Guest everyoneloveschem Posted February 14, 2006 Report Share Posted February 14, 2006 From the Globe and Mail: "Cancer costs the economy at least $14.3-billion annually, including $2.5-billion in direct costs for treatment, care and rehabilitation, and another $11.8-billion in indirect costs, principally lost productivity." My question: Cancer is expensive to our society, both in terms of lost life and obviously lost productivity. Many other medical problems are likely to be similar in their costs. If we can spend money, through healthcare, to reduce medical problems and decrease 'sick' time, and thus save a great deal on productivity, why is privitization so sought after by some? Who is really going to benefit? If we had no public healthcare, then many people would not receive care, but also many companies would have to buy insurance to cover much of the cost. Would our economy not suffer from the lack of productivity? Are there any studies that focus on public vs private with respect to the effect on productivity and economy? Are we just being lulled into dreams of shorter wait times by the few people who will stand to benefit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maelswarm Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 One argument for privitization is that it will siphon off users from public health, shortening wait times that way. I don't see what privitization has to do with productivity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest everyoneloveschem Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 Another interesting tid bit from yesterday's CMAJ: "provinces with the greatest gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (Alberta, Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia) had among the longest wait times for urgent referrals to a specialist" and "Ontario and BC respectively had the third and fourth largest number of specialists per 100 000 population, yet they had longer than average wait times" So will throwing more money at the problem necessarily fix it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest treehuggingbiologist Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 Throwing more money at the problem may not necessarily fix it. Its more how that money is used right? I mean, if the money is used right, then to all intents and purposes, the wait times should be decreased - assuming they have more doctors/nurses/equipment etc. I think the big problem with private healthcare is the view that we'll spiral into a US-style system where only those who can afford it can get good healthcare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest everyoneloveschem Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 Read the Letter by William M. Goldberg in yesterday's CMAJ, and the two commentaries he cites, as they both give excellent arguments for maintaining/improving our current system rather than going private. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest satsumargirl Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 If you get the chance ... First Do No Harm by Dr. Sullivan (I believe that is his name...of U of T) and a second author whose name I can't remember, is an easy, quick read and discusses how wait lists (as they are currently measured and used) are useless for measuring health care delivery/service/outcome. They are handy tools for the media and politicians though. Some things to consider about waitlists: 1) doctors often place patients on waitlists in anticipation that they may need that service before they actually know they do....if tests come back and the patient doesn`t then they just take them off the list...so this practice can make waitlists artificially longer 2) There is no standardized way to measure wait times...and it is measured differently in various studies. So it is not possible to compare most data. 3) Waitlists don't give any info about outcome. ...and outcome should be what we are interested in. Did the wait make anything for the patient worse? 4) Waitlist measurements don't take into account patients that are on lists and keep rescheduling (for whatever reason) etc.... just some examples about why waitlists are limited in terms of information they give. As discussed in other threads....where would Canadians get the doctors to work a private system...we have a doctor shortage...taking these doctors out of the publicly funded system will not make things better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest everyoneloveschem Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 There is a cool discussion article on the Globe and Mail site today concering the ruling in Que. Check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest everyoneloveschem Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 I have a question about buying private insurance. Say I need a new hip, but I will wait 9 mos to see the surgeon and then another 9 mos for surgery. I decide to buy private insurance so that I can get coverage for the surgery somewhere else, sooner. Who is going to insure me? If I need the surgery, they know they'll lose money on me, so why insure me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest satsumargirl Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 Since I don`t have any conditions to worry about in this regard, I cannot say for certain. But, I do remember reading in some plans that any "pre-existing" condition is not covered. So maybe that is one way they get around it. It would also encourage people to buy insurance earlier (before they have any problems) and therefore the insurance would collect premiums for longer increasing their profits some more. And I have heard of some cases in the US where individuals were unable to buy insurance due to the company refusing to take them since they had a serious (and so expensive) condition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.