B
blixa442
Guest
You're making it sound as if there are only two countries in the world with health care system. Take a good look at your atlas. There are over 200 countries on the map.
|
|
|
D
dan e 1980
Guest
blix, what are the solutions you propose?
explain how they do it in france & switzerland and what makes you yhink it will work here.
explain how they do it in france & switzerland and what makes you yhink it will work here.
T
TdotTrickyRicky
Guest
Bizorky,
While I am definately no hardliner on this issue, I don't know if your posted statements are particularly strong arguments.
While it may be true that wealthier individuals would stand to pay for better care overall, it is absolutely false to suggest that low income or middle-income people would not also benefit from private clinics or services. How do I know this? Because I personally know people who go abroad for medical care (generally NOT the US) and spend inordinate amounts on private healthcare, in essence voting with their feet, and none of them could be described as wealthy. Why? Because time is worth more than money.
I'm not sure I understand the concept of a finite number of medical care professionals. While it is true that you can't implement some sort of private system overnight (it takes time to train a doctor) the system would adapt to changes within a few years.
There are any number of public private systems abroad that work. I'm not sure about the numbers with respect to lowering the burden on the public system. In Scandinavian countries they have a list of procedures that are farmed out to private clinics, but the hospitals are still public. So something like hip surgery can be done at a private clinic, but if you have a heart attack you use a public hospital. This is likely the scenerio we would be looking at here, keep all general hospitals public, but have private clinics for a certain list of allowable procedures. Keep in mind that even given a private option most people in european countries choose to use the public, universal system (off the top of my head 80 percent in Britain). This allows them to maintain a level of service like ours (or arguably better in many of the countries).
While I am definately no hardliner on this issue, I don't know if your posted statements are particularly strong arguments.
While it may be true that wealthier individuals would stand to pay for better care overall, it is absolutely false to suggest that low income or middle-income people would not also benefit from private clinics or services. How do I know this? Because I personally know people who go abroad for medical care (generally NOT the US) and spend inordinate amounts on private healthcare, in essence voting with their feet, and none of them could be described as wealthy. Why? Because time is worth more than money.
I'm not sure I understand the concept of a finite number of medical care professionals. While it is true that you can't implement some sort of private system overnight (it takes time to train a doctor) the system would adapt to changes within a few years.
There are any number of public private systems abroad that work. I'm not sure about the numbers with respect to lowering the burden on the public system. In Scandinavian countries they have a list of procedures that are farmed out to private clinics, but the hospitals are still public. So something like hip surgery can be done at a private clinic, but if you have a heart attack you use a public hospital. This is likely the scenerio we would be looking at here, keep all general hospitals public, but have private clinics for a certain list of allowable procedures. Keep in mind that even given a private option most people in european countries choose to use the public, universal system (off the top of my head 80 percent in Britain). This allows them to maintain a level of service like ours (or arguably better in many of the countries).
G
GeekyBoyTO
Guest
But that's the thing though - is there evidence-based proof that the private system is more efficient and provides better outcomes just because it is private, or because of the vulgarities of system characteristics/demographic? Intuitively, I'd think the issue isn't so much so whether it is privately owned or publically owned, but how it is all managed.
GB
GB
B
bizorky
Guest
Well, your anecdotal evidence on what low or middle income people might do is certainly not supported by your example. Seriously, just how many low income people can actually "go abroad" (as in fly) to another country, put themselves up in accomodations and then pay out of pocket for private health care? If this is, according to you, what low and middle income people are quite capable of doing, then I must be really, really, really poor.
T
TdotTrickyRicky
Guest
I didn't mean to word my comment such that my argument was based only on anecdotal evidence (although most of our discussion for or against some health privatization is largely not even supported by anecdote).
If you want specific examples most of these people are immigrants with strong connections to other countries where the medical system is private, procedures are inexpensive, and increasingly the quality is almost on par (or given no wait times arguably better at specific hospitals) than here in Canada. Several examples I had in mind are immigrant people of retirement age who technically live in poverty but have no trouble and no doubts about spending thousands to avoid the Canadian system when time is of the essence. How do they afford it? A life time of savings ethic, family help and next to zero expenditures on things that are comparatively meaningless next to good health (like the computer and internet connection we are both paying for).
But as I mentioned, my concern is not really for the level of service but for the cost burden. A public / private system may not be less expensive overall, it may not even provide better service, but it matters who is paying. If we keep pumping money into healthcare at the expense of other government concerns like education, social programs, environment, infrastructure, research and development, then frankly we are on our way downhill. Someone needs to have the political courage to say stop, we need to limit our expenditures on health to a certain level, if this means keeping it public, good. We can try to manage away waste to improve the system, but if this is not enough we need to be open to shifting some of the cost burden to the user.
If you want specific examples most of these people are immigrants with strong connections to other countries where the medical system is private, procedures are inexpensive, and increasingly the quality is almost on par (or given no wait times arguably better at specific hospitals) than here in Canada. Several examples I had in mind are immigrant people of retirement age who technically live in poverty but have no trouble and no doubts about spending thousands to avoid the Canadian system when time is of the essence. How do they afford it? A life time of savings ethic, family help and next to zero expenditures on things that are comparatively meaningless next to good health (like the computer and internet connection we are both paying for).
But as I mentioned, my concern is not really for the level of service but for the cost burden. A public / private system may not be less expensive overall, it may not even provide better service, but it matters who is paying. If we keep pumping money into healthcare at the expense of other government concerns like education, social programs, environment, infrastructure, research and development, then frankly we are on our way downhill. Someone needs to have the political courage to say stop, we need to limit our expenditures on health to a certain level, if this means keeping it public, good. We can try to manage away waste to improve the system, but if this is not enough we need to be open to shifting some of the cost burden to the user.
B
blixa442
Guest
Perhaps, but the different types of ownership have a lot of influence on how something is ultimately managed. I don't believe that a bureaucrat with no accountability is going to be able to provide better service than a profit-minded individual. It hasn't happened yet, and I'd wager that it won't.
C
cdl42
Guest
"I don't believe that a bureaucrat with no accountability is going to be able to provide better service than a profit-minded individual."
This is a very common fallacy. A bureaucrat has far more accountability than someone in the private sector. In the private sector, if someone wastes a chunk of money they get fired or disciplined and life goes on. In the public sector you have far more auditors, auditor generals, ministeral accountability, etc... If someone mucks up in the public sector we get auditor general reports, media coverage, and the minister having to respond to the calls from the opposition in the house or legislature. How many private businesses are there which allow their competition to view their financial records to ensure that things are kept accountable?
Do you really think that the nurses and other general staff in a private hospital really cares about profitability? Not likely. It is the hospital administrators who work to increase profitability, and in these days of cutbacks public hospital administrators have had to cut waste just as much as their private sector colleagues, if not moreso. Most hospital administrators are private sector minded these days anyway, it's not as if one becomes an administrator by working their way up the hospital.
Much of the "inefficiency" in gov't-run services like hospitals arises from equity. If private hospitals were allowed I wouldn't expect to see any clamoring to open anywhere north of Barrie. The public sector can't exactly refuse to operate hospitals outside of cities "because it doesn't offer a good return on investment", can it?
This is a very common fallacy. A bureaucrat has far more accountability than someone in the private sector. In the private sector, if someone wastes a chunk of money they get fired or disciplined and life goes on. In the public sector you have far more auditors, auditor generals, ministeral accountability, etc... If someone mucks up in the public sector we get auditor general reports, media coverage, and the minister having to respond to the calls from the opposition in the house or legislature. How many private businesses are there which allow their competition to view their financial records to ensure that things are kept accountable?
Do you really think that the nurses and other general staff in a private hospital really cares about profitability? Not likely. It is the hospital administrators who work to increase profitability, and in these days of cutbacks public hospital administrators have had to cut waste just as much as their private sector colleagues, if not moreso. Most hospital administrators are private sector minded these days anyway, it's not as if one becomes an administrator by working their way up the hospital.
Much of the "inefficiency" in gov't-run services like hospitals arises from equity. If private hospitals were allowed I wouldn't expect to see any clamoring to open anywhere north of Barrie. The public sector can't exactly refuse to operate hospitals outside of cities "because it doesn't offer a good return on investment", can it?
B
blixa442
Guest
Look, if communist-style health care and long line ups at the MRI clinic are what you prefer then be my guest. However, I don't see what gives you the right to prevent me from engaing in commercial, for-profit, inefficient, unaccountable, commercial transactions with respect to taking care of my body. Why should someone else's myopic ideology be a threat to my health? This is why private/public parallel systems make complete sense. The accountable public system can efficiently serve those who embrace it, and the rest of us can keep getting ripped off by greedy capitalists.
C
cdl42
Guest
Woah there, all I was contending was your statement that bureaucrats have no accountability and now I'm a myopic idelogical communist. I haven't even made a single comment in this thread saying that I think that private care is a bad idea. No wonder government workers have such low morale.
G
ganjavih
Guest
U.S. health-care system `insane,' Clinton warns
U.S. health-care system `insane,' Clinton warns
May 16, 2006. 01:00 AM
Former U.S. president Bill Clinton warned Canada last night not to go down an American-style, privatized health-care road.
"Be careful," he said. "I know there are problems here, but it's a good thing, your health-care system. You better think about it for a long time."
Speaking at a fundraising dinner at the Windsor Arms Hotel, Clinton described the U.S. system as "a nightmare. It's insane, a colossal waste of money."
In the U.S., 34 per cent of the health-care budget goes to administrative costs, he said, compared with Canada's 19 per cent. "In the U.S., administrative costs mean the financial tail is wagging the health-care dog."
Clinton said Canada should examine similar health-care systems — in Germany, Denmark or Sweden, for instance — that have solved problems such as overly long waiting times.
Lynda Hurst
U.S. health-care system `insane,' Clinton warns
May 16, 2006. 01:00 AM
Former U.S. president Bill Clinton warned Canada last night not to go down an American-style, privatized health-care road.
"Be careful," he said. "I know there are problems here, but it's a good thing, your health-care system. You better think about it for a long time."
Speaking at a fundraising dinner at the Windsor Arms Hotel, Clinton described the U.S. system as "a nightmare. It's insane, a colossal waste of money."
In the U.S., 34 per cent of the health-care budget goes to administrative costs, he said, compared with Canada's 19 per cent. "In the U.S., administrative costs mean the financial tail is wagging the health-care dog."
Clinton said Canada should examine similar health-care systems — in Germany, Denmark or Sweden, for instance — that have solved problems such as overly long waiting times.
Lynda Hurst
B
blixa442
Guest
Re: U.S. health-care system `insane,' Clinton warns
What makes him think that we're headed that way? We're not even remotely close Swedish-style, privatized healthcare, nevermind American.
What makes him think that we're headed that way? We're not even remotely close Swedish-style, privatized healthcare, nevermind American.
S
spmarshall
Guest
Re: U.S. health-care system `insane,' Clinton warns
Bill Clinton is starting to look more like Jimmy Carter in that pic/
Bill Clinton is starting to look more like Jimmy Carter in that pic/
A
AlvinofDiaspar
Guest
Re: U.S. health-care system `insane,' Clinton warns
blixa:
I would gladly settle for Swedish-style privatized health care if our government implement social policies and taxation schemes of the forementioned country.
AoD
blixa:
I would gladly settle for Swedish-style privatized health care if our government implement social policies and taxation schemes of the forementioned country.
AoD
B
bizorky
Guest
Re: U.S. health-care system `insane,' Clinton warns
How dare those vagueries, inconsistencies and bad luck of the rampant, uncontrolled natural universe force you to get sick! People don't choose to get sick. And not everyone gets to be rich, or upper middle class, for that matter.
Did it ever occur to you that your own ideology might actually be a problem, too? A private system would be accesed only by those that have the money. What happens if you run out of money trying to get healed in the private system? What happens if your private insurance runs out? You will end up in the evil "commie" system with the rest of us. So far as I'm concerned, it is in my interest - and everyone elses interest - to see that system operate well. Some of the pro-commerical medicine-is-a-market-transaction types will eventually need it, too.
How dare those vagueries, inconsistencies and bad luck of the rampant, uncontrolled natural universe force you to get sick! People don't choose to get sick. And not everyone gets to be rich, or upper middle class, for that matter.
Did it ever occur to you that your own ideology might actually be a problem, too? A private system would be accesed only by those that have the money. What happens if you run out of money trying to get healed in the private system? What happens if your private insurance runs out? You will end up in the evil "commie" system with the rest of us. So far as I'm concerned, it is in my interest - and everyone elses interest - to see that system operate well. Some of the pro-commerical medicine-is-a-market-transaction types will eventually need it, too.