1  2  Next

Tiffany, I wondered where the analogy was going, but you struck a chord in me. I've wondered too why our health care system isn't innovative and found myself suddenly standing with the bad-guy pharmaceuticals. Left and right doesn't really cut it anymore.

   

Wouldn't that be the ever-maligned two-tier health care system that Klein is so keen on? Oh, I think I see a difference. If you go for the 'private' option, you don't get to use the 'regular' health care, right? That sounds more fair...

   

Jesse,

Some of these people who are still not sure about private/public health care, I would like to suggest they read Maude Barlow's book "Profit is not the Cure". Allot of research went into that book. Including some research on both the private and public health care. You also learn in the book that there is many different ways to help our public health care system in order for it to be sustainable. You have to think outside of the box, but not outside to the poin where your suggesting private health care like Klien.

Kevin

   

Kevin's post stuck out for me. Making healthcare "sustainable"... it's NOT possible, at least not in the Liberal/Conservative use of the word The whole concept of medicare is to have a system where people get medical service when they need it. It's a service, not an industry. It isn't sustainable in the common sense nor will it ever be. It's WHY WE PAY TAXES. Even more so, it's why rich corporations DID pay taxes. And now they pay billions of dollars less. Where does this money come from? Well, it comes from our healthcare.

Why would we EVER consider cutting healthcare? To make some company richer? So that American corporations can make more profit exploiting Canadian workers and resources?

So how do we make healthcare sustainable? Well, WE SUSTAIN IT!! It's not a self-sustaining industry. So we need to put money into the system. And we need to do it by making it a priority in the economy. We do that by not cutting corporate taxes and by not trying to pay down the deficit. THOSE privileges should be reserved for when gain the courage to enact some type of reform to the monetary system.

Instead of selling our profit-earning crown corporations, losing medicare (beginning with the two-tier system), and cutting student funding, why don't we just use our brains? We vote for competent people, and if they screw us over, give up on them and move on. We need to stop dwelling on dishonorable liars and move on when we've been had. Then politicians will learn that they're not just there to exploit the common man... sorry about the rant.

-KY

   

Kory ranting is safe here...in my opinion. It does seem like a simple solution if you want more and can pay why not? Here is the way I see it, if a doctor works in a private clinic, charging whatever he/she wants for services, he makes mega bucks, works when he wants and basicly the way he wants. Doctors especially good doctors will weigh the pros and cons, the doctors who are exceptional will go to the pay hospitals, the doctors who are not as good perhaps will work in the public system. The public system will have the basics, so that they cannot say it doesn't exist, but much will be lacking, as the money for research, new equipment will go to the pay hospitals, because they can afford it and because money usually follows the great doctors and they will be in the pay hospitals.

The present situation, where everyone is equal, forces the system to work at having good quality for all. Equipment is bought, research is funded, etc in public hospitals. If the quality of care falls in public systems, nobody will be able to fight, because the rich will just go elsewhere and the poor will be stuck with the leftovers. Just look at the public hospitals in the U.S. they are a perfect example of what happens when the rich fund their own hospitals. It is the same with schools as mentioned above, in the U.S. the public schools are severely overcrowded, underfunded, understaffed, but of course the majority of students are poor, and the parents are overworked and don't have the time or skills to fight for more. Also, the state just says there isn't money to bring up the standards, meanwhile the rich kids have security, smaller classes and plenty of books and extracurricular activities.

The need for private schools arises because of the lack of funding to public schools, when the rich don't like the system they can afford to make their own, rather than address the needs of all. Their kids won't suffer, they will have the advantage, if it wasn't available, they would force the system to be improved. The same will happen with healthcare, you won't find the rich, the politicians, etc in a bed next to yours. So when you complain about the lack of quality care, the unclean hospitals, the laundry, the screw ups with dialysis machines, blood transfusions, etc it won't matter cause you are not important. The rich will only fight for the greater good, if they are forced to participate in the greater good! That is why two tier doesn't work, that is why class systems don't work. That is why Tommy Douglas fought so hard to bring universal care to Canadians, the rich could always get what they needed it's the poor who lose in these situations.

I agree it isn't that the healthcare is unsustainable, but they have chosen to make it that way. They have made decisions that eroded the system over many years, and it will take time to get back on track.

   

Whelan, I like the way you think! And if the better doctors move to the private system, that leaves the public with the "worse" doctors, right? And with inferior equipment. Picture this: Forget about money for a second. Now lets say I point at a group of 100 people and I say "Those people have 10 doctors to treat them, with all the facilities they want." and then I tell you to turn around and you realize that you're in a group with 1000 people and I say "This group we're in also has 10 doctors to treat us, with limited facilities". It's stupid and it's not fair. Everytime a doctor switches to private care, that takes a doctor out of public care. And in short time you end up with some doctors serving 10 times as many patients as some select other doctors. We don't need to change healthcare. We just need to revert to actually paying for it. My mom works for a childcare support progam. And I remember seeing a poster at her work saying "It takes a community to raise a child". Well, this national community is doing a pretty sad job. When over two-thirds of the country is voting for parties whose bottom line is financial, I'm forced to wonder: am I part of an entire generation of "mistakes"? Did they not want us to survive from the beginning? Cause they're sure doing a stand-up job of ensuring our demise. -KY

   

Thanks Whelan, you really hit the problem with two tier systems bang on. The US is a two-tiered system and just look at their public hospitals, not all of them are that great. The healthcare market is a special market in that there is no cap to the costs; the healthcare providers really have control in deciding the price. The healthcare market has an inelastic demand (for you economists , this means that demand will always be so great that you will pay as much as everything you have. When it comes down to it our health is the most important. This is why the government must supply healthcare, having a monopsonist buyer allows the prices to be controlled to a degree. The same goes with pharmaceuticals, a monopsonist buyer can get lower prices (just look at the US to see how the free-market works out for them and drugs). Only two countries in the "developed world" (I dont like that term) dont have some form of health care system, most countries spend MUCH more than we do on healthcare. Does this not say something.

   

I do agree that keeping the rich in the public system keeps the quality up and helps funding to some extent. I've thought about that. But right now the rich go to the US anyway. I had surgery a couple years ago and though we don't have much money my family decided that if the waiting list was too long we would spend the money and go to the US for the surgery. That adds travel expenses on to the cost. Unless we deal with waiting lists immediately, I'd like the option of paying for surgery rather than spending a year or more in pain waiting. And if they people who can pay get out of the queue, then others can get faster access to the public system. It's not a solution for quality, but it might help waiting lists.

   

Tifani,

Paying for the medical service doesn't mean its better then having it provided as efficient as possible through a public funded system.

Of course paying for it may make it available quicker, so we think. But in fact many cases in the U.S and other countries would prove otherwise. There is still waiting time issues in the U.S under the private health care system. There's allot of books and information out there about this. Why do you think there's politicians in the U.S who get support when they suggest bringing a public health care system to the U.S. Many Americans would love what we have. The only ones that don't, are wealthy people who have their hands (stocks) in health care provider companies. I will bet the 40 million who don't have health care would think the public funded helath care as the better option.

Some wealthy people have this wrong idea of public funded health care cause of what they see in Canada where the public health care system is under funded by the federal government. The public system can work if they wanted it too. That's the question, do they want it to work? The money involved if they privatise makes me believe they want to privatise.

Just think. Does it make sense that people who already have a debt have to bring on more debt just to get medical service? Or even not being approved for a loan to help pay for a expensive medical service. Imagine writing your cheque for the rent, and at the same time telling yourself that you wish you can aford that expensive operation that is important to have done as soon as possible.

The problem Tifani isn't do we choose private or public, or both. The problem is politicians who are blinded by privatisation wealth gains. Their not even trying hard enough to see how to make this public funded service to work like it once did. Of course there will need to be changes, but the changes don't have to mean a private system.

Kevin

   

I agree that we need a public system. But if it isn't funded properly, everyone is held hostage. We don't really have complete universal health care today. I'd say eye exams and glasses are necessary health care, but they aren't covered. So many things aren't covered under our supposed universal health system. If our money is going into the system, we also shouldn't have to wait months for surgery. I think we have to make a choice, either fund it properly or look for other options, such as a public/private dual system. Right now, people are being denied care, and after they have paid for the service. In a way, that is almost worse than being denied care and not having paid for it. Something definately has to change.

   

Tifani, I hear you, but consider this, you obviously had the money to make a choice, but many do not, so they will in fact die, or otherwise live in pain and suffer unnecessarily. The government has created the waiting times, the shortages etc, to create an environment where the rich say, 'no no we are not going to put up with this we will pay'. The saying necessity is the mother of invention, is the idea behind this, if there isn't a problem,then there is nothing to fix. So create a problem, and then offer to fix it...hence money in many people's pockets that wouldn't otherwise be there. If the rich weren't so quick to say that their needs override others needs, they would insist that the system be fixed, not that they be provided with another system.

You see that in creating a mess of the current system it opens the doors for those who are greedy to make a buck, the people who will build, maintain and rent the buildings which will be hospitals, will make a buck and so will the doctors, nurses etc who are hired by contract outside of the healthcare system, they will earned whatever the market will bear. Right now all doctors make a certain wage according to criteria, not based on 'I personally demand X dollars because I am the best'. The medical profession is different from other professions and it should be treated differently. That is why it is so important for us to fund our heath system. So that no one has to seek treatment in another country. There will always be rich people who go to Mexico, or Sweden or anywhere to get a special treatment, but that doesn't mean we should alter our system for the rich.

A system for the rich creates deficiencies for the remainder of the population,history proves it, we don't have to reinvent the wheel. If invention is created because of necessity, and money comes from invention than those wanting the bucks are going to create a necessity and they have, by demolishing a perfectly good system over many years!

When the government of the day sees mega bucks at their disposal, they find ways to use that money, years ago consultants were not a big thing, now we have consultants used for everything, no government deals can happen without various people getting paid to consult.

What is consulting, just someone giving someone else ideas about the best way, in their opinion, to handle something. Why do we need so many consultants in Ottawa, we don't but it was invented out of a perceived necessity, to get money from the Canadian people into the hands of those who had a desire to have that money. Health care is no different. When I worked in the dental industry, consultants were the norm, being paid mega bucks, to tell the dentist how to make more money, how to advertise, deal with staff and basicly use common sense...not rocket science, but the dentist felt inadequate, because some guy said you need me to make more money, so the creation of need was there and the consultant filled the need and their pockets quite well!

It's a game and they are playing it with our money and our lives!

   

Whelan,

I would like to use this post as a "letter to the editor". All I need is your city, phone number and address (which you can email private). Maybe you can change the beginning of the post a little so its directed to an audience. Please!

In case you need some details of this area. The city is Timmins, Ontario. The riding is Timmins - James Bay.

Kevin

   

Sure Kevin, I am very familiar with Timmins, I used to live in South Porcupine. Where's your email address?

   

<p><a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> <p>I'll put under your name your new home and also former Timmins resident. Thanks Whelan. Kevin

   

ok Kevin, I sent it with revisions, it is rather long though, about 545 words, so I hope they print it. Of course they can always edit it, let me know if they do print it, please.

   

1  2  Next