Originally posted by inimalist
Sure they can, all they need is money. Cost is not the same as discrimination.Not all people will be able to afford world class care, but why not offer it to those who can provided there is no loss of efficacy in the public sector?
But they should not be denied access to superior care based on their wealth. If there is no loss of efficiency then it would be the same level of care.
As my own example showed. Proper tests and care can make a huge difference.
Originally posted by Starhawk
But they should not be denied access to superior care based on their wealth. If there is no loss of efficiency then it would be the same level of care.As my own example showed. Proper tests and care can make a huge difference.
you seem to be under the assumption that a public health care system is normally operating at the same standard as the high end of a private system. This is false. In fact, even in my ideal systems there would have to be some regulations on the private sector to prevent the same type of abuses seen in the American sector.
There is a general loss in maximum efficiency inherent in a public system, an individual government cannot compete with the open market. The trade is in the overall standard of care given to individuals.
However, once that overall public standard is reached, you are essentially holding back people from receiving better care that they could pay for. The potential for them to receive better care is out there, however it is lost because instead of being able to pay for it directly their money is equally distributed over everyone else in the country.
Please try to see this from my perspective rather than just rambling about the poor. I'm not talking about the poor. My point is that you are restricting a higher standard of care that could be available to people.
There is also the fact that a properly run system that incorporated the private sector would be able to increase even the health of the poor. By increasing the availability of the technology for specialized procedures there is less demand on the state provided procedures, and those unable to receive the care they need from the public system could in some cases receive subsidization for visiting a private facility.
Please stop implying that people are going to suffer to the rich in any system I am proposing. I might be idealistic on how well the private sector and the government may be able to function together (Ontario roads are a good example of a success story) but you make it sound like I am an ogre. Do you really think people hold the positions you argue against?
and in your example, basically, if you could have afforded it, you could have had whatever tests needed to be done to you whenever in a private clinic. You would have had less trouble shopping around for second opinions given you can just buy them. There is even more chance that you will be subjected to the latest procedures and best professionals, given that in the spirit of capitalist competition, each clinic is going to try and stay up to date on the newest practices and pay to get the best specialists. And if you couldn't afford it there is always the potential for voucher type subsidization.
It can be at the same standard if the government regulated it better and put more money into the system. And my point is that premium form of health care should be available to everyone. No one no matter how rich or poor they are should have to have a situation happen to them like I had. The problem is the government keeps cutting money to the health care system instead of putting more money back into it. The private sector can be subsidized by the government to offer their services to the public at large without a fee. The government has to be willing to commit the money to the health care sector.
Originally posted by Starhawk
It can be at the same standard if the government regulated it better and put more money into the system. And my point is that premium form of health care should be available to everyone. No one no matter how rich or poor they are should have to have a situation happen to them like I had. The problem is the government keeps cutting money to the health care system instead of putting more money back into it. The private sector can be subsidized by the government to offer their services to the public at large without a fee. The government has to be willing to commit the money to the health care sector.
this is a straw man again
though it does agree with what i am saying
good show
Originally posted by Starhawk
Okay dump the "straw man" thing. It sounds like a politicians sound byte.So you agree with me that with adequate financial support from the government my model works?
Are you from Ontario?
I am from Ontario
I can't say whether any model will work or not, I am not an expert in these things. However, I think I elaborated enough on how I feel.
I don't agree that a government will ever be able to pay to have people receive the same standard of care as in a private system. I thought the take home message of the Cold War was don't f*ck with capitalism.
I also agree with WrathfulDwarf, in some situations I think the government should have the right to refuse treatment to certain people if they decide to smoke their entire life or whatnot, but I'm well aware of where you stand on that and really don't feel like bashing my head against any more moralistic brick walls.
However, if the essence of your plan is opening up private sector competition and subsidizing treatment rather than state control, I agree 100% in principle.
Originally posted by inimalist
I am from OntarioI can't say whether any model will work or not, I am not an expert in these things. However, I think I elaborated enough on how I feel.
I don't agree that a government will ever be able to pay to have people receive the same standard of care as in a private system. I thought the take home message of the Cold War was don't f*ck with capitalism.
I also agree with WrathfulDwarf, in some situations I think the government should have the right to refuse treatment to certain people if they decide to smoke their entire life or whatnot, but I'm well aware of where you stand on that and really don't feel like bashing my head against any more moralistic brick walls.
However, if the essence of your plan is opening up private sector competition and subsidizing treatment rather than state control, I agree 100% in principle.
I think governments could afford to do it if they took money from other sectors and put it into health care. The fact that for the second time in a year the Ontario provincial government has voted themselves a raise should be evidence enough. (I hate Dalton McGuinty!!!!!)
And the state cannot play executioner to people simply because they don't like their lifestyle. They should however execute murderers and rapists.
And what I meant is those private sector organizations should receive government subsidization if they take on X number of pro-bono clients and give them the same care as their paying clients.
And since your from ontario and and I want to prove I am not totally left wing. My favorite provincial leader is Mike Harris.
Originally posted by Starhawk
I think governments could afford to do it if they took money from other sectors and put it into health care. The fact that for the second time in a year the Ontario provincial government has voted themselves a raise should be evidence enough. (I hate Dalton McGuinty!!!!!)And the state cannot play executioner to people simply because they don't like their lifestyle. They should however execute murderers and rapists.
And what I meant is those private sector organizations should receive government subsidization if they take on X number of pro-bono clients and give them the same care as their paying clients.
And since your from ontario and and I want to prove I am not totally left wing. My favorite provincial leader is Mike Harris.
lol, I don't think you are a leftist, I just like being glib and it got a reaction out of you to call you a commie.
I am 100% against politicians giving themselves pay raises, but I also don't like the government having its hands in a lot of things.
I certainly don't think ALL treatment should be covered in the private sector, I think in my system the majority of care is still done in public hospitals, but there is a very substantial private sector. I don't know how to best compensate hospitals, but I would much rather give the subsidy to an individual so they can choose where to get their care from. I will admit that I have given no thoughts to the specifics of my system.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
They have Bush. vinBesides the Americans have taken Denny Crane from you, you have nothing left to offer.
you may have a point
but at least we pawned off Shania Twain and Celine Dion onto them.
They may get a gem now and then, but American music is full of Canadian trash.
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, I don't think you are a leftist, I just like being glib and it got a reaction out of you to call you a commie.I am 100% against politicians giving themselves pay raises, but I also don't like the government having its hands in a lot of things.
I certainly don't think ALL treatment should be covered in the private sector, I think in my system the majority of care is still done in public hospitals, but there is a very substantial private sector. I don't know how to best compensate hospitals, but I would much rather give the subsidy to an individual so they can choose where to get their care from. I will admit that I have given no thoughts to the specifics of my system.
Well McGuinty has lied about 90% of his promises, I am not voting for him in the coming election.
The problem with giving the people the money directly is the junkie example. They might not use it for what it is intended. And one group that should be fully and completely subsidized is the disabled. They have no control over their situation and the vast majority are unable to work and our current disability program in Ontario is a pathetic joke.
Originally posted by Starhawk
our current disability program in Ontario is a pathetic joke.
I worked at community living in Cambridge. It is not a joke.
There are many facilities and programs set up around the province that do excellent work. They could do with more funding of course, but I can list at least a dozen things that I would consider higher priority in this country right now.
Originally posted by inimalist
I worked at community living in Cambridge. It is not a joke.There are many facilities and programs set up around the province that do excellent work. They could do with more funding of course, but I can list at least a dozen things that I would consider higher priority in this country right now.
You want examples? Okay, a disabled person in this province gets $430 maximum a month meant to cover rent AND utilities. Keep in mind the lowest reported rent in Ontario is higher then that. They are subsidized for drug and basic dental work only. The rest they have to cover themselves and they can't, so they fall through the cracks and this is a group that needs the medical care far more then the wealthy.
Originally posted by Starhawk
You want examples? Okay, a disabled person in this province gets $430 maximum a month meant to cover rent AND utilities. Keep in mind the lowest reported rent in Ontario is higher then that. They are subsidized for drug and basic dental work only. The rest they have to cover themselves and they can't, so they fall through the cracks and this is a group that needs the medical care far more then the wealthy.
we are clearly talking about different levels of disability payment for what you are describing has nothing to do with the group home settings that are very prominent in Ontario today.