Use Public Hospital MRI's For Cash Customers

I think the answer is to stop wasting our money, aka gun registry, sponsorship programs, etc etc and put the money into more MRI's so that all people have access fast, if sports teams can use the machines when they aren't being used, that would indicate their is down time, so why the waiting list? Is it not enough staff if so how can the sports teams use them, do they have private staff?

I think it is the desperation created by the gov to make people start looking elsewhere, we have a great system, it is just really poorly managed and has been for the last 10years or so, because this mismanagement creates the need for changes and people are always willing to do whatever when one of their loved ones need treatment. The people who are healthy, never think they will be on that list and so they don't value our healthcare system. It is easy to see it as a system of abuse, you hear people complaining that old people visit the doctor just to have someone listen to them, well that is part of healthcare, mental illness is a problem which can be detected by the doctor, also abuses that might be going on are detected this way, malnourishment, medication problems and on and on.

I think the problem is far too complex and it is being seen as a simple issue, either throw money at it or privatize it; neither of those solutions are answer. I say revamp it completely; get rid of the top heavy management that is intent on dismantling it and find people committed to universal healthcare to run the facilities and look for innovative ways to improve, and not by privatizing the system!

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

And the money's not just wasted on sponsorship scandals and gun registries. The sponsorship scandal is pennies when talking healthcare. I'm more concerned about this annual cut-taxes-to-stimulate-economy thinking.

Economically speaking, if you cut corporate taxes, the money freed up can be used for reinvestment. But in terms of economic GROWTH, that tax cut mostly only makes a difference for the first year (after that, it's mostly existing capital, not growth). So the next year they have to cut taxes again to stimulate growth again.

Stephen Harper and Paul Martin are pretty gung-ho on this cut-for-growth strategy. But neither of them has named an optimal sustainable tax level. What does that mean? Well, it means that either neither one of them has actually thought out a way to sustain these tax cuts and provide the services that Canadians need (ie: they've completely sold their souls to the GDP and GNP measurements) or else they just won't tell us.

Maybe what we need is a government that can see farther ahead than one election. As Whelan said, the shortcomings of our healthcare system rest on the shoulders of those in management positions who wish so much for privatisation. And they wish it, not because it would be of any benefit to the Canadian people, but because of some skewed ideology of mistrust. It's the same kind of mistrust that keeps people boxed up at home watching moving images on a screen instead of being out enjoying the things in life that make it worth living. And what do you know? When they're watching that TV, they're being bombarded with "NEWS" about how much privatisation will benefit us.

---
Kory Yamashita

"What lies behind us and what lies ahead of us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

<b>Jim</b>, <br><br> "..that do not threaten our existing waiting lines" But that <b>would be</b> exactly what this amounts to, Money buys faster access. <br><br> How do you determine the urgency of the need? Through a hugh bureaucracy? How do you measure it? <br><br> IMHO it's a fundamental question of equality when there is no choice for those without the necessary funds. (As I mentionned before even conservatives like Globe and Mail columnist Norman Spector are in favour of <b>equal</b> access for all to medical care because it's a necessity. <br><br> The fact that sports teams found a way around (giving a reason which sounds fichy to me) doesn't justify allowing people to jump the line. (In BC Workmen's Comp patients also get preferential access; because it would cost the government more money if they stood in line.) <br><br> <b>Kory</b> Let me assure you that Paul Martin thougt a lot about the level of taxation at the very minimum to avoid paying his own fair share by exempting the Barbados (where he registered a lot of CSL ships) in the revision he made to tax haven legislation.