Two tier health care?

[Quest4Less]

Should it be allowed?

I for one say no. Just because someone has money it should not mean that their life / health is any more important than anyone else.

 

[lasslicker]

We already have a 2 tier system.

Think dentistry, optical, many hidden fees cropping up at clinics, paying for PSA tests, private medical for those that can afford to go staeside...

Once the country agrees that it already exists, we can set it up openly.

 

[to-guy69]

All work benefits are capped...so why aren't all health care benefits we pay into not capped?

Do you know why it can take forever to get a doctors appointment at times? Because some elderly, lonely person visits their doctor as many times as they want....making the wait time longer for everyone else. It's bullshit.

A freind of mine had to drive to Buffalo to pay to have an MRI done (with cash) in a matter of a few days because Ontario told him he had to wait 4 weeks for an appointment AND in an inconvenient location. A person's shot knee doesn't wait 4 weeks.

After all of the OHIP fees we pay into, moron McGuinty still makes you pay for eye exams.

Our garbage healthcare system is only good for the poor...no one else.

With a decent job in the US, not only do you pay less into the system over a lifetime, but the service is much better as well.

 

[gallus]

We already have a 2 tier system - think politicians, any hockey/baseball/basketball players, most unionized employees and of course the really wealthy. All of these get treatment when they want or at a better level than Mr/Mrs "unemployeed", whether the money stays in Canada or is used in foreign countries such as the USA or India. The latest I heard that it was cheaper and quicker to pay for treatment in India including flight and hospital stay than to travel to the States. So what is wrong with having doctors able to spend say 20% of their time and resources on private patients and the rest allocated to the public health care system with the money from private patients being used to offset the cost of public patients.

 

[stainless]

I agree we have a two tier system and it will get more prevelent as the baby boomers get older. When you're sick or facing critical illness and you can afford it money means little compared to your health.

 

[johnhenrygalt]

Should it be allowed?

I for one say no. Just because someone has money it should not mean that their life / health is any more important than anyone else.

One doesn't follow from the other. The wealthy man's life, health and well-being is not more important, but since he owns greater resources, he is entitled to better shelter (in the form of a bigger house with central heating and air), better food (quality fresh fruits and vegetables are among the most expensive foods), better clothing and the list goes on. Medical care, if in the private sector, will cease to be a finite resource and the supply will grow to meet the demand. Of course more of the supply will be directed to those able to pay for it, but as the population ages and more and more choose to allocate their resources to healthcare, the supply of healthcare will keep pace.

If health care continues to be monopolised by the state, the supply will only grow as state revenues grow. As the active population ages and the number of retirees grows, state revenues per capita may even diminish, in which case healthcare supply will shrink in response to increased demand.

 

[johnhenrygalt]

A freind of mine had to drive to Buffalo to pay to have an MRI done (with cash) in a matter of a few days because Ontario told him he had to wait 4 weeks for an appointment AND in an inconvenient location. A person's shot knee doesn't wait 4 weeks.

A friend of mine needed an MRI in Quebec. After a cash payment (bribe) to a key person, the MRI was done the next day. And in hospitals, physicians taking cash to give patients preferred treatment is already rampant.

 

[superquad1968]

I think this might be better in the Politics Forum, but the more people who know what's going on the better. Here is my take.

No we shouldn't allow two tier health care.

If one person has the financial resources to access health care services quicker and in essence "jump the queue" than the line up to access will grow longer for those without those resources. I respectfully disagree with Mr. Galt when he equates buying a house with health care. Our health is infinetly more important than acquiring the finer things.

Yes, the supply has been constricted artificially in our quest to balance the budget. Perhaps as we start to tackle the cumulative debt more money can be allocated to expanding supply. Hence the health care accord. Also remember that the "second" tier will only be set up for those services that:

a. the private sector deems profitable and it then follows that
b. those services will only be for diagnostic services and smaller scale operations. Don't expect a private firm to construct a cancer clinic that may cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The profit to had, if any, would only come many, many years in the future.

It's a crime for a doctor to be bribed and should be censured.

I had this discussion today with my plastic surgeon who said that he does the "boob-jobs" to pay the bills but would rather work on reconstructive surgery (what I face). Sadly, he admits that he is in the minority. Of the 7 plastics he knows 4 would only do cosmetic, 1 would do both and 2 (him included) would do reconstructive.

A long diatribe to be sure. I would hope that anger generated while waiting would go to building a health care system that we all use rather than creating a US style health care system. There is another thread in the Politics forum that asks what makes a Canadian. The ability for us to take care of all rather than the individual is a virtue that we should be proud of.

Thanks for reading, if you got this far.

SQ

 

[RogerRabbit]

Should it be allowed?

Yes! We need to let people pay if they can. Today's SCC ruling has opened the door to more choice:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/09/medical-ruling-reaction050609.html

 

[C Dick]

It is already two-tier, but based more on connections than money. Canadians get sick and die needlessly, for the sake of political correctness. Allowing people to spend their own money for healthcare would free up resources to pay for care for those you can not afford it.

Now health care is limited by supply, so societies resources are wasted while people sit in line waiting. If instead those people could pay with money instead of waiting time, the resource can be used for something instead of just being wasted.

 

[Poonhound]

I say NO. If we go to an open two tier health system we introduce profit into the medical system. We'll then have hospitals that are more interested in the cheapest way to treat patients so they can have a bigger profit than they are at treating people properly.

 

[someone]

I say NO. If we go to an open two tier health system we introduce profit into the medical system. We'll then have hospitals that are more interested in the cheapest way to treat patients so they can have a bigger profit than they are at treating people properly.

Currently Hospitals treat patients in a way that fits within the hospital budgets. Do you really think that they are not trying to treat patients in the cheapest way now? Why do you think this treatment is better than that resulting from profit maximization? BTW most GPs are in private practice. Using your argument, they their pratices should be nationalized.

Almost every country in the western world has some mix of private public care. Why should Canada be different?

 

[Poonhound]

Currently Hospitals treat patients in a way that fits within the hospital budgets. Do you really think that they are not trying to treat patients in the cheapest way now? Why do you think this treatment is better than that resulting from profit maximization? BTW most GPs are in private practice. Using your argument, they their pratices should be nationalized.

Almost every country in the western world has some mix of private public care. Why should Canada be different?[/QUOTE/]

Government hospital budgets are way different than someone trying to make a profit. When profit is brought into it more corners will be cut and only the man with the most money will get anything close to decent care. Most GP's are also capped as to how much they can bill OHIP. If they could bill the patients only the ones willing to fork over big money would get the proper care. You don't actually think a doctor who can bill the piss out of someone rich is going to put the same care towards someone who is paying by OHIP do you? Why should canada be different? Cause we are. Why change a good thing?

 

[George OTJ]

Interesting thread. Prior to the last couple of years, I've had little to do with doctors and hospitals. Now that my health situation has changed dramatically I've come face to face with the long delays and situations where practioners main objective seems to be to pass a patient around to as many of their friends as possible to maximise OHIP billings.

My initial reaction was No. My initial though was concern that those with the most money also have the loudest voices and the greater power to fight for improvements in the health system - and that those on the lower tier will suffer from even poorer services.

I voted YES as others have noted, we already have a two tier system where people with power or prestege or some money to spend can get preferential treatment by jumping the cue. I'd like to see the 2nd tier help reduce the cost of those who don't have a choice. Either something like
a) 30-50% of the fees paid by the 2nd tier should be refunded to provincial health plans to help fund the 1st tier, or

b) requiring doctors/clinics/hospitals to maintain a minimum ratio of reduced fee treatments for the 1st tier for every $50,000 collected from the 2nd tier.

As the 2nd tier demand better service for their dollars, their will be a corresponding improvement for the 1st tier.

Rember the old saying, "Be nice to the little people on the way up, because you'll meet them again on the way down". Just because you fall into the 2nd tier during the height of your career doesn't mean you'll still be there when you near the end of it.

 

[Poonhound]

Another thing too. In the states which is a two tier system something like 50-75% of people that go bankrupt do so from paying medical bills. Do we really want to create a situation like that in Canada.

 

[burlboy]

Two Tier Evil?

I tell you what. When the governments impliment a one tier tax system (one tax rate fair for all) the maybe I will consider one tier health care system until then they can Fark off.

 

[Diode]

I hate to break this to you, but hospitals are already looking for the cheapest way to treat patients.l

Not quite Winston. Hospitals have attempted to cut back, at the patient level, however, have continued to expand, their "non-medical" focus.
People who work in Hospitals, spend more time "meeting" with each other than "treating" patients.

Hospitals, have become an extention of every thing Governmental.( Large, lazy, arrogant, and bureacratic)
Not focusing on their "core" business, health care-delivery
HooooRAYYY for the Supreme Court.

 

[Diode]

I tell you what. When the governments impliment a one tier tax system (one tax rate fair for all) the maybe I will consider one tier health care system until then they can Fark off.

Exactly!

 

[red]

two tier or three tier or one tier- whatever happens won't impact the delivery of services to the average person who can't afford to pay fees to jump the line

 

[someone]

Currently Hospitals treat patients in a way that fits within the hospital budgets. Do you really think that they are not trying to treat patients in the cheapest way now? Why do you think this treatment is better than that resulting from profit maximization? BTW most GPs are in private practice. Using your argument, they their pratices should be nationalized.

Almost every country in the western world has some mix of private public care. Why should Canada be different?[/QUOTE/]

Government hospital budgets are way different than someone trying to make a profit. When profit is brought into it more corners will be cut and only the man with the most money will get anything close to decent care. Most GP's are also capped as to how much they can bill OHIP. If they could bill the patients only the ones willing to fork over big money would get the proper care. You don't actually think a doctor who can bill the piss out of someone rich is going to put the same care towards someone who is paying by OHIP do you? Why should canada be different? Cause we are. Why change a good thing?

I get the impression that you have never lived anywhere but Ontario. I have lived in counties with mixed system (indeed given that almost every western country has a mixed system, almost anyone who has ever lived in a first world country outside of North America has lived in a mixed system). Your fears are completely unfounded. Indeed, the service was much better than the province I am currently in and at least as good as service in Ontario. Profit is not evil. When you call the Canadian system “a good thing” what are you comparing it to? How do you image that it is better than the European, Austalian, New Zealand or other mixed systems in the world? Or are you just believing what public sector unions interested in keeping their economic rents have to say. The reason we should change it is that (a) it is becoming unsustainable, (b) other countries get more bang for their buck.

BTW, other posters are right when they say that we already have a two tiered system. Given that I get the impression that you have only lived in Ontario, you may be surprised to know that in many provinces even such services as annual check ups are not covered.