Canadian government to fall

[DinoDoc]

They'd just end back up on the public dole anyway.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon

The fact that the US was, last time I checked, spending double the percentage of its GDP on health care that Canada was, yet failing to provide health care to about 1/5 of its citizens.

Go look it up for yourself.

And the US is the only relative place to compare to, why?

The UNHDI you moron.

Calm down, junior.

You are aware that the UNHDI is not standard of living per se, are you not? Or, are you maintaining that Canada has a higher standard of living than Switzerland?

You guys need to get with the facts.

Here's your opportunity to show us some. Go ahead.

What? Again? Do you dispute that Canadians are on average healthier than Americans? Do you dispute market failure theory.

Probably not, because you don't even know what it is.

Gee, Aggie, are you aware that there is a whole, big world out there, and that comparisons to the US are the red herring of the debate on Canadian health care?

Do you care that we spend more on healthcare per person than others, like Sweden and Japan, yet we get poorer results? How can that be?!

Let's compare apples to apples, shall we? Let's compare countries with universal access, and not a country with public only health care (Canada) with a country that would not merit the label of having universal access (the US).

In 2004, we spent more per person on health than all OECD countries save Switzerland, Germany, Iceland, and France (taking the American orange out of the picture).

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/3/62/31938359.pdf

Do you think we are getting the bang for the buck?

Despite the big bucks, we have a very low number of doctors and nurses per person. We have far fewer physicians per 1000 people than the OECD average. We did better on that score than Japan, Mexico, Korea, and Turkey. Our nurses made up for it, coming in at 12th (just behind the Czech Republic) or did they? Does it sound to you as if we are shifting responsibility for our health to nurses? It does to me. What effect does that have?

The percentage of Canadians waiting more than 4 months for elective surgery shot up from 12% in 1998 (just as the spending on healthcare resumed rising after cutbacks) to 27% in 2001 (after significant increases in spending on our health care system).

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/24/32/5162353.pdf

Where's our banana for being good commies and having a public only system? Please explain this to me.

Now, combine all this with the fact that expenditures on healthcare are outstripping growth in the economies of all OECD countries, and you get the situation, when combined with greying populations, that people are looking for better ways to deliver and finance healthcare. This is not brain surgery, Aggie. You should be able to follow along with the bouncing ball.

Now, as for your taunts, you may shelve your complete failure to contribute anything to this thread right alongside whatever failure of some market is stuck up your ass. Oh, and please, in future, get your facts from another place. They stink, and I don't think anbody is enjoying your sharing them with us.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ramo


A single payer healthcare system has vastly lower administrative costs than a US-like Balkanized insurance system. Our system is extremely inefficient. If we switched to a single payer system, there'd be easily enough in savings to insure everyone currently uninsured according to various studies (i.e. by the US GAO).

The US is the mutant of the healthcare industry in industrialised nations.

Comparisons with the Yankee system for health are as valid as comparing our political philosophy to Ayn Rand.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon Do you dispute market failure theory.

Originally posted by Agathon
Crap. Markets fail. Please look up market failure in an economics textbook.

Originally posted by Agathon
Here. I'll help you out

It sounds to me like Aggie has had coffee with an economist recently.

Look, everyone! Aggie has a new phrase and wants to show it off.

Perhaps, Aggie, you could tell us what this has to do with a sector of the Canadian economy that has not acted as a market for the last 40 years, or why the 'market' hasn't 'failed' in other OECD countiries with a blend of public and private health care.

If you mention the US, you forfeit.

Oh, and could you also explain why the Canadian pharmacutical industry is doing just fine being in private hands, with minimal government involvement?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
Now go through most of the things the Government of Canada provides and ask yourself whether they are subject to market failure. Almost all of them are.

Actually, the majority of the federal budget gets spent on things the federal government is not responsible for providing.

Health, education, welfare... are all jurisdictions of the provinces.

The GoC get involved to redistribute wealth, not only from one income level of Canadians to another, but from one region of Canada to another. The fed dishes out the cash, and the provinces deliver.

But of course you knew all this already, given that you have your nifty, new 'market failure' toy that explains everything and even cures warts. Right?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by notyoueither

It sounds to me like Aggie has had coffee with an economist recently.

Look, everyone! Aggie has a new phrase and wants to show it off.

I've been making this argument ever since I started posting here. Ask around, or go look yourself.

Perhaps, Aggie, you could tell us what this has to do with a sector of the Canadian economy that has not acted as a market for the last 40 years, or why the 'market' hasn't 'failed' in other OECD countiries with a blend of public and private health care.

That's the difference: a blend of public and private health care. I'm certainly not suggesting that a two tier system is not workable. We have just such a system in New Zealand, and it works reasonably well. It stopped working reasonably well when the government started cutting healthcare funding and premiums skyrocketed. Even the insurance companies were pissed off about it.

But what is really happening is not that there is a healthcare shortfall. All our countries are richer now than they have ever been. We could easily afford to bring down waiting lists if we funded the health care system properly. People just won't do this because they want to spend the money on consumer goods and they think that someone else will prop up the shortfall. It's a false economy: they will either end up paying a lot more under a private system, or they will go without (in fact this is the same phenomenon as that which underlies market failures).

Everyone knows that voters think that they can have their cake and eat it too. Pandering to that desire is not responsible government. Conservatives pander to it because the 10% of the population that they actually represent the interests of would be better off without a public system: the majority of Canadians would not be.

The healthcare "crisis" is not a crisis at all. We can easily afford it. Perhaps if the education system and politicians actually explained to citizens why it is that they pay tax, we wouldn't have silly parties like the CCP trying to screw up the country. As it is, too many Canadians are wasting their money on frivolities and neglecting health care.

None of this has anything to do with egalitarianism or statism or any other one of your bugbears. It has to do with market failures, not political ideologies.

If you mention the US, you forfeit.

You don't make the rules. The United States is the clearest example of the massive market failures that private health insurance causes.

Oh, and could you also explain why the Canadian pharmacutical industry is doing just fine being in private hands, with minimal government involvement?

Um... where did I say that every industry must be organized by the state. I have no problems with pharmaceuticals being produced by private companies. Pharmaceuticals are not an insurance product, and are not plagued by market failures.

This is why Canada's single payer system is probably a better option than the more "communist" NHS in Britain.


But again, you have resorted to snide remarks in order to mask your political and economic illiteracy.

Oh and the number of doctors and nurses is a red herring. Same as class size: it's bollocks and has little relevance to the effectiveness of a healthcare system.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Asher
One prime example of a Market Failure is Philosophy instructors in public universities. They serve no purpose to society, so without the government funding their paycheques they would be forced to find real, productive jobs for our society. And we can't have that.

*moan* not again.


0.1/10

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
That's the difference: a blend of public and private health care. I'm certainly not suggesting that a two tier system is not workable.

Canadian debate buzzbot
You just failed basic Canadian political literacy 101.

Please go back to your port of entry and try again.

Thank you for your time.

But seriously, you just camped out in Steven Harper country. Welcome to the club!

We have just such a system in New Zealand, and it works reasonably well. It stopped working reasonably well when the government started cutting healthcare funding and premiums skyrocketed. Even the insurance companies were pissed off about it.

Everyone was pissed off about the fiscal responsibility that was imposed by circumstances from 1980-1995.

But what is really happening is not that there is a healthcare shortfall. All our countries are richer now than they have ever been. We could easily afford to bring down waiting lists if we funded the health care system properly. People just won't do this because they want to spend the money on consumer goods and they think that someone else will prop up the shortfall. It's a false economy: they will either end up paying a lot more under a private system, or they will go without (in fact this is the same phenomenon as that which underlies market failures).

Excuse me?

We are spending more, and ever more. How much more do you want over 10% of GDP? Name the number, and let electors decide.

The point is that healthcare in a totally public system is rationed not by the market, and the ability to pay, but by bureaucrats and their inefficient ability to deliver in an environment with zero competition.

Everyone knows that voters think that they can have their cake and eat it too. Pandering to that desire is not responsible government. Conservatives pander to it because the 10% of the population that they actually represent the interests of would be better off without a public system: the majority of Canadians would not be.

Bull**** alert!

Nobody in any party has advocated abolishing the public system.

The healthcare "crisis" is not a crisis at all. We can easily afford it. Perhaps if the education system and politicians actually explained to citizens why it is that they pay tax, we wouldn't have silly parties like the CCP trying to screw up the country. As it is, too many Canadians are wasting their money on frivolities and neglecting health care.

Except, emperor Aggie, sir... WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEND OUR OWN DOLLARS ON HEALTHCARE!

... at least, not until a recent court decision re the people of Quebec and their Charter of Rights. God bless them, everyone of them!

None of this has anything to do with egalitarianism or statism or any other one of your bugbears. It has to do with market failures, not political ideologies.

And not much of what you say corresponds to any reality heretofore plumbed by man.

How is the air on that planet?

You don't make the rules. The United States is the clearest example of the massive market failures that private health insurance causes.

And it is a clear example of a non universal access nation. When did you suppose Canada would join them in that? Just after the next Conservative becomes PM and eats the brains of average Canadians?

When will that sci-fi movie be released? I saw Maggie Thatcher suck the life force out of a servant, now I want my Harper eating brains, damnit!

Um... where did I say that every industry must be organized by the state. I have no problems with pharmaceuticals being produced by private companies. Pharmaceuticals are not an insurance product, and are not plagued by market failures.

This is why Canada's single payer system is probably a better option than the more "communist" NHS in Britain.

If they are not, then why would the delivery of healthcare be... in Japan, Germany, Belguim, Iceland, Great Britain, France, Italy, Spain...

In fact, every country on Earth has private healthcare save Canada... Cuba and North Korea.

Now, who is in good company?

But again, you have resorted to snide remarks in order to mask your political and economic illiteracy.

Oh and the number of doctors and nurses is a red herring. Same as class size: it's bollocks and has little relevance to the effectiveness of a healthcare system.

Then why does the OECD track it? Hmmm?

[Ramo]

The US is the mutant of the healthcare industry in industrialised nations.

Comparisons with the Yankee system for health are as valid as comparing our political philosophy to Ayn Rand.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_systems.html

OECD rankings of health care systems from 1997. Very interesting.

They give this ranking for overall health care:
1. France
2. Italy
7. Spain
9. Austria
10. Japan
11. Norway
17. Netherlands
18. UK
20. Switzerland
21. Belgium
23. Sweden
25. Germany
30. Canada
31. Finland
34. Denmark
37. USA
48. Czech Republic
50. Poland
112. India
130. Russia
144. China

It looks like the French system's looking pretty good (or at least was several years ago). According to the OECD figures from 2002 that you provided, France's public spending on health care is as high as Canada's, but with lower private spending. Italy has a slightly higher proportion of public to private spending, but is substantially cheaper than France.

IIRC, both France and Italy have single payer health care, but allow supplementary private insurance. That IMO, is the best solution, and the one I advocate over here.

Incidentally, if y'all have no private insurance, why does the OECD show such large private expenditures (~$900/capita)?

[notyoueither]

IIRC, both France and Italy have single payer health care, but allow supplementary private insurance. That IMO, is the best solution, and the one I advocate over here.

And the one that the GoC sought to outlaw until a recent SCoC decision.

The flood gates are now open, so far as the lefties in Canada are concerned, and the mouth of hell yawns wide...

Meanwhile, the rest of us are trying to figure out how to make the system work.

Incidentally, if y'all have no private insurance, why does the OECD show such large private expenditures (~$900/capita)?

We have high private spending due to pharmacuticals, and other things not covered by the Canada Health Act, like home nursing care.

[Ramo]

Is there any prescription drug insurance available?

[notyoueither]

Yes, and what the insurance companies spend on drugs, together with premiums paid (or at least the difference) would be included in private health expenditures.

[notyoueither]

Incidently, since we have this myth of national healthcare that takes care of everyone and everything, far fewer people take private insurance for non-funded items seriously.

I offer to pay half the premium for employees who want Blue Cross coverage for dental, drugs, and other things not covered by healthcare. I get fewer than 50% takers. Admittedly, my sample is small and more of young people, but still.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Originally posted by Agathon
Now go through most of the things the Government of Canada provides and ask yourself whether they are subject to market failure. Almost all of them are.

Actually, the majority of the federal budget gets spent on things the federal government is not responsible for providing.

Health, education, welfare... are all jurisdictions of the provinces.

The GoC get involved to redistribute wealth, not only from one income level of Canadians to another, but from one region of Canada to another. The fed dishes out the cash, and the provinces deliver.

But of course you knew all this already, given that you have your nifty, new 'market failure' toy that explains everything and even cures warts. Right?

Respond to this, please, Aggie.

[Peter Triggs]

NYE:
The point is that healthcare in a totally public system is rationed not by the market, and the ability to pay, but by bureaucrats and their inefficient ability to deliver in an environment with zero competition.

I partly disagree: the market is still there but the government has given itself the role of a monopoly supplier of healthcare provisions. The waiting lists one often encounters in the process of demanding these provisions show that here we have an example of market failure.