Canadian Health Care System

[Keebler Elf]

One thing I often hear on talk radio is people saying that private health care would help the system in that people would be taken off the waiting lists, thus making them shorter.

I believe that's a very dangerous assumption to be making. I could easily see doctors fleeing the public health care sector to set up private clinics, thus making the public waiting lists longer. And that's just short-term. In the long-term, new doctors will all train to be those doctors in the private sector where they can make more money. So then you'd be losing both quality and quantity of doctors.

The overall result will be a two-tiered health care system in every sense of the word. Think of the "public defender" attorney in the legal system; do you really want that when it comes to your life? That is, should the poorer suffer so the wealthier can jump the queue?

I'm not entirely against private health care, but I'd rather see it in the form of certain services gradually being weeded off the public system as they become cheap enough to do so.

The argument is never as simple as "I'll pay privately so the lineup for those in the public system don't have to wait as long". That's the type of patronizing, naive viewpoint that I would expect from someone who can afford something at other peoples' expense...

 

[Pete Graves]

The two tier system already exists. Except rather than the upper tier being the upper and middle classes, it's government officials like Paul Martin who take their families to private clinics while the rest wait for rationed care.

 

[Truncador]

The overall result will be a two-tiered health care system in every sense of the word. Think of the "public defender" attorney in the legal system; do you really want that when it comes to your life? That is, should the poorer suffer so the wealthier can jump the queue?

But so what if the free service is inferior to what wealthier individuals buy on their own ? Whence the moral obligation for using the power of the State to force everybody to receive exactly the same services ? Do we have a hammer-and-sickle somewhere in our Royal coat of arms ?

 

[Keebler Elf]

You sure you're not American? Or a sycophant American wannabe? All your references to "commies" and "nazis" really makes me wonder sometimes. Or maybe you're just really old and dated, cuz I never hear anyone under the age of 40 talking like that. Or maybe you think aliens and black helicopters are amongst us. That would explain a lot...

 

[Keebler Elf]

The two tier system already exists. Except rather than the upper tier being the upper and middle classes, it's government officials like Paul Martin who take their families to private clinics while the rest wait for rationed care.

Exactly. All the more reason to restrict the existence of private clinics.

As an aside, I DO think very high ranking gov't officials should get some kind of priority health care. Why, you ask? Because they're in charge of our country and it doesn't do much for social stability if your leader is crippled or bedridden. I'm not saying hundreds of gov't officials or anything, but I have no problem with the PM or president getting preferential treatment. I think he should. The country has elected him as our leader/figurehead afterall. Having a lame-duck president has been the cause of more than one war throughout history...

 

[someone]

I don't want to repeat everything I wrote in the thread in the Lounge section on a two-teired system (that’s the problem with multiple threads on the same topic). However, I will repeat one thing. Almost every developed country in the world has some sort of two-teired system. I have lived in such countries and the systems work. I think that the claim that any compromise at all will lead to the American system is just fear mongering by healthcare unions and others with a vested interest in the current system.

 

[Truncador]

You sure you're not American? Or a sycophant American wannabe? All your references to "commies" and "nazis" really makes me wonder sometimes. Or maybe you're just really old and dated, cuz I never hear anyone under the age of 40 talking like that. Or maybe you think aliens and black helicopters are amongst us. That would explain a lot...

It sure would.

 

[Keebler Elf]

I think that the claim that any compromise at all will lead to the American system is just fear mongering by healthcare unions and others with a vested interest in the current system.

Or a legitimate concern of Canadians who don't want those with money to have good health care and those without to have none.

 

[someone]

Or a legitimate concern of Canadians who don't want those with money to have good health care and those without to have none.

Why would anyone be foolish enough to think that would be the outcome? Most likely because they are not aware of what goes on in other countries and just believe the propaganda they hear from special interest groups.
Moreover, as I said in the other thread, the current system is not sustainable.

 

[Keebler Elf]

Why would anyone be foolish enough to think that would be the outcome?

Because there's a country of 300 million people right next door to us where it's happening every day. Maybe. Ya think. Just maybe.

How about this: we have a lottery and 4-out-5 Canadians get health care. The fifth person gets nothing. Nada. Bupkiss. You get sick, you die. Plain and simple. Too bad for you, but it's great for the rest of us. Now, YOU get to be that fifth person. Sorry, too bad-so sad, you're out of luck. You get sick, you die. Then we'll see how in favour of a health care system for the fortunate you'll be...

So far I haven't seen a rational, coherant argument for why we should have private health care. It's always "I can afford it, so I should be able to have it". Wow. Brilliant. Give the guy a Nobel Prize for that bit of intellectual wonder. Or the "People will move to private, making shorter wait lists for everyone else" naive bullshit that people use to rationalize using price as the weeding-out mechanism for health care. It's a great argument, until you look at what happens when health care providers stampede to the private sector and leave the scraps for the public. Wow. Great idea.

 

[someone]

Because there's a country of 300 million people right next door to us where it's happening every day. Maybe. Ya think. Just maybe.

How about this: we have a lottery and 4-out-5 Canadians get health care. The fifth person gets nothing. Nada. Bupkiss. You get sick, you die. Plain and simple. Too bad for you, but it's great for the rest of us. Now, YOU get to be that fifth person. Sorry, too bad-so sad, you're out of luck. You get sick, you die. Then we'll see how in favour of a health care system for the fortunate you'll be...

What the hell are you talking about? Clearly, you have not seen much of the world. If you learnt something about the rest of the world, you would realize how silly you're being.

 

[Keebler Elf]

What the hell are you talking about? Clearly, you have not seen much of the world. If you learnt something about the rest of the world, you would realize how silly you're being.

How I am being silly? By making global generalizations backed up with NOTHING? Oh sorry, that's you...

By the way, there's this country, somewhere, with some type of health care system, with some kind of cost, and it works AMAZINGLY well. Trust me!

p.s. I like how you didn't address the point of my last point.

Because you can't. Typical of people who talk a lot of shit but can't back it up with anything more than "Because I said so" nonsense...

 

[someone]

So far I haven't seen a rational, coherant argument for why we should have private health care. It's always "I can afford it, so I should be able to have it". Wow. Brilliant.

Have you actually read any of the arguments? I doubt it.

Give the guy a Nobel Prize for that bit of intellectual wonder.

I don't think they have actually got around to giving one for heath economics yet.

Or the "People will move to private, making shorter wait lists for everyone else" naive bullshit that people use to rationalize using price as the weeding-out mechanism for health care. It's a great argument, until you look at what happens when health care providers stampede to the private sector and leave the scraps for the public. Wow. Great idea.

Yes, just look at Europe, Austalia, New Zealand, etc. etc. Or for that matter the school system where they allow people to send their kids to private schools.

 

[someone]

How I am being silly? By making global generalizations backed up with NOTHING? Oh sorry, that's you...

By the way, there's this country, somewhere, with some type of health care system, with some kind of cost, and it works AMAZINGLY well. Trust me!

p.s. I like how you didn't address the point of my last point.

That because you edited it in after I posted. What type of games are you trying to play?

Because you can't. Typical of people who talk a lot of shit but can't back it up with anything more than "Because I said so" nonsense...

God, you are fool. The reason you had trouble with introductory economics (as you mentioned in another post) obviously had to do with intellectual limitations on your part. Now why don't you add something else to your post and accuse me of not answering it again.

 

[Quest4Less]

Value

But so what if the free service is inferior to what wealthier individuals buy on their own ?

So you believe that because someone has money it somehow makes their life more valuable?

 

[Keebler Elf]

That because you edited it in after I posted. What type of games are you trying to play?

None at all. I always edit my posts after I make my initial one, usually within a couple minutes; that way I never lose the core of my thoughts if my computer freezes. Sorry if you had thought you're special. You're not.

But I'm glad to hear that you're waiting with baited breath for my every post. HAHAHA!

p.s. making vague references to other countries does not a good argument make. Especially when one of our most likely comparators is the USA.

p.p.s. I'm editing! Hope you're not going to be confused. LOL!

 

[someone]

None at all. I always edit my posts after I make my initial one,

Than you should know better to critize people for not responding to points you edited in later.

Then you should not c
usually within a couple minutes; that way I never lose the core of my thoughts if my computer freezes. Sorry if you had thought you're special. You're not.

But I'm glad to hear that you're waiting with baited breath for my every post. HAHAHA!

p.s. making vague references to other countries does not a good argument make.

Well I have first hand experience with the system in the U.S., New Zealand, several Canadian provinces that I have lived in and had to use regularly due to a chronic condition, and less extensive experience with the European and Australian systems. All of these countries have problems with their medical systems, as do Canadian problems. However, with the obvious exception of the U.S. system (which is actually not as bad as many Canadians believe) they were not due to the private aspect. Indeed, I lived for several years in New Zealand and basically always used the public part of the system (they definitely have a two-teired system) and got significantly better service than the province I currently live in (Although the NZ system was not “significantly better" than Ontario). How many countries have you had first had experience with? If your experience is a single Canadian province, as I suspect, and you are completely unaware of the situation in other countries, I will ignore your opinion. Indeed, can you even name a developed country outside of North American that does not allow private care?