.

Look at what the Martin/Bush Legacy would entail. BMD, more US protectionism even while Canada is forced to open its borders more and more, reduced human rights here and abroad, involvement in illegal wars, and the continued degradation of Canada's social safety net.

We should be very afraid that George Bush and Paul Martin will become fast friends. Look what happened when Mulroney and Reagan got together.

See, Godz following people around like a paranoid right wing watch dog says it all. Now you’re putting words in people’s mouths because you’re too dim to respond intelligently. What does shutting down hospitals have to do with this thread? You're characterizing someone.
If you want to talk about hospitals I'll tell you something. I live in Victoria. The food service and housekeeping industry here has been privatized for all hospitals. People now make $10 an hr less then before and all the old staff have been laid off. Now in the papers they're saying that the hospitals are dirty, the food is terrible and long term patience are loosing weight because they can’t eat the cheap crap they serve now. The private company that took over is called Crawthall. They cut corners to maximize there profits, serving cheap food, and cutting on hours. What employee would want to work hard when in three years they can only get a 75 cent raise? I went to visit someone in a hospital here. All the garbage’s were overflowing, the floors were dirty, and the food was terrible. You can’t tell me privatization works. It will jeopardize people’s health.

Unfortunatly the US is only backing away on free trade items were they feel they are getting the shitty end off the stick, like lumber only lost 4 times now and still trying to pass a bill that would steal the money held in trust. Apart from that better relations would be nice .

Godz, just want to know how you think not spending money will improve our hospitals. From what I've seen here in Victoria, the private companies have cut back on spending so quality of care is poor. Nobody stays working there if they can get a better job, so everyone is new and inexperienced. Besides, no one is going to work hard for a salary they can get at McDonalds. Private companies are in it for a profit, not for the best interests of the residence. Your wife would be making less money if her hospital was privatized. Perhaps for every province it's different, but out here it's not working. People are upset. In long term care facilities, the residents are not being looked after, they can’t eat the food because it's just not good and as a result they're loosing weight. The hospitals are dirty. They just aren’t getting the care they need. Out here is a good example why hospitals should not be privatized. Could you show me an example of when it worked?

This is a study by Dr. P.J. Devereux and colleagues. It looks at the cost of privatization.

Press Release & Backgrounder (June 7, 2004)
Health Care costs more, delivers less
at investor-owned private for-profit hospitals,
major study finds

TORONTO, June 7, 2004 - Canadian governments would pay an extra $7.2
billion in annual health care costs if Canada switched to investor-owned private for-profit hospitals, according to a major study to be published in the
Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ).
The research builds on earlier findings released in 2002 by the same McMaster University research group that revealed higher death rates in investor-owned private for-profit hospitals and kidney dialysis centres in the United States.

"Our previous study showed the profit motive results in increased death rates, and this one shows it also costs public payers more," said Dr. P.J. Devereaux, lead author of the study. "With for-profit care, you end up paying with your money, and your life."

The systematic review is based on a study of over 350,000 patients between
1980 and 1995 who were treated in private for-profit and not-for-profit U.S.
hospitals. The study found that care cost the patients 19% more at for-profit
hospitals. In an accompanying CMAJ editorial Drs. Steffie Woolhandler and
David Himmelstein from Harvard University described the systematic review and meta-analysis by Dr. Devereaux and colleagues as, "meticulous."

"Patients pay more for care at investor-owned for-profit hospitals because the for-profit hospitals have to generate revenues to satisfy investors, high
executive bonuses, and high administrative costs," said Dr. Devereaux.
"Not-for-profit providers charge less for care because they do not have
investors and have lower executive bonuses, and administrative costs," he
adds.

The results of this review are directly relevant to Canadians for three major
reasons:

· The statistically significant higher payments for care at a wide range of
investor-owned hospitals spanned a 12 year period, despite significant changes to the American health care system

· The results were demonstrated among both publicly funded patients and among privately funded patients.

· If Canada moves to for-profit hospitals, the same large American hospital
chains included in the review would be purchasing Canadian hospitals.

"Health care is a central issue of the federal election campaign. As well, a
number of provinces have allowed for-profit surgical facilities and radiology
facilities and the Conservative party advocates a permissive stance with
regards to investor-owned private for-profit health care facilities," notes
Dr. Devereaux.

"Our results should raise serious concerns about moves to private for-profit
care, whether in hospitals, day surgeries, or other outpatient facilities.
Evidence strongly supports a policy of not-for-profit health care delivery."

- - - - - BACKGROUNDER - - - - -

Study: Payments for care at Private For-Profit
and Private Not-For-Profit Hospitals:
A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Advocates of investor-owned private for-profit health care delivery argue that
the profit motive optimizes care and minimizes costs. However, some fear
for-profit facilities are more likely to respond to financial pressures by
cutting the quality of care and charging more to maintain shareholder
returns. These viewpoints have resulted in a heated debate.

An experienced research team from McMaster University conducted this study to determine the impact of the profit motive on costs to patients or third party payers - that is, insurance companies, or governments. The current study builds on prior work by the same McMaster University research group that showed higher death rates in investor-owned private for-profit hospitals and kidney dialysis centres in the United States than comparable not-for-profit facilities.

When discussing our health care system it is important to distinguish between funding (who pays for our health care) and delivery (who owns and runs our health care facilities). Currently, hospital services in Canada are publicly funded - we pay through our taxes. In terms of delivery, although commonly referred to as public institutions, Canadian hospitals are almost all private not-for-profit institutions owned and operated by communities, religious organizations, and regional health authorities.

The debate concerning for-profit versus not-for-profit provision centers on
delivery: whether we should introduce investor-owned private for-profit health
care facilities into our dominantly private not-for profit health care
delivery system. This study compared how much care cost in U.S. for-profit versus not-for profit hospitals.

The study used a methodology called systematic review and meta-analysis which synthesizes the results of existing high quality studies that all address a single question, in this case: "is there a difference in payments for patient
care received at private for-profit compared to private not-for-profit
hospitals?" The research team developed explicit criteria for deciding
whether a study was eligible; conducted a comprehensive search to identify all relevant studies; applied eligibility criteria to potentially eligible studies in an unbiased manner; examined the quality of the eligible studies; and conducted a rigorous statistical analysis of the data from the studies that ultimately prove eligible and of adequate quality.

In this case the McMaster team identified 7,500 medical articles through an
extensive search. Over seven hundred of these passed an initial eligibility
screen. The team then undertook an extremely important measure to eliminate bias in the selecting which studies to include in the systematic review. The team trained research staff to read through all the articles and use a black marker to obscure the results of the studies. Two reviewers then
independently examined these articles with the results blacked out and determined study eligibility. As a result of this process the researchers could not select studies to reach a specific conclusion. Eight studies including data on over 350,000 patients met eligibility and quality criteria for the systematic
review. Given the approach the investigators took, it isn't surprising that,
in an accompanying editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal,
researchers from Harvard University described the systematic review and
meta-analysis as "meticulous."

The results show that care costs health care payers 19% more at for-profit
than not-for-profit hospitals. Canada currently spends $120 billion annually on health care, and hospital care accounts for 32% of overall expenditures.
Therefore, if Canada switched to investor-owned private for-profit hospitals
the Canadian governments would pay an extra $7.2 billion in annual health care costs.

Why do investor-owned for-profit facilities cost payers more. Private
for-profit facilities have to generate profits to satisfy shareholders, pay
high executive bonuses, and have high administrative costs. Not-for-profit
providers do not have investors and have lower executive bonuses, and
administrative costs. In their editorial, Harvard researchers Woolhandler and
Himmelstein provided an additional explanation: greed.

The U.S. results are directly relevant to Canadians for three major reasons:

· The statistically significant higher payments for care at a wide range of
investor-owned hospitals spanned a 12 year period, despite important
changes to the American health care system during this time
· Payments proved greater in for-profit facilities among both publicly funded
patients and among privately funded patients.
· If Canada moves to for-profit hospitals, the same large American hospital
chains included in the review would be purchasing Canadian hospitals.

This systematic review shows substantially higher payments for patient care at private for-profit hospitals. Combined with the previous two studies that
showed higher death rates in private for-profit hospitals and dialysis
centres, this research raises serious concerns about moves to private for-profit care. Evidence strongly supports a policy of not-for-profit health care delivery.

Good study, Scape. Of course now Godz will call you a communist and tell us once again how rich he's going to get in Amerika.

Godz: