The great debate of healthcare, private or public?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Frankly I do find it incredibly odd that in Canada there is no private healthcare option, I even suspect that in the EU that would be illegal under free competition regulations (assuming there is legislation banning private healthcare) and I agree that freeing that sector up would be beneficial to most parties. That is where the debate should be in Canada, and I'm surprised that the political debate hasn't gone that way.

---

As I said before Dylan, it is the third rail of Canadian politics. The dimwits who pass for politicians have yet to figure out a way to even bring up the topic of privatizing some aspects of it without the public service unions, left of center parties going on a major PR campaign stating how we would be more "American" and people would be left without care. Utter rot....

Even the most Conservative Conservatives in this country will NOT put that plank on the platform because the hysteria and lies will derail their electoral hopes. If they are in power and they voice such ideas, it consumes them. WE have this wacky idea in this country that it is all or nothing.....and as you have very adroitly explained, it doesn't have to be that way. It probably explains my frustration with the debate because much of what is out there in this country is clouded by this myth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

As I said before Dylan, it is the third rail of Canadian politics. The dimwits who pass for politicians have yet to figure out a way to even bring up the topic of privatizing some aspects of it without the public service unions, left of center parties going on a major PR campaign stating how we would be more "American" and people would be left without care. Utter rot....

---

There is no need to privatise portions of public healthcare, merely legalise third party suppliers to build hospitals and provide insurance cover. Is this currently illegal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

There is no need to privatise portions of public healthcare, merely legalise third party suppliers to build hospitals and provide insurance cover. Is this currently illegal?

---

Hospitals can be private/public partnerships but they are run not-for-profit and basically might as well have the provincial badge on them. No private insurance can be used in place of the provincial system, but the benefits can be used to upgrade things such as private room vs a shared one, and pay for thearpy or aids such as crutches or wheel chairs. The thing is, a private corporation cannot open a hospital, and accept patients and bill the province. A private insurance company cannot take their client ( the patient ) and put them ahead of the line for treatment. So if there is a 3 month delay for surgery for a new knee, too bad....you wait.

The doctors cannot take money from patients. The doctors are limited in how many patients they can see a week, and they have to bill the government for payment. There is no essential competition for medical care in the core services. If you have cancer, it is a provinically funded hospital you go to, and you wait in the line if there is one for the treatment. If you want a new treatment, if the bureaucrats haven't ok'd that service for whatever reason, you are denied it. IN the US, if you have the money, you can get whatever treatment you want if it is offered legally. Not in Canada. We have to wait on bureaucrats to keep up to the medical community.

Some of this may have it's roots in the "is it a right or is it a privilege?" argument. As a general rule, one shouldn't be allowed to purchase additional rights or a better set of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

Some of this may have it's roots in the "is it a right or is it a privilege?" argument. As a general rule, one shouldn't be allowed to purchase additional rights or a better set of them.

---

This is being abused here in our debate. Those for public healthcare treat those who would want to opt out of the public system are somehow wrong for wanting to pay more for the best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

Some of this may have it's roots in the "is it a right or is it a privilege?" argument. As a general rule, one shouldn't be allowed to purchase additional rights or a better set of them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

This is being abused here in our debate. Those for public healthcare treat those who would want to opt out of the public system are somehow wrong for wanting to pay more for the best.

---

I fail to see you point here.

An analogy:
We should all have the right to clean drinking water. If everyone has access to clean drinking water then it is fair. This doesn't mean that you have to drink water if you have the money and desire to buy Coke.

Most of the people on here seem to like a public system for all with a private option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

I fail to see you point here.

An analogy:
We should all have the right to clean drinking water. If everyone has access to clean drinking water then it is fair. This doesn't mean that you have to drink water if you have the money and desire to buy Coke.

Most of the people on here seem to like a public system for all with a private option.

---

Jon, you missing what is happening here. In Canada, you cant HAVE Coke. They give you water no matter what you want. One size fits all. The only 3 nations to have nationalized health care are North Korea, Cuba and CANADA. Now I don't know about you, but I don't want to be in any club with those two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

This is being abused here in our debate. Those for public healthcare treat those who would want to opt out of the public system are somehow wrong for wanting to pay more for the best.

---

That is what they are telling you, the public. Given how you have described the layout of Canadian healthcare I suspect the real issue is a concern about how liberalising the system would affect private investment in public healthcare and how current services could be maintained if they pulled out, or how current vested interests would be threatened. Politics isn't so different from F1, always follow the money.

e

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

That is what they are telling you, the public. Given how you have described the layout of Canadian healthcare I suspect the real issue is a concern about how liberalising the system would affect private investment in public healthcare and how current services could be maintained if they pulled out, or how current vested interests would be threatened. Politics isn't so different from F1, always follow the money.

---

Glad to see you back Dylan and I'm hoping you'll take the time to address this as you appear to work in the field.
This is not about health insurance, that has been flogged to death.

My biggest gripe is with the cost and attitudes of the healthcare business in general. To some degree, it's kind of like diamonds. With some exceptions, diamonds are not rare at all, and the price of the finished product is that of propaganda and a very controlled market.

In my opinion, the cost of many medical services is way out of line. In addition take someone with say, prostrate cancer. Maybe after 5 years of treatment and removals with the cancer returning each time, it's time the medical profession quit charging this man for the privilege of being able to experiment on him and started paying him for using him as a test bed. Nobody gives the profession lab rats for free, they have to buy them.

I worked with a guy that had an irregular heartbeat. He had always had it. His doctor, mainly by working through horror stories to his wife, finally got him into a hospital for a week of tests. End result, after insurance he still had to pay $1500, the doctor still didn't know what was causing it, and hot dogs, cheetos, and cigarettes did not make for a healthy lifestyle. No sh!t Rick, I would have warned you about the cheetos for $100. You can bet your life that the data from all those tests Rick paid for is being used for free by all those that track that condition in search of a profit.
You are correct about following the money and the same applies to medicine. If people didn't go running to the doctor for every littlt thing nowadays, the prices would fall as doctors tried to attract patients. I think the health industry has done a great job of selling itself as something far more knowledgeable and necessary than they truly are.

What frustrates me is that my dental plan will not cover braces. I don't need braces. And I don't have a child that needs braces. But what if I marry a woman with crooked teeth, and we have a child with crooked teeth. What then?!