Guest Lurkergonepublic Posted March 1, 2006 Report Share Posted March 1, 2006 You can find the story on a couple of news websites, but I'm always thoroughly disgusted at the way the media reports these sort of things. You can read the full details as released by the gov't here: www.health.gov.ab.ca/healthrenewal/renewal_index.html After a brief look I have to say that 7 or 8 of the 10 points (the ones always glossed over by the media) sound like exactly the sort of efficiency changes that healthcare supporters of all persuasians have advocated for years. Particularly exciting are better utilizing nurses, pharmacists and others to free up doctor time for more important things, and restructuring the fee payment system to match the current work put in by a doctor (since technology has changed a lot of things (like optho) since fees were set. I've never been a Ralph fan, but kudos on those. Being able to work in a hospital and a clinic will probably make life easier for a lot of doctors, and patients too. There are a couple of ill defined points stirring up controversy because they might open the window for some private insurance and quicker access to non-urgent surgery for the rich. I'm totally a supporter of public health, but have become leary of the fear mongering about the word "private sector." Come on, your family doctor is a 'private supplier', but a visit's not going to break you, because you have 'public insurance'. Too much confusion and ignorance there IMHO, but I digress... check out the info - wouldn't look bad in an interview to see that you'd looked at it a bit closer than a 3 minute section on the national news trying to stir up reaction. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Isoceles Posted March 1, 2006 Report Share Posted March 1, 2006 Thanks for the link Lurker! Will add this to my "must-read-before-interview" file. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HP Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 Thanks for the link. I agree that most of the points appear to be good ones. You see mention of things like electronic medical records, telehealth, and expanding capacity and roles of other health professionals, and they all look attractive. They are aware of the potential risks in the proposal, and claim to safeguard against them with monitoring/regulation. I'm skeptical of three things here. First, that the government will be able to protect patient rights from the business bottom line and make sure people get care based on need and not wealth. Second, that the private system will be able to run things any more efficiently than the public system COULD. Third, that any kind of pay structure will be able to foster quality and efficiency at the same time...those seem to be opposing ideals; in my mind the best one can hope for is to maximize both in some sort of balance. At the end of the day, whether it's 'private' or 'public', the taxpayer is the one and only source of funding for the health care system. I'm leery now of knee-jerk reactions to buzzwords too, because they can (sort-of) be seen as just being different middle-men. If this "Third-Way" can provide health care better and/or faster, without making ability to pay the deciding factor for who gets help, then I'm for it. As of yet, I'm not convinced that it can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest muchdutch Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 Well said. I agree with much of your argument, especially healthcare based on need and not wealth. I believe it's a very slippery slope indeed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest canmic Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 I think a big part of the plan is what's not entirely 'spelled out' in it. One of the reasons Alberta already has more specialists per capita than most other provinces is because their lower taxes allow doctors to keep more of what they earn. If this '3rd way' allows doctors the opportunity to earn more, as well as paying lower alberta taxes, I think it will increase the net migration of doctors to alberta from the other provinces. So, in effect, overall access to doctors in Alberta will increase, because they'll have more doctors. But.. one could ask if what they are doing is entirely fair to the other provinces... As far as the argument that the public system 'COULD' be as efficient as any alternative, well... I COULD win the lottery tomorrow, but somehow I think I better have a backup plan because I haven't won so far in over 20 years of trying (and the public healthcare system hasn't been very efficient in over 30 years of trying). The basic problem is that there is no pressure whatsoever on the public system to be efficient. So long as the politicians can keep saying "Anything different than what we have = bad" they don't have to do anything to improve what we have. It's about time people woke up and realized that is exactly what they've been doing for years. We're 13th in the world for quality of healthcare (says the WHO), so maybe it's time the folks in Ottawa stopped saying we're 'the best', and it's definately time for us to stop believing them when they say it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HP Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 I agree with those points. I think what I'm getting at though is just because we can show the current public system to be faulty, it doesn't necessarily show the proposed private system would be any better. It's not a pure dichotomy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest canmic Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Here's 2 quick facts which seem to indicate that a mixed system is best.. Canada is 2nd in the world on relative (adjusted for cost of living) total per capita healthcare spending. (the US is first). Canada is 13th in the world on overall quality and availability of healthcare So.. that means that about a dozen countries are doing better with less money. None of those countries is North Korea (the only other country where people don't have access to private care). So, one would think that whatever those dozen countries are doing is probably better than what we are doing. All of them have mixed 'multi-tier' (not just two) healthcare systems based on being able to buy better/faster care if you want to. Facts are facts; emotions, stubborn pride and political face-saving are killing people in Canada. The supreme court has already ruled that denial of paid access to things not paid for by medicare (including faster access to things that are covered) violates our fundamental rights to security of the person by allowing the government to force people to die or suffer to further their political goals. North Korean style healthcare's days are numbered in Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VS12 Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 I don't know how much the north american lifestyle has in impacting our health care expenditures. But I think that comparing us to the europeans is unfair. We've got to battle more cardiovascular and obesity related illnesses than the rest of the world, from what I imagine. Of course our health costs are going to cost more if we're treating more cases of diabetes, heart surgeries, etc. If anything, maybe what we should be doing is promoting a more active lifestyle. That means no pop in schools, healthy foods in our schools, maybe even tax breaks for people who have a gym membership (though this would probably be quite controversial). It may cost a bit in the short run, but if we can really cut down on some long term health risks, then we're all the better, are we not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.