Health Care

[Robert Ross]

View the Health Care vlog and tell Canada what you think about our health care system. What has been your experience? Can our system be improved? How does Canada's system really stack up against that of our neighbours to the south? Did Michael Moore tell the whole story?

<a href="http://blip.tv/play/2kK22D4A" target="_blank">http://blip.tv/play/2kK22D4A</a>

.

Transcript: One of the things that we're most proud of in Canada is our health care system. Now you may feel warm and cozy thinking you have free health care, but according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, Canada spent about $148 billion on health care in 2006, all of which came either directly from your pocket or from your tax dollars. How free is that? Now there are some who have begun to talk about allowing private health care in addition to what exists today. Opponents of this idea say that this would just lead to "two tier" health care system whereby only the wealthy would have access to better care than the rest of us. But isn't keeping a "one tier" system just forcing everyone to use the same over worked, over crowded system? Wouldn't it be a win-win for everyone if private hospitals and clinics could help take some of the patients from the public system that simply can’t keep up? This would reduce wait times and, well, it would give us a *choice*. This is free country, isn't it? If someone wants private medical care - and is willing and able to pay for it - what right on earth does our or any other government have in prohibiting that? That’s the question. The answer is complicated. Tell Canada what you think about our health care system at momentofyouth.o rg.

[Kevin]

If Canada were to institute a two-tier health care system, where would all the doctors for the private sector come from? Would them come from the public tier or perhaps brought over from other countries. The answer I'm not to sure about, but it would probably be a combination of the two. If doctors move to the private sector to make more money who is going to be left to work in public health care? This could lead to a doctor shortage and perhaps even sub-par doctors working in public health care. A result in even longer wait times than what we have now and overall lower quality health care in the public health care system. Is that fair, is it fair because someone is less wealthy then someone else they should deserve worse medical treatment. Let me bring up a bit of an extreme example: Should someone have to die because the doctors who can perform the treatment are only in the private sector of health care and they can't afford those doctors? I'm not saying this will happen if we allow privatized medicine to be practiced in Canada, but its a possibility.
While reading my reply you probably noticed "could possibly" or something along those lines a few times and alot of "maybes". This is because I am not sure of what will happen if we allow some privatization of our health care system. So if you agree of disagree with my ideas let me know and also let me know what you think will happen if we get a two-tier health care system in Canada.

[Jason Jandl]

I think it would be a horrible mistake to allow private health care into Canada for one simple reason, they are a business. A very profitable business at that which we can see from looking at the USA. Like any business they will attempt to crush the competition which just happens to be our public healthcare and they'd probably find a way either by stealing all the staff away with pay raises or by lobbying the government to get rid of public healthcare. Either way it would end with us in the same horrible spot as the USA is when it comes to healthcare. Our system may not be the best but it is far better then private healthcare.

[tyeshutty]

The biggest problem of the staffing problem stems from the education and certification system. Many medical students specialize, so to make more money to pay for medical school, reducing the number of family doctors. Doctor unions actually impose quotas on Universities so to reduce the number of doctors and keep wages high. Foreign immagrents are unable to become certified doctors even if they are fully competent in their field.

Some doctors flee to the USA to make more money, but some doctors flee to Canada to work in a more humane system.

All in all, privitization wont fix the problems, there are other solutions.

[Taylorj]

I don't understand the argument against the two-tier system.  I am proud of Canada's health care system; however, what makes me proud of it is not that it gives everybody equal treatment, but rather that it is there when we need it.  That's not going to change.  I do think that it's great that my government is there to keep me alive and healthy, even though I can't personally afford it.  I don't think that it's great that we're spending needless amounts of dollars simply to ensure that the wealthiest of our citizens seek to spend their money in other countries so that they can have access to the quality of service that they seek.

Don't get me wrong, it's not something that can or should be implemented without serious regulation, but ultimately, if I'm wounded or seriously ill I'd much rather see a doctor sooner rather than later, regardless of whether or not that doctor studied at a slightly less prestigious than the one who's freeing up the waiting room by taking on a few of the wealthier patients.  As long as the beds are free and the necessary equipment is available, most nurses can even tend to many pressing issues and keep situations from getting worse until a qualified doctor arrives.  The fear of a Doctor shortage is a fear of a what if.  Hospitals not having enough room to admit patients is a problem that's happening now.

But why can't we take the idea further to improve overall health care as well?  Why not allow private practices to attract better doctors, but have regulations in place to ensure that the government can call on those doctors if they're needed.  Granted, figuring out where to draw the line on what's needed and what isn't may be a tricky one to figure out, but at least the discussion of it is progress.

[jmcneil]

The US system is a failure not because of the free market, but due to it's high level of government regulation. The HMO system was conceived by KP and Nixon and was designed to force money out of employers and to heavily favor large corporations and harm small business.

If you dig deep enough into almost all regulations they are designed to crush the competition of the large and established companies that can afford to deal with excessive government regulation.

Private pay healthcare is a good thing; When you have a third party footing the bill the maximum is always charged. When it's a first party payment (like almost all other industries) providers are often willing to offer less expensive options, work out payment plans or do services at reduced rates or even pro bono. Not the case when the government is involved. All parties try to use the force of the state to force as much money out of the taxpayers as possible.

I'd like to see a system where private insurance is available and that insurance is not used for routine care but for catastrophic events (injuries, serious disease, etc.); in this system everyone could afford insurance because it would be priced more reasonable as it would not be used as often as a managed health 'insurance' system.

[Ben]

I think we should have the option of private health care.  People should have the option of 1. paying through taxes for health care from the government 2. Paying for private health insurance 3. Paying cash as needed.  Thats the only way I can think of that insures us freedom. 

I agree.  This is the problem with the US situation.  The government, not the free market.

"The US system is a failure not because of the free market, but due to it's high level of government regulation. The HMO system was conceived by KP and Nixon and was designed to force money out of employers and to heavily favor large corporations and harm small business."

[Taylorj]

I think we should have the option of private health care.  People should have the option of 1. paying through taxes for health care from the government 2. Paying for private health insurance 3. Paying cash as needed.

If we have the option to pay the tax then that's the same as having privatized health care, only we get to choose whether we want to buy it from the government or from someone else.  If that happens then the quality of health care which the government has to offer will go down because it will have lost a bunch of it's funding.  The idea of global health care is that everyone pitches in so that no one gets left out.  Privatized health care needs to be offered on top of government services if we want to improve overall quality, not as an alternative to them.

If we want to start opt-out programs with our taxes there are plenty of other places we can look to before we start taking money out of our hospitals.  I pay for plenty of roads I don't use, farms that can't grow food that I wouldn't eat anyway, a whole province that I've never been to and don't plan on visiting anytime soon.  But I can't see how opt-out programs are going to raise the status-quo.  If we don't have to pay for what we're not using, then there's no reason to be using the government as a middle-man.  In some cases I do agree that we don't need that middle-man, but when it comes to health-care, education, food, shelter, and (a basic level of) security, I think that the needs of the many outweigh the wants of the few.  That being said, I also don't think that those two things are mutually exclusive.  If we can give those few their wants without affecting the needs of the many, then I see no reason not to work towards making that happen.

[Ben]

If we have the option to pay the tax then that's the same as having privatized health care, only we get to choose whether we want to buy it from the government or from someone else.  If that happens then the quality of health care which the government has to offer will go down because it will have lost a bunch of it's funding.  The idea of global health care is that everyone pitches in so that no one gets left out.  Privatized health care needs to be offered on top of government services if we want to improve overall quality, not as an alternative to them.

If we want to start opt-out programs with our taxes there are plenty of other places we can look to before we start taking money out of our hospitals.  I pay for plenty of roads I don't use, farms that can't grow food that I wouldn't eat anyway, a whole province that I've never been to and don't plan on visiting anytime soon.  But I can't see how opt-out programs are going to raise the status-quo.  If we don't have to pay for what we're not using, then there's no reason to be using the government as a middle-man.  In some cases I do agree that we don't need that middle-man, but when it comes to health-care, education, food, shelter, and (a basic level of) security, I think that the needs of the many outweigh the wants of the few.  That being said, I also don't think that those two things are mutually exclusive.  If we can give those few their wants without affecting the needs of the many, then I see no reason not to work towards making that happen.

If you have to pay the tax then pay for private service you are paying twice.  Yes there are many government services that you should be able to opt out of also.  I am against government subsides for any industry farming is a good example.  Taxes should be paid mostly to the community you live in so that they more directly benefit you and your family.  There is no right way to live and people in Ottawa have no business stealing money from everyone in Canada spending it how they see fit. 

[Taylorj]

Yes you'd be paying twice.  If you worked the system out properly it would theoretically be possible to make it so that you're only paying once but paying to two people, but that's a bit too idealistic for me to believe that it could be pulled off any time soon so I'll just be content with people paying twice.  Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on most issues.  Farmer subsidies is a touchy one as I do think it's valuable to keep them around, but I definately don't think we need to spend as much money as we do in order to do that, and I'm perfectly willing to accept the idea that if they weren't around someone else would be so I won't argue with you on that one.  There are only two industries that I really support the public funding of.  Health Care and Education.  The reason is the same for both of these which is to support the growth of the community as a whole.

I do also believe that both of these things would work better if they were supported completely by private funding instead of public funding.  What I don't believe is that our current system can make that transfer any time within at least the next decade.  If we allow people to opt out of the Health Care system then public health care will suffer.  Not only that but the private health care that is available won't have the same level of quality because it will be competing with the public system instead of working with it (and yes, in some situations competition is bad for the overall product such as when you know the limits that your competition can reach and so have no reason to offer services higher than a single step above that system).  The idea of a two-tiered system is the idea of offering a second tier above the first.  Not shrinking the first to make room for the second.  We want to provide some extra beds to those who can afford it.  Not take beds from those who can`t.

I think a privately run system would have to rely heavily on, as you said, the community (though you might not agree that that would require some heavy government regulations, but I do think that the monitoring of those regulations should mostly be done by a third party).  It could definately work, but in order for it to work without a collapse of the universal part of our health care system there has to be a slow transition, gradually placing services in the public market as communities build support systems for them and allow those markets to grow financially sector by sector so that when it comes time for the government to give us the option of where we want to spend our own money on our healthcare the burden won't be so great that potentially valuable people may get left behind when it really matters. In my mind the two tier system is the next step (or first step depending on how you look at it) towards self-sufficiency, and when it comes to freedom I think that that should be our goal.  I do not see freedom in privatizing our healthcare outright.  I simply see the control being passed to different hands.

[Robert Ross]

I think it would be a horrible mistake to allow private health care into Canada for one simple reason, they are a business. A very profitable business at that which we can see from looking at the USA. Like any business they will attempt to crush the competition which just happens to be our public healthcare and they'd probably find a way either by stealing all the staff away with pay raises or by lobbying the government to get rid of public healthcare. Either way it would end with us in the same horrible spot as the USA is when it comes to healthcare. Our system may not be the best but it is far better then private healthcare.

Like any business, they *have* to provide excellent care or they will *lose* the business. When the government has basically outlawed competition and established themselves as the monopoly (using bureaucrats with no medical training to run the monopoly!), the health care industry is *no longer accountable* for it's performance -- What are you going to do? Take your health care needs elsewhere? Big Brother tells us that is not in our best interest.

When things are run as a business, the people whose livelihoods depend on the welfare of that business tend to take a more vested interest in it. AND when there is reward for innovation, people tend to do a better job as well.