Questions It Would Be Really Great to Hear

[electricland]

the next time the CBC does a story about "fixing" the health care system, I would love it if, instead of the weak-ass questions they asked in today's segment, they would ask the following:

To proponents of more privatization:

• What, in your opinion, is the best health-care system in the world?


• How will private clinics increase access to care without sucking resources out of the public system?


• Do you think it's possible, before resorting to private clinics, to improve access through administrative improvements such as the Alberta Hip and Knee Replacement Project?

To no-privatization-ever people:

• Given that doctor's offices are already private enterprises, why do you object in principle to having other specialized private clinics?

Gotta run. Suggest your questions here!

Comments

[electricland.livejournal.com]

Well, there's some feeling that it's a thin edge of the wedge. It's a bit silly really, because after all (a) doctor's offices are private enterprises, (b) hospitals are set up on all kinds of models, mainly but by no means exclusively not-for-profit corporations.

I've taken so long answering this that I can't remember exactly what the kerfuffle was about this time, but it's probably related to the Supreme Court decision about buying private insurance if one's wait for public care is unreasonably long (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/index.html).

...I should probably read up on the stuff in that section. It seems full of useful info.

[jaanquidam.livejournal.com]

Okay, that makes more sense...I tend to be saddled with economists definitions, which often don't capture how we talk about stuff. Also, I just saw MC's comment, too. As you probably noticed, in the US, we're very anti-public, so we end up with the equivalent of private "single-payers" (monopolies) in many industries....But it sounds like you're talking about private providers, not privatizing the industry...?

[electricland.livejournal.com]

Well, the concern usually comes when provincial governments say vague things about "allowing more private care" without specifying what they mean. The big issue with the Supreme Court decision was that it opened the door for people to buy supplementary (private) coverage if they weren't getting timely care, which in theory could lead to two-tier health care (good speedy care for the rich, slow crappy care for the poor, doctors and other providers sucked out of the public system because they can make more in the private system), which violates the universality principle of the Canada Health Act. And probably the accessibility one too, actually.

But no, there's certainly no move (well, except on the lunatic fringe) to privatize the whole industry.

[jaanquidam.livejournal.com]

Okay, I think I get it now. :) It's unfortunate that the two-tier system is potentially the slippery slope toward gutting health care, because it can actually work well. In theory. Paul Krugman's written a lot of popular stuff comparing health systems...I'll see if I can find one of his articles....

[electricland.livejournal.com]

thanks! that would be great!

we do get locked into this mindset in Canada where we look at the U.S. system and shudder and think that any change is a step towards that and we must avoid it at all costs. Unproductive. (OK, some people look at the U.S. system and think it's the greatest thing ever, but they're just insane.) And anybody who tries a creative suggestion gets shouted down. i'm guilty of it myself to some extent.

Another option, at least for those of us near the border, is potentially shipping patients across the border for things like MRIs. Take advantage of the excess capacity over there, shorten wait times. But do you think it'll happen? It would take a brave politician to suggest it, that's for sure...

[jaanquidam.livejournal.com]

Well, I think you should look south and shudder. I mean, the scope of our health care crisis is pretty mind-boggling. People are so desperate for health care that it gives American bosses a degree of economic power unseen since the days of the "satanic" industrial mills. It's a truism--one that's studiously ignored in American rhetoric--that capitalism is anti-democratic because workers cede their civil rights when they enter the workplace. The idea that one's health is tied to capitalism should give people pause. IMO. To some degree, in all of the western/anglo countries, property rights trump civil rights, and it seems to me that the real debate should be about how we value those two rights relative to each other, e.g. whether health is a civil right or a property right. If you think of it in those terms, then any movement toward privatization can seem disturbing.

God, I'm totally spamming your LJ today. Sorry about that. I posted part of an article below. Here's another one: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/101705M.shtml

[electricland.livejournal.com]

don't be sorry! I love this stuff!

Although we probably shouldn't get into that whole consumership-vs.-citizenship thing if either of us is going to get anything done today...

[jaanquidam.livejournal.com]

LOL I should probably come clean and admit that I'm a US-educated economist with a big fat chip on his shoulder about health care and capitalism in general. ;) Actually, Raithen and I were talking about this earlier, that I really thought I could help people if I learned this stuff, only to find out that nobody in power cares. So I tilt at windmills, and spam LJs.

[electricland.livejournal.com]

well, keep on trucking. Your time will come. At least, I hope so...