nerdykilla Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 Here is another question for discussion: Should Canada continue to discourage the development of for-profit hospital? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jochi1543 Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 I don't see a problem with for-profit hospitals unless of course they are to squeeze out the regular kind. If anything, the tax collected from this for-profit business can be used to support healthcare for those who cannot afford to pay for their own medical expenses. Similarly, cosmetic dermatology and esthetic plastic surgery are hardly there for the charity of it, and no one is saying that they should cease to exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nerdykilla Posted March 14, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 But wouldn't this go against our public health care system? Wouldn't this be seen as an introduction of private health care? How would the introduction of for-profit hospitals help our system? Where would the profit and money go from these hospitals? And how would we publicly administer these hospitals? From what I know, Canadian hospitals are funded publicly, and they are mostly owned by non for profit organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vip_138 Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 are you talking about a two-teir system, because they have this in UK and studies have shown worse waitlines and the private sector pick up all the new diagnostics and equipment while the public sector get the left overs and go widely underfunded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFace Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 I don't see a problem with for-profit hospitals unless of course they are to squeeze out the regular kind. If anything, the tax collected from this for-profit business can be used to support healthcare for those who cannot afford to pay for their own medical expenses. Similarly, cosmetic dermatology and esthetic plastic surgery are hardly there for the charity of it, and no one is saying that they should cease to exist. 1) Two-tiered violates CHA (canada health act)...look up the tenants of the CHA and then reconsider your statement of elective surgeries (cosmetics etc). However you would have a point if you spoke about palliative/home care etc....we should speak out about this... 2) Two-Tiered is an "effort" to evade wait times, among other things. Two tier "pyramid" scheme "works" in the following way...say you have 21 people, (1 doctor and 20 patients)...10 of the patients are poor and 10 are wealthy...this forms two lines to see the doctor(1 public line and 1 private line)...apart from the fact that the wealthy can get ahead of the poor nothing has changed...there is still only one doctor...the issue is that we do not have enough doctors to take care of the patients...no doctors = wait times. Yes, the issue is more complex than this but essentially this is what is happening. Hope this has helped someone in some way. BigFace, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nerdykilla Posted March 14, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 I agree with your post Big Face. I don't think an introduction of private system along with our public system would solve any of our problems. In fact, it will create more problems in our system. It could decrease the quality of the public system, decrease government funding in the public system and many more.... But my question was regarding the operation of hospitals in our system. I think most of the hospitals in Canada are publicly financed, and privately owned by non for profit organization. What are some of the implications of changing their operation by having them owned by for-profit organizations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Law Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 Privatization is governments being too lazy and incompetent to try to do what is necessary to help improve our health care system. Good post bigface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFace Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 I agree with your post Big Face. I don't think an introduction of private system along with our public system would solve any of our problems. In fact, it will create more problems in our system. It could decrease the quality of the public system, decrease government funding in the public system and many more....But my question was regarding the operation of hospitals in our system. I think most of the hospitals in Canada are publicly financed, and privately owned by non for profit organization. What do all think are the implications of changing their operation by having them owned by for-profit organizations? Sorry, i didn't answer your question...I could write for a while on P3 hospitals, but these web pages sum it up well for beginners. Enjoy! http://communities.cupe.ca/www/rebuilding_strong_communi/public_hospitals and http://www.labourcouncil.ca/P3backgrounder.html The next question you should look at is why the federal government is allowing privatization (P3 or otherwise)...it has conflicts with the CHA. And then also ask why community-service-orientations have been shifted from the hospitals to the LHIN's...ahhh the puzzle widens! BigFace, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
temp_degoo Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 Privatization is governments being too lazy and incompetent to try to do what is necessary to help improve our health care system. Good post bigface. I also agree with Bigface. I spoke with an economist friend (who is all for privatization of heath care) because he says that this creates competition for services, and competition always benefits the consumer as companies are competing for their patronage. My problem with his argument is that health care shouldn't be treated in such a way, I don't feel it is an economic commodity, so the entire argument, even if true for other things, is mute imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMmd Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 I also agree with Bigface. I spoke with an economist friend (who is all for privatization of heath care) because he says that this creates competition for services, and competition always benefits the consumer as companies are competing for their patronage. My problem with his argument is that health care shouldn't be treated in such a way, I don't feel it is an economic commodity, so the entire argument, even if true for other things, is mute imo. well if you make it into a competition it's always the big guys that win, so in this case, the public health care wouldn't be able to compete... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Law Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 I also agree with Bigface. I spoke with an economist friend (who is all for privatization of heath care) because he says that this creates competition for services, and competition always benefits the consumer as companies are competing for their patronage. My problem with his argument is that health care shouldn't be treated in such a way, I don't feel it is an economic commodity, so the entire argument, even if true for other things, is mute imo. If you look at the US, you see this isn't the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jochi1543 Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 If you look at the US, you see this isn't the case. I dunno, there ARE people going to the US from Canada to be treated, so it must be beneficial to at least those people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Law Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 I dunno, there ARE people going to the US from Canada to be treated, so it must be beneficial to at least those people. Yeah, those who can afford to go down there. It's obvious that we need to improve our health care system, but our politicians keep sitting around and doing NOTHING. Things are going to continue to deteriorate, especially as our population (and doctors) age... so we need to DO SOMETHING fast! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jochi1543 Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 Yeah, those who can afford to go down there. It's obvious that we need to improve our health care system, but our politicians keep sitting around and doing NOTHING. Things are going to continue to deteriorate, especially as our population (and doctors) age... so we need to DO SOMETHING fast! Well, they're letting the IMGs in, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nerdykilla Posted March 15, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 Thank you for the web sites BigFace. I need to read them. As I said, I don't think private health care system would solve our problem. There is no evidence that the private system would provide a more efficient and effective system in Canada. They have it in the US, and it hasn't solved the wait time problem there. Private Health care system would allow those that can afford it to use it for their medical needs. It will go completely against the essence of CHA. Not only it won't help our system, it could potentially decrease the quality of our public system by decreasing the human resources and government funding in the public system. What are people's stand on the cost of drugs and pharamacare in Ontario? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jochi1543 Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 They have it in the US, and it hasn't solved the wait time problem there. What's the wait problem in the US? I've never had to wait more than 2 days to see an FP. Can't speak for things like surgery though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satsuma Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 http://www.chspr.ubc.ca/files/publications/2006/chspr06-28W.pdf Since people are deciding to compare Canada to the US, I thought I would remind everyone of the study that was published this summer that showed that the Canadian system was more efficient (ie spent less money) for the same or better outcomes than the US. I tried to find this paper but haven't yet come accross it. If I find it or remember what university published it (it was an American one but I can`t recall which one) I will update this message. I did come accross a seperate article which seemed interesting enough, though I only glanced through it. I posted the link above in case anyone is interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Law Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 Well, they're letting the IMGs in, lol. That's part of the short term solution. They need to realize WE NEED DOCTORS. Wait times are not going to go away just because you start magically "guaranteeing" them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jochi1543 Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 That's part of the short term solution.They need to realize WE NEED DOCTORS. Wait times are not going to go away just because you start magically "guaranteeing" them. That's why they are also increasing med school seats.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Law Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 That's why they are also increasing med school seats.... Ever... so... slight...ly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jochi1543 Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 Ever... so... slight...ly I thought UBC is like doubling the seats over like 3 years or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.