decrease health costs and increase productivity in the future.
Of course you're right. We need to start educating kids early. However, kids are still fed by their parents no matter how much we teach them, and they're still going to learn bad habits if they're constantly fed junk. Acess to healthy food is a also large problem in urban areas. Grocery stores don't stock much produce because nobody's buying it. Instead, they stock up on junk. Can't have a healthy diet if you can't obtain one.
 
SickBoy said:
I don't think everything can be fixed with good ideas alone, but this project shows there are some glaring inefficiencies in the current organization of health care, and that innovation, not necessarily huge amounts of new money or more private care, could be the best way of dealing with them.

Agreed.
 
I have heard that many European countries have free health care that is run very efficiently by the government.

The problem with the government running anything is not that the government is running it, it is that the government doesn't have reason to run it as efficiently as possible as they have no requirement to be financially resonsible or maintain good customer relations.
 
Well something's wrong with the US healthcare system. I'm fully employed and have health insurance but I'd say more than a tenth of my money (AFTER insurance premiums) goes to co pays, co insurance and such. And I'm employed, it's annoying true, but I can get by, I'd hate to see what's going on with the under or unemployed. Something has to be done.
 
I honestly think we'll have a different sort of system within 10 years. It used to be that it was impossible to criticize the Canada Health Act, but now Premiers are openly questioning it.

I don't think we'll ever have the situation in the USA though, where you have large amounts of people with no health insurance.
 
siamesedreamer said:
Until people start taking resposibility for their own actions, I don't think its my responsibility to pay for the consequences of such astions. Why is it fair to tax me more just so Bob (a three pack a day smoker) or Jerry (who's classification of excercise is the 10 ft walk to the frig for another beer) can have access to free healthcare?
Why should you be taxed for anything that you don't personally use, right? I mean, fuck paying for public education -- you don't have any kids, so why should anyone else?
 
terrene said:
Why should you be taxed for anything that you don't personally use, right? I mean, fuck paying for public education -- you don't have any kids, so why should anyone else?

Again, the faulty analogy and "you are selfish" ad hominem...

Because public education is about teaching our children, which don't have the money or responsibility to obtain it themselves. Overall it will benefit our entire nation.

Unrestrained universal healthcare with our broken "health" system would basically grant "free" prescription drugs to the general adult population, which does have the means to obtain their own care. This includes the millions of adults today that have many health problems as a result of their own irresponsibility. It would not make the general population healthier, and it would add a huge tax burden to the middle class.

I'm not arguing against granting free healthcare to children, or to the truly needly.

Some people seem to think that bending over and losing their financial liberty is somehow going to cure cancer, obesity, or AIDs. It's not. If anything it will promote the broken system of treating the symptoms and not the cause. The best way to fight cancer is to prevent it through cheap ass foods like spinach, broccoli, green tea, garlic, etc. Not spend trillions of dollars that could be spent better in so many ways, like education, scientific reasearch, and true humanitarian efforts. Why fight nature when you can take advantage of it.
 
teh_pwn said:
Again, the faulty analogy and "you are selfish" ad hominem...

Because public education is about teaching our children, which don't have the money or responsibility to obtain it themselves. Overall it will benefit our entire nation.

Unrestrained universal healthcare with our broken "health" system would basically grant "free" prescription drugs to the general adult population, which does have the means to obtain their own care. This includes the millions of adults today that have many health problems as a result of their own irresponsibility. It would not make the general population healthier, and it would add a huge tax burden to the middle class.

I'm not arguing against granting free healthcare to children, or to the truly needly.

Some people seem to think that bending over and losing their financial liberty is somehow going to cure cancer, obesity, or AIDs. It's not. If anything it will promote the broken system of treating the symptoms and not the cause. The best way to fight cancer is to prevent it through cheap ass foods like spinach, broccoli, green tea, garlic, etc. Not spend trillions of dollars that could be spent better in so many ways, like education, scientific reasearch, and true humanitarian efforts. Why fight nature when you can take advantage of it.
Bolded for idiocy.

I'm not even going to argue with you. People who defend the cut-throat private "health care" system in America are morally bankrupt individuals who will learn what cocks taste like when they end up in hell.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom