[QUOTE BY= FootPrints] A doctor challenges Canada's health care system<br /> <br /> By Clifford Krauss The New York Times<br /> <br /> ... But if he wins his case he will tear up the third rail of the nation's politics and raze what many Canadians consider to be the bedrock of their national identity. <br /> <br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> This is the funniest line I've read all week. <br /> Canada...the universal health care nation !<br /> (Canadians have finally found a unifying identity for themselves; an identity of a medical kind.) !

   

I agree with him. Hong Kong has one of the best public systems in the world, despite allowing a private system alongside.<br /> <br /> Imagine if people who could afford private care were removed from the public system, and the savings were used to improve the public system. More doctors, better care, no waits . . .<br /> <br /> That is Hong Kong. People use the public system, because care and treatment are considered better than the private system for two reasons. They fund the public system adequately and the people (nurese, doctors etc) in the public system actually care about the patient, not how much they'll earn from the boob job from the latest Japanese starlet.<br /> <br />

   

lineups are unconstitutional? that's a bit of a stretch. i wonder if he has read the works of steffie woolhander & david himmelstein, or pj devereaux?<br /> <br /> sure the system has problems, but roy romanow has listed many ways that the system can be improved. wait times can be improved in a private not-for-profit system. the problem is the wait times, not the system itself, correct?

   

<blockquote>This is the funniest line I've read all week. Canada...the universal health care nation !<br /> (Canadians have finally found a unifying identity for themselves; an identity of a medical kind.) !</blockquote><br /> <br /> Not sure I see what's so funny about it. Couple of million people voted for Tommy Douglas as greatest Canadian, you'll remember. And it seems something positive and concrete. Better than liking beer, that's for sure.<br /> <br /> Can we get some proof that the Hong Kong system is as good as you say, Dr C? Never heard it cited before.<br /> <br /> My understanding has been that parallel private and public systems actually increase wait times. This happened under Thatcher for example, because doctors played both sides of the system (longer wait times in the public system meant more patients paying more to their private clinics).<br /> <br /> As for this guy's arguments--"life, liberty, and the security of the person"--all he left out was "and the pursuit of happiness" and we'd have the US declaration of independence.<br /> <br /> Otherwise same old same old. The counter to the idea that not allowing private care is an infringement on individual rights is that it assumes that the people who have the most "right" to treatment are those who can afford it, again assuming that there is no equal human right to good care and that those who are too poor for insurance are just somehow less deserving or lazy. <br /> <br /> Meanwhile Romanow indeed indentified how to fix the system through other ideas such as homecare for seniors (hospital care is more expensive), pharmacare, etc.

   

Here's a somewhat dated link re: HK health.<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.hku.hk/hkcer/articles/v56/healthcare.htm">Hong Kong Healthcare and Finance Reform</a><br /> <br /> Sound sort of familiar?<br /> <br /> I got chuckle from the index page list of <a href="http://www.hku.hk/hkcer/index.htm">Other Economic Policy Studies Institutes</a><br /> <br /> Here's an article from <a href="http://jmsc.hku.hk/newmedia/health.htm">Global Beat</a><br /> <br />

   

I don't see much humour in this article either, but I do see opportunity. This doctor wants to have a private system, no surprise here. But saying that a private system can operate in a positive way beside a public non profit, doesn't make sense to me. First there are only so many doctors, some GP's, some specialist, but where will they chose to work? The private system where they set the price, the opportunity to charge more for services? You only have to look at the dental industry, of which I have some experience. You can have the basic care, say amalgam fillings, which may or may not be good for you in the long run, but which your insurance will pay for, or if you don't have insurance they are cheaper; but if you want the best treatment, it'll cost you x more dollars. <br /> <br /> If there are only so many specialists capable of performing a certain surgery, and they work in the private system, you will have to pay if you need that service. Don't worry a financial agent will be available to pre-approve a loan. Just like they do at car dealers, or pre-qualify for a mortgage. Or we could maybe make a deal, that the private system has to perform so many non-profits per day, week or month, in order for them to get a license? <br /> <br /> This is a slippery slope and I don't see any benefit to people, I do however see big bucks for those who are greedy, those who believe they earned their money the hard way, and have the right to pay for healthcare.<br /> <br /> The problem with that idea is that once again, the rich get richer and the sick get sicker, and poorer. The public system worked for many years, it is only because somebody saw dollar signs that it began to errode and we needed the cure, from the corporation! <br /> <br /> Earning the money the hard way, is always debatable, but needing healthcare is not! IMO earning your money as a street person, or working for minimum wage is alot harder, than working for the corporation at the top, investing in the stock market, gambling on the odds, one person wins, another will lose. Nobody, is more important than another, and that is what non-profit healthcare made sure of.

   

Does the good doctor have another agenda other than his concern for Health Care users in Canada? Being a <a href="http://www.iedm.org/main/authors_en.php?authors_type=3">”Senior Fellow”</a> at a neocon think tank is information that would have helped the reader’s evaluation of the article. That is not just background information. It tells also of the ideological structure that underlies that doctor’s arguments against our Health Care system. It’s a pity that was not mentioned in the article.

   

[QUOTE BY= Dr Caleb] I agree with him. Hong Kong has one of the best public systems in the world, despite allowing a private system alongside.<br /> <br /> Imagine if people who could afford private care were removed from the public system, and the savings were used to improve the public system. More doctors, better care, no waits . . .<br /> <br /> That is Hong Kong. People use the public system, because care and treatment are considered better than the private system for two reasons. They fund the public system adequately and the people (nurese, doctors etc) in the public system actually care about the patient, not how much they'll earn from the boob job from the latest Japanese starlet.<br /> <br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> I do realize that wealthy people already can pay to get an MRI in Quebec, Alberta or Ontario, or go to Buffalo or Detriot.<br /> <br /> This being said, I fear that if we had a private system, the wealthy, who have political clout, would lose any wil to maintain it for their own potential use. The same thing could happen if public schools became marginalized due to continued funding cuts.<br /> <br /> Our system was fine before Mulroney and Chretien downloaded it onto the provinces, changing from 50% to >15% federal support, combined with our debt-based money system. (www.comer.org)<br /> <br /> <br /> This doctor is quite likely someone who wants the 2 million American for-profit physicicans can make at the expense of universal care, rather than the "paltry" 300,000 they can make here.<br /> <br /> The article was written by Clifford Krauss of the N.Y. Times--he seems to take an interest in us.<br /> <br /> This doctor's case highlights the can of worms Diefenbaker and Trudeau opened with their human rights crusades and legislation. The bill of rights and the charter of rights and freedoms. American-style individualism became the stress. <br /> <br /> Yes I realize Europe also has private delivery, but they are more elitist in this case, as with their education system. We can be different.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />

   

Hmmm. Well, if the Supreme Court finds the Canada Health Act unconstitutional, I think that the people of Canada will pressure our provincial, territorial, and federal governments into enshrining it in our constitution. It has been established that one part of the constitution cannot overrule another, just look at Tony O'Donohue who challenged the Act of Settlement 1701 arguing it was against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I believe the courts found that it was not compatible with the Charter, but that since the Act of Settlement is part of the constitution, it cannot be struck down using another part.

   

Imagine if people who could afford private care were removed from the public system, and the savings were used to improve the public system. More doctors, better care, no waits.<br /> So how about starting a social movement on this issue?<br /> This is just a begining. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> <br />

   

Imagine when rich people leave the system to use private healthcare, they will be accessing doctors who, could be working in the public system. There are only so many doctors in the pool, so it won't just be the patients moving from one system, the doctors will be there also.<br /> <br /> Let's come up with something really revolutionary, let's fund the public system, ensure we have doctors, nurses, technicians, and hospitals for them to work in, and then everybody can access good quality care, without going into debt, or bankrupt! How about that for an idea?? Of course we'll need a government committed to funding the system, not blowing up hospitals and firing doctors and nurses!

   

Well, thing is, how do you motivate others to become doctors? Cheaper loans for them? Lower grades for admission?