Quote:
Your entire post was written in an economic context. At the moment you typed "failed", you meant "failed economically, like the Soviets". You weren't even thinking about China.
Ah, I see where you're coming from.
That may be, but Communist China has failed in ways outside of its economy. To be on-topic, its health-care system (as I pointed out).
Cycle,
It is not mandatory to have liability insurance for a motor vehicle in a certain area. Hence liability in that area is dirt cheap.
You are spouting nonsense, you are saying that it is illegal to purchase private insurance that coveres services offered by the state because it would somehow raise the cost of healthcare?
       
Quote:
Private Clinics
In addition to public health care providers such as primary care doctors and hospitals, many private clinics offering specialized services also operate in Canada.
Under federal law, private clinics are not legally allowed to provide services covered by the Canada Health Act. Regardless of this legal issue, many do offer such services.
The advantage of private clinics is that they typically offer services with reduced wait times compared to the public health care system. For example, obtaining an MRI scan in a hospital could require a waiting period of months, whereas it could be obtained much faster in a private clinic.
Private clinics are a subject of controversy, as some feel that their existence unbalances the health care system and favors treatments to those with higher incomes.
Costs in private clinics are usually covered by private insurance policies, which will typically pay around 80% of the costs.
emphasis mine
www.canadian-healthcare.org/page6.html
So why again is private insurance, that covers services offered by the state, illegal?
There is no point to such a rule except to enforce a same level of care. If state provided care were superior then private insurance would be legal and no one would buy it. If it was completely legal, and no one bought it, so what?
Are Canadians responsible enough to handle codein over the counter but must be protected from private insurance?
Jimro
Private insurance is illegal to protect the integrity of the public system. I'm honestly at a loss as to why it matters, though, since there's no market for private basic insurance other than crazy right-wing nutjobs. Even if it were legal, nobody would sell it because nobody would buy it. It's not like the quality of your care would be improved -- you'd still be going to the same hospitals and receiving the same services.
Quote:
Private insurance is illegal to protect the integrity of the public system.
Explain this further please, I don't see how the integrity of the public healthcare system is threatened by private insurance.
Quote:
I'm honestly at a loss as to why it matters, though, since there's no market for private basic insurance other than crazy right-wing nutjobs. Even if it were legal, nobody would sell it because nobody would buy it. It's not like the quality of your care would be improved -- you'd still be going to the same hospitals and receiving the same services.
Wait a minute, didn't you read about "private clinics" that "illegally" offer the same services covered through the state?
Haven't you talked about the "American Option" enough to know that there are Canadians willing to spend their own money on healthcare?
This proves my point that there IS a market for basic health insurance in Canada. It may be a small market, but it does exist. You'll find right-wing nutjobs in every province if you look hard enough.
Jimro
Explain this further please, I don't see how the integrity of the public healthcare system is threatened by private insurance.
Say, for whatever reason, some rich guy starts paying for his own insurance. I haven't got a clue why he would do something so mesmerizingly dumb, but he's doing it. Of course, he soon realizes that he is now technically paying for two insurance policies, the private one and the public one. He decides he doesn't want to pay for the public one anymore, but he has no choice because it's embedded in his taxes.
Let's say he meets a bunch of other rich guys who feel the same way. You know, a few Alberta oil barons, a couple mining executives, a politician or two, some guys from the Fraser Institute, and the executive editor of the National Post. Guys with the ability to influence lots of voters, and make six-figure campaign donations. All they have to do is convince the government to cut back on healthcare.
A lot of people read the National Post.
Haven't you talked about the "American Option" enough to know that there are Canadians willing to spend their own money on healthcare?
It's not a question of whether you're "willing" to directly fund your own care. When you pay your taxes, you're subsidizing the entire healthcare system, therefore ensuring coverage not only for yourself but also for the other 30 million people who live here. It doesn't matter if you're "willing" to directly subsidize your own healthcare -- that's not the point of the system. See, now we're back on page one again.
Public healthcare only works if everyone pays for it. There is not a single reason why someone would want to buy private insurance for the same coverage they already receive from the public system.
Quote:
There is not a single reason why someone would want to buy private insurance for the same coverage they already receive from the public system.
There are none so blind as those who won't see.
There are plenty of reasons, the biggest one that has been repeatedly listed is "speed". Another one that is less mentioned is "quality". And the best one of all, is "choice".
Your assumption that monumentally stupid rich people are organized enough influence enough voters to cut back on healthcare spending is absolutely ludicrous. Just think about your argument for a moment.
Their private insurance costs would go up significantly if public healthcare spending went down. When there is more demand than supply that is what happens. Basic economics dictates that the rich are gonna get screwed either way. I see no advantage to denying citizens the choice to have both public and private care available.
Jimro
Also I forgot to mention that if there was a sufficient number of people who went out and bought private basic insurance then the private clinics that administer supplemental services would want in on the lucrative new market for basic care.
I'm going to have to draw a diagram or something when I get home.
There are plenty of reasons, the biggest one that has been repeatedly listed is "speed". Another one that is less mentioned is "quality". And the best one of all, is "choice".
What? We're just talking about insurance here, right? Because they'd still be getting the same services from the same sources either way. Unless of course you're advocating a system that would give priority to privately-insured patients.
And seriously, how many times do I have to say this -- when you are covered by public health insurance, you can still choose to go to any hospital or doctor you want.
Cycle, right now in Canada it is legal for a doctor to opt out of the public system, but it is illegal for Canadians to buy private insurance to get basic health services through that doctor.
Why do you think tribes have kicked around the idea of setting up for profit clinics on the reservation? The only thing stopping them is the lack of private insurance available to Canadians so that such clinics would be profitable to the tribe.
Jimro
Cycle, right now in Canada it is legal for a doctor to opt out of the public system, but it is illegal for Canadians to buy private insurance to get basic health services through that doctor.
Explain how doing otherwise would not fully defeat the purpose of having a single-tier, universal healthcare system in the first place.
Besides which, I'd like to see the insurance company that'll cover care provided by a doctor who isn't a member of any legitimate professional association.
Quote:
Explain how doing otherwise would not fully defeat the purpose of having a single-tier, universal healthcare system in the first place.
Huh, is it really a single tier? There are those that can afford the "American Option", there are those that know how to get things done and "work the system" and there are those that don't have money and don't know how to work the system.
Are you sure it's a single tier?
This "two tiered" boogeyman is just that, the system you have now is multi-tiered and yet like the sheep from "Animal Farm" you keep repeating that it is single tier. Your teachers have done well.
Jimro
Huh, is it really a single tier? There are those that can afford the "American Option", there are those that know how to get things done and "work the system" and there are those that don't have money and don't know how to work the system.
The goal is to have a single-tier system. There are those in government who feel it is not exactly a priority to work towards this goal, however, letting people buy private, for-profit insurance to go to private, for-profit hospitals for basic care would be a pretty big step back from that goal.
I don't understand why the system not being perfect and not fully achieving its goals is legitimate grounds for dropping everything and just going dropping down to a two-tier system.
Quote:
The goal is to have a single-tier system. There are those in government who feel it is not exactly a priority to work towards this goal, however, letting people buy private, for-profit insurance to go to private, for-profit hospitals for basic care would be a pretty big step back from that goal.
I don't understand why the system not being perfect and not fully achieving its goals is legitimate grounds for dropping everything and just going dropping down to a two-tier system.
Simply put, two tiers would be one less than what you have now.
You stated earlier that the goal was "to provide the same care regardless of income" (pardon my paraphrase, those aren't your exact words). There is ample proof that the ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS TO FORCE PEOPLE INTO ONLY ONE CHOICE. Make the "American Option" illegal, make "working the system" impossible.
Kinda like the public verses private school issue. Why force everyone to public school? Does the government really know best how to educate children?
If you really want to treat everyone the same, you have Zero historical examples that are successes. In the USSR the medical care you recieved was different based on your political connections. The UK doesn't seem to be a resounding success lately either.
If you put a group of random strangers together, they will striate themselves into groups, they will form pecking orders. This is the natural order of human interactions. There is no point to a single tier system except that it makes the socialist idealist in you happy.
There is no benefit to a single tier system from a medical point of view. Or for that matter a capitalist point of view.
Jimro
