Canadian Politics - Healthcare

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It seems most people have a two tier system. A public system which gives everyone basic coverage then a second for profit system where people with money can pay extra to get more. It fills a demand and improves the system as a whole by lowering wait times and improving patient to staff ratios.

But should the poor be penalized with lower quality health care just because they are poor?

In Canada, everyone has access to high quality health care, regardless of whether their wealth.

There are waiting lines, but those could be significantly reduced if funding was increased. But instead, Conservatives and Liberals prefer to give tax cuts to corporations.

It is all about priorities.

[Ben Kenobi]

Health care is already, by far, the single largest expenditure. Throwing more money at the system isn't going to solve the problems.

Secondly, sure everyone may get the same quality of health care, terming that quality of care as high, is not something you are going to find many agreeing with you. Quality health care is performed in a timely fashion, and right now our less than stellar system cannot deliver health care in a timely fashion.

You are very right that it is about priorities. In an effort to deal with costs here in British Columbia, we cut routine eye examinations, which now need to be paid for unless you have a pre existing medical condition. The problem with that is that routine eye examinations, are the best way to keep on top of these medical conditions when they first start to develop. Instead, we devote considerable funds to things that the majority of people do not want to pay for, such as abortion. We have priorities, but our priorities are backwards!

[Tingkai]

You call it throwing money, I call it adequate funding.

Look at the eye exams. All that did was shift the cost from the government to the taxpayer, in other words from an indirect cost to a direct cost.

Canada spends half of what the US spends on health care per capita. So there is room to increase spending.

If Canada continues to under-fund its health care, then it is not surprising that people will complain about the quality.

And yes, universal health care means your tax dollars are going to be spend on things that you don't like. The woman who has perfect eye sight has no need for routine eye exams, and for her, routine eye exams are a waste of money. But it all balances out in the end.

[Kuciwalker]

Look at the eye exams. All that did was shift the cost from the government to the taxpayer, in other words from an indirect cost to a direct cost.

A cost to the government is a cost to the taxpayer. WTF are you smoking?

[Ben Kenobi]

Canada spends half of what the US spends on health care per capita. So there is room to increase spending.

Yes, but that's because Americans are permitted to spend their own money rather than having the government spend it for them.

The american government spends about as much per capita as the canadian government. If Canadians were permitted to spend their own money I am sure they would spend about as much as Americans do.

And yes, universal health care means your tax dollars are going to be spend on things that you don't like. The woman who has perfect eye sight has no need for routine eye exams, and for her, routine eye exams are a waste of money. But it all balances out in the end.

Just because your eyes are perfect now, does not mean they will remain so. Routine eye exams may usually be unnecessary, but they are invaluable when they catch eye problems before they become more advanced. No different from mammograms in that regard.

As for abortion, what medical benefit does it provide the women? Why should abortion be considered part of 'universal medical coverage'? Most folks in Canada do not believe they should be paying for abortions here in Canada. Even if they agree with abortion, they do not believe they should be the ones paying for them.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Tingkai
But should the poor be penalized with lower quality health care just because they are poor?

In Canada, everyone has access to high quality health care, regardless of whether their wealth.

There are waiting lines, but those could be significantly reduced if funding was increased. But instead, Conservatives and Liberals prefer to give tax cuts to corporations.

Except the quality isn't necissarially better for the rich. They pay extra to not have to wait in line not because the doctors are superior. The extra money is for convience and maybe better costumer service.

In any event Canada does have to worry about its tax base and remaining competitive with the US and Mexico. Both of those countries have been lowering taxes so Canada's relative costs have been increasing. They either lower those costs or they risk losing businesses south.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Look at the eye exams. All that did was shift the cost from the government to the taxpayer, in other words from an indirect cost to a direct cost.

A cost to the government is a cost to the taxpayer. WTF are you smoking?

Think about it Kuci, I'm sure you'll eventually get it.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes, but that's because Americans are permitted to spend their own money rather than having the government spend it for them.

The american government spends about as much per capita as the canadian government. If Canadians were permitted to spend their own money I am sure they would spend about as much as Americans do.

Americans spends more than Canadians, and yet they receive about the same quality of healthcare, if not less, because a large chunk of the extra spending is swallowed up by medical insurance bureaucracy.

A two-tiered system means that Canadians would pay more without receiving any additional benefits.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Routine eye exams may usually be unnecessary, but they are invaluable when they catch eye problems before they become more advanced. No different from mammograms in that regard.

You're overstating the case. No one dies from not having an eye exam, while mammograms deal with cancer.

IIRC, you wear glasses. So you think the government should pay for eye exams, but you're opposed to medicare.

Sounds like you want medicare to cover your problems while denying benefits to solve other people's problems.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
As for abortion, what medical benefit does it provide the women? Why should abortion be considered part of 'universal medical coverage'? Most folks in Canada do not believe they should be paying for abortions here in Canada. Even if they agree with abortion, they do not believe they should be the ones paying for them.

I can't recall any surveys done about whether abortions should be covered by medicare. Can you provide any links?

There are numerous situations where abortion provide a medical benefit, where pregnancy puts a woman's life at risk, or effects her mental health.


Why should abortion be considered part of 'universal medical coverage'? Oh, I don't know, maybe because it is a medical procedure.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai
You call it throwing money, I call it adequate funding.

Look at the eye exams. All that did was shift the cost from the government to the taxpayer, in other words from an indirect cost to a direct cost.

Canada spends half of what the US spends on health care per capita. So there is room to increase spending.

If Canada continues to under-fund its health care, then it is not surprising that people will complain about the quality.

And yes, universal health care means your tax dollars are going to be spend on things that you don't like. The woman who has perfect eye sight has no need for routine eye exams, and for her, routine eye exams are a waste of money. But it all balances out in the end.

It's a nice trick to use the US as the measuring rod.

Last time I looked, we were third in per capita spending among G7 nations. Germany was slightly ahead of us. The US was way ahead of everyone.

The problem is not funds. The problem is the results we are getting, or not, from the funds we are already spending.

The public only system has had a very good chance to prove it's worth. People waiting a year for a hip replacement is proof that it is failed.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither


It's a nice trick to use the US as the measuring rod.

Last time I looked, we were third in per capita spending among G7 nations. Germany was slightly ahead of us. The US was way ahead of everyone.

As a percentage of GDP, Canada spends 1 percentage point more than the OECD average (9.9% compared to OECD average of 8.6%), but less than U.S. (15%), Germany and Switzerland (11%), Iceland, Norway and France (10.1% - 10.5%)

In terms of per capita spending:
U.S. $5,635
Norway and Swizerland $3,800
Canada $3,003
OECD average 2,307

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:4daLWwiSMdUJ:https://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/9/3...s+france&hl=en

Slightly older data:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/25/2465559.pdf

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Oerdin
In any event Canada does have to worry about its tax base and remaining competitive with the US and Mexico. Both of those countries have been lowering taxes so Canada's relative costs have been increasing. They either lower those costs or they risk losing businesses south.

Our lower health care costs gives Canada a competitive edge over the U.S. Private health insurance is like a tax in the U.S. Canada has no need to lower its health care spending just to remain competitive. Instead, Canada has room to expand spending.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai


As a percentage of GDP, Canada spends 1 percentage point more than the OECD average (9.9% compared to OECD average of 8.6%), but less than U.S. (15%), Germany and Switzerland (11%), Iceland, Norway and France (10.1% - 10.5%)

In terms of per capita spending:
U.S. $5,635
Norway and Swizerland $3,800
Canada $3,003
OECD average 2,307

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:4daLWwiSMdUJ:https://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/9/3...s+france&hl=en

Slightly older data:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/25/2465559.pdf

As a percent of GDP... so what?

Your first link is broken, and the first chart of the second link confirms what I already said. The US dwarfs everyone, and only Germany of other G7 nations is ahead of us in per capita spending (by $1).

The US $4165
Switzerland $2853
Germany $2361
Canada $2360
Luxembourg $2246
etc...

Do you think it is reasonable to spend more per person than every other nation on Earth (save three) and have to wait a year in agony for a basic procedure that can easily be done in a private setting?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Our lower health care costs gives Canada a competitive edge over the U.S. Private health insurance is like a tax in the U.S. Canada has no need to lower its health care spending just to remain competitive. Instead, Canada has room to expand spending.

We gain a competitive edge by our rich people going to US institutions for prompt care, and thereby exporting cash from our economy?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
As a percent of GDP... so what?

Your first link is broken,

Try this link:

https://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/9/34969633.pdf

GDP percentage is the best measure because it reflects what a country can afford to spend and it reflects the difference in costs. Doctors in a rich country will tend to be paid more than those in a poor country.

Originally posted by notyoueither
Do you think it is reasonable to spend more per person than every other nation on Earth (save three) and have to wait a year in agony for a basic procedure that can easily be done in a private setting?

Either people will pay through taxes for better medicare, or those who can afford it will pay more for private health care.

Either way, it will cost money to eliminate waiting lists.

But applying the private healthcare solution will only benefit those who can afford it. The average family raising kids doesn't have the spare income to pay for private medical care.

There's also the cost that allowing private medical services creates, the unnecessary overhead.

Increasing public health care benefits all, at a lower cost than private health care.

[notyoueither]

Tingkai, you are ignoring France, Sweden, The Netherlands, etc., etc... where private and public coexist, people have longer life expectancies, and the total costs are lower than we are currently paying.

Part of the problem, I feel, is the public is better mantra.

Public is not better when it comes to controlling costs. Accountability gets shot all to hell when results are filtered through the lens of our public service unions and then the governments of the day.

Competition, while a dirty word for some, is also a way of keeping costs down as measured by inputs vs outputs. What we have now is the worst of all possible worlds. A government run monopoly where the monopoly is enforced not by economics, but by divine writ.