Alberta begins to tear down Medicare

[JLives]

It's interesting to me that you assume I wouldn't be ok with the government regulating what a doctor can charge for a health procedure.

What's particularly interesting is that so many people can't just discuss how we might solve the problem without boxing us in with an ideal that clearly does not work in reality.

Are you also ok with regulating their salary?

Speaking of ideas not rooted in reality, adding a private tier to our public system WILL drain resources from the public sector. That's capitalism baby.

[The Green Barbarian]

Speaking of ideas not rooted in reality, adding a private tier to our public system WILL drain resources from the public sector. That's capitalism baby.

No, that's fear-mongering baby.

[rustled]

Who defines "need"?

I would hope it's someone with medical knowledge who can judge the severity of whatever infliction exists and the consequences of delaying treatment. More important that the same yardstick is used with everyone.

Here in BC, Worksafe BC can decide a 50-year-old's "need" is greater than a 66-year-old's "need", regardless of how much pain or for how long, for the same procedure.

How is that fair?

Is it unfair if the same parameters I described above are used? WCB have medical professionals at their disposal.

You may be sure WCB would prioritize the 66-year-old's surgery based solely on need. I'm not so sure.

If the 66-year-old is retired, they're not eligible for the WCB queue-jump.

If the 66-year-old is willing to pay for the procedure, how is that "unfair" to the 64-year-old waiting for the same procedure in the public system who now moves up a spot in the queue? In this scenario, both the 64-year-old and the 66-year-old suffer less, which IMO makes it needless suffering to insist the 66-year-old must wait in the fully-funded public queue when that queue clearly cannot meet their need in a timely and effective manner.

It's a forest vs trees thing. This is just another step in widening the gap between rich and poor.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/10/us/politics/gao-income-gap-rich-poor.html

Nonsense.

Allowing people to pay to pull out of the fully-funded public queue is NOT the same as allowing them to pay to jump ahead in the queue. Picture yourself in a line-up for checkouts. If another checkout opens, everyone in the queue gets to the front faster. Picture yourself waiting to enter the government liquor store. If three people leave the queue to shop elsewhere, the rest of us get to the front faster.

If we could afford a fully funded system that met patient needs in a timely and effective manner, we'd already have it.

Perhaps it's not money that's lacking, but the political will.

Do you honestly believe if a provincial government in Canada could provide it, they'd choose not to?

The political will isn't there because they fully understand the ramifications of taxing us at the level required.

Look, the idea of making sure everyone can afford essential health care regardless of their income is marvelous. Now that we have more and more procedures available to improve our quality of life, it's illogical and unreasonable to suggest every medical procedure should be fully covered by taxation or not happen at all, period.

We must figure out more sensible solutions than this "it must all be fully funded" mentality we've allowed ourselves to be boxed into by people who are every bit as fearful now of changing the way we deliver health care as those who were afraid to bring in universal health care in the first place.

[rustled]

It's interesting to me that you assume I wouldn't be ok with the government regulating what a doctor can charge for a health procedure.

What's particularly interesting is that so many people can't just discuss how we might solve the problem without boxing us in with an ideal that clearly does not work in reality.

Are you also ok with regulating their salary?

I'm absolutely ok with the government regulating what a doctor can charge for a health procedure.

It's interesting to me you felt you had to change that to "regulating their salary" in order to formulate an argument against it.

Speaking of ideas not rooted in reality, adding a private tier to our public system WILL drain resources from the public sector. That's capitalism baby.

And again, you're arguing against something I didn't suggest.

[fluffy]

I'm absolutely ok with the government regulating what a doctor can charge for a health procedure.

But once they switch to the private sector it's whatever the market will bear. Higher rates means the possibility better wages for doctors which in turn leads to more doctors defecting from the public system. It's just business for the doctors, but in the end the public system is left in the lurch with a doctor shortage.

[rustled]

I'm absolutely ok with the government regulating what a doctor can charge for a health procedure.

But once they switch to the private sector it's whatever the market will bear. Higher rates means the possibility better wages for doctors which in turn leads to more doctors defecting from the public system. It's just business for the doctors, but in the end the public system is left in the lurch with a doctor shortage.

Again, you are arguing against something I did not suggest.

[The Green Barbarian]

We must figure out more sensible solutions than this "it must all be fully funded" mentality we've allowed ourselves to be boxed into by people who are every bit as fearful now of changing the way we deliver health care as those who were afraid to bring in universal health care in the first place.

Yup. 100% agree. It's amazing how people who scream constantly "We need change!!" immediately cower in fear when you discuss any possible changes to health care. Amazing. And it's always the same argument - "ZOMG!!! Look at the US!! You want to be the like the US!!!"

It's the same thing when you discuss nuclear energy. You can't even talk about nuclear power without the same people cowering in fear and screaming "CHERNOBYL". It's just so sad that they can't be bothered to think outside of the tiny box they live in.

[fluffy]

I'm absolutely ok with the government regulating what a doctor can charge for a health procedure.

But once they switch to the private sector it's whatever the market will bear. Higher rates means the possibility better wages for doctors which in turn leads to more doctors defecting from the public system. It's just business for the doctors, but in the end the public system is left in the lurch with a doctor shortage.

Again, you are arguing against something I did not suggest.

What did I miss? You said you're okay with regulating Doctors' fees and I said that once they transition to the private sector the option to regulate their fees goes away. The only way that ability to regulate would remain for the private sector would be if the private service provider agreed not to extra bill and/or allow queue jumping. If that were the case then I would have no issue with it either, but the whole idea of a second tier is to allow for preferred service for those willing to pay.

[rustled]

I'm absolutely ok with the government regulating what a doctor can charge for a health procedure.

But once they switch to the private sector it's whatever the market will bear. Higher rates means the possibility better wages for doctors which in turn leads to more doctors defecting from the public system. It's just business for the doctors, but in the end the public system is left in the lurch with a doctor shortage.

Again, you are arguing against something I did not suggest.

What did I miss? You said you're okay with regulating Doctors' fees and I said that once they transition to the private sector the option to regulate their fees goes away.

Why must it go away? That's your assumption, not mine.

The only way that ability to regulate would remain for the private sector would be if the private service provider agreed not to extra bill and/or allow queue jumping.

Again, this is the scenario you've chosen to envision. It is not one I have presented.

If that were the case then I would have no issue with it either, but the whole idea of a second tier is to allow for preferred service for those willing to pay.

The scenario you're objecting to involves queue-jumping and preferred service in a second-tier system designed for that purpose.

I've never once presented that scenario (nor supported it). Perhaps that is simply where your mind goes whenever you think of an alternative to "no health care should be provided to any Canadian in Canada unless it's fully funded through the government" and someone suggests we find a better alternative.

Surely we are all able to conceive of many different hybrid systems, if we choose to do so.

And we must, because there is obviously no way we can provide timely and effective health care fully funded under the "status quo" model people are trying so desperately to preserve.

We ought to be working together or at the very least supporting those who work to fashion a better system for the times we live in - times with both aging populations and an incredible plethora of medical procedures that ensure we can stay active and maintain our health.

The alternative is to continue to support what we have now: an ideal for which far too many people's health is adversely affected far too long by the debilitating pain our parents and grandparents had no choice but to endure as it crippled them permanently, while we expect them to wait for those procedures to be available "fully funded by taxation".

[The Green Barbarian]

*removed*

[fluffy]

Surely we are all able to conceive of many different hybrid systems, if we choose to do so.

And we must, because there is obviously no way we can provide timely and effective health care fully funded under the "status quo" model people are trying so desperately to preserve.

That's a nice sentiment, but more than a little short sighted. In Alberta, Jason Kenney isn't looking any further than downloading government expenses on to he private sector, and the ones that will "suffer needlessly" will be the ones who can't afford private care.

[rustled]

Surely we are all able to conceive of many different hybrid systems, if we choose to do so.

And we must, because there is obviously no way we can provide timely and effective health care fully funded under the "status quo" model people are trying so desperately to preserve.

That's a nice sentiment, but more than a little short sighted.

IMo it is far more short sighted to attempt to preserve the status quo, which so obviously has too many people waiting in pain while their health deteriorates. The status quo was simply not designed for the plethora of medical interventions now available to help people maintain an active lifestyle, and it is short sighted in the extreme to insist we maintain a system that no longer works well.

In Alberta, Jason Kenney isn't looking any further than downloading government expenses on to he private sector, and the ones that will "suffer needlessly" will be the ones who can't afford private care.

People are already suffering needlessly, right now, under the current system.

There is no logical reason to believe more people will suffer more if those who can afford it pay for care outside a fully-funded public system.

I'm truly curious as to what compels people to argue against the provincial governments working toward ANY alternative to the ideal of only allowing fully government-funded health care to Canadians in Canada. It truly does seem to be fear of change, more than anything else.

[fluffy]

IMo it is far more short sighted to attempt to preserve the status quo

I didn't say that, of course the system needs work, wait times are measured in months when specialists are involved. My point is that what Kenney is doing will not help. If he continues with his plan of allowing private clinics to collect government funds for services and then bill extra on top of that, the Feds will claw back medicare transfer payments. That will effectively leave the public system worse off than before.

[fluffy]

I'm truly curious as to what compels people to argue against the provincial governments working toward ANY alternative to the ideal of only allowing fully government-funded health care to Canadians in Canada.

I not against an alternative as long as it's an improvement. What's happening in Alberta is a step backwards. It will help those who don't need the help, and put quality, timely service further away from lower income people.

[rustled]

IMo it is far more short sighted to attempt to preserve the status quo

I didn't say that, of course the system needs work, wait times are measured in months when specialists are involved. My point is that what Kenney is doing will not help. If he continues with his plan of allowing private clinics to collect government funds for services and then bill extra on top of that, the Feds will claw back medicare transfer payments. That will effectively leave the public system worse off than before.

If that's the case, then realistically, should our objection be to what Kenney is doing, or to what the Feds will do?