Non-Profit HealthCare Is Still Viable-Letter To PM
Posted on Saturday, June 11 at 22:17 by whelan costen
We do not need further consultation. You can do a search on the internet and find numerous reports from various sources, and they will all tell you the same thing: healthcare requires funding to sustain it. The one thing the reports don't say, for the most part, is that it also requires the political will to do so. At this point what we are seeing is more corporate influence on our country, with the end result being more people living in poverty. I think this is surely a wake-up call, and before the next election, the people will want to know that someone will take the bull by the horns, and inject healthcare with the funding it needs, and put the policies in place to ensure that money goes to services and not to third parties.
I think the people of Canada are tired of seeing their healthcare dollars spent on reports, advertising from government telling them how they ought to live their lives to be more healthy, and generally promoting all the great things government is doing for us. Take that propaganda money and spend it where it will do the most good, on the system. Hire back the doctors and nurses who left this country because of your cuts, buy those MRIs which the private companies are promising. Encourage the Health Care Minister of Alberta to find those who abused the system with duplicate cards, costing Albertans about $80 million annually, and prosecute them, recover the money lost and put accountable systems in place to prevent this abuse in the future.
Federal funds (my tax dollars) sent to the provinces for healthcare need to be accounted for and spent wisely. Investigate hospitals which are sold for a pittance of the market value (such as the Holy Cross in Calgary) and hold officials accountable for this mismanagement of our money. Stop consulting and start acting. This argument has been going on for over 10 years and is not going to solve the issue; rather, it's clearly an attempt to cause desperation in the people, so that the corporate agenda can be implemented. A government, even a minority one, is elected to govern in the best interest of the people: when can we expect to see that process put into place?
I look forward to your action on this issue, and a response to my concerns.
Yours truly
Catherine Whelan Costen
Canadian Action Party Candidate
cc: vivelecanada.ca
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on June 12, 2005]
Contributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
---
These days, if you are not confused, you are not thinking clearly. Mrs. Irene Peters
---
Dave Ruston
I fully agree with you on looking at improving what all ready exists, FootPrints.
'The quauity of the response is predicated on the quality of the question.'
The question is framed entirely around creating a duplication of services but as a for profit system due to wait lists.
Is it such a large leap in logic to improve the existing systen to eliminate wait-lists?
Focus on the problem of wait-lists!
Remedy that!
Sitting here listening to Rex Murophy and call in quests I am going to need the valium mitchou suggested
I am constantly amazed how easily peoples minds can be and ARE taken away from the the motive behind the action(s0
I keep hearing that crusty old Scot, Jack Webster saying "STUPID!STUPID!STUPID!..." in response to, guess what?
STUPIDITY
( I predict a 'very bad' review on this one!)
and by the by by its very nature a general strike IS REV-O-Lution
Sheesh!
It has been interesting to hear and read the arguements made over the course of this past week in regards to the Supreme Court's recent decision on the role of private health care in Canada. Both sides have made their arguement; one side has appeared to be doing all the talking while at the same time failing to make any sense whatsoever in trying to get their point across, but this is a sign of the times (and an indication of the country) in which we live in.
I'm told that being a Canadian is to be tolerant and respectful of others opinions and beliefs, so I'll just wish the 'friends of Medicare' all the luck in the world and take what they say with considerate patience. But then again I'm also told that Medicare is what makes me a Canadian, so perhaps I'll have to reconsider my response to their position?
It's nice to see that there are so many wonderful people in this country who are willing to devote their time and energy into ensuring that I have to wait in line for several months in order to receive second rate care by qualified, if not frustrated professionals! Thankfully these people will be there to ensure that I am readily punished should I step out of line and take money (that I can afford to spend) out of my wallet to pay for quicker, better care given by equally qualified (and calmer) professionals.
Oh, but that's right! All we have to do is restore funding to 1992/1993 levels. Well! It's such a relief to know that life is just THAT simple! It's so splendid to know that I live in such a socially progressive country like Canada. Thank you Friends of Medicare!
---
"You'll find that empty vessels make the most sound" - John Lydon
“What utter nonsense!” I must agree with ya here Gus! What utter nonsense?
Well there Gus, ya little oxy-moron usin’ advocātus diabolī, the legal argument, according to the barrister being interviewed on the telly was the “freedom” to receive medical attention not “available” within the current system.
So rather than bring the present system into line with the demands placed on it was “decided” to open the doors to an altogether “new” system.
It seems to me that the desired outcome is to have a system that accommodated demand, is that not true? Then that being the case bring the present system in-line with the desired outcome!
”It has been interesting to hear and read the arguements made over the course of this past week in regards to the Supreme Court's recent decision on the role of private health care in Canada. Both sides have made their arguement; one side has appeared to be doing all the talking while at the same time failing to make any sense whatsoever in trying to get their point across, but this is a sign of the times (and an indication of the country) in which we live in.
I'm told that being a Canadian is to be tolerant and respectful of others opinions and beliefs, so I'll just wish the 'friends of Medicare' all the luck in the world and take what they say with considerate patience. But then again I'm also told that Medicare is what makes me a Canadian, so perhaps I'll have to reconsider my response to their position?
It's nice to see that there are so many wonderful people in this country who are willing to devote their time and energy into ensuring that I have to wait in line for several months in order to receive second rate care by qualified, if not frustrated professionals! Thankfully these people will be there to ensure that I am readily punished should I step out of line and take money (that I can afford to spend) out of my wallet to pay for quicker, better care given by equally qualified (and calmer) professionals.”
Ya know what Gussie?
You being able to “step out of line and take money (that I can afford to spend) out of my wallet to pay for quicker, better care given by equally qualified (and calmer) professionals.” isn’t the issue. I suggest you use your wealth to get the best medical attention you can afford-go get it, hop on a plane and go to it or conversely have it brought to you.
”Oh, but that's right! All we have to do is restore funding to 1992/1993 levels. Well! It's such a relief to know that life is just THAT simple! It's so splendid to know that I live in such a socially progressive country like Canada. Thank you Friends of Medicare!”
As you have hinted at, or it threatened reconsideration, do so! “…Medicare is what makes me a Canadian, so perhaps I'll have to reconsider my response to their position?”
Funding alone will not rectify the problem of wait-lists and you know that, do you not?
---
"You'll find that empty vessels make the most sound" - John Lydon
Dio’s Corollary: “Which is precisely why bells are empty; to ring true.” - Me
As I have said before, the desired outcome is to have the healthiest population in the developed world. Is THAT not the issue? You haven't put forth anything thus far to show how this can be accomplished within the current monolithic system.
Typically your response to those who would disagree with you is to tell them to go and bugger off. No, I'm sorry but I don't think I'll be hopping on any planes in the near future. And I'm sorry, but I don't think I'll be reconsidering my position on Medicare, but from what I can see many Canadians are.
---
"All great truths begin as blasphemies" - George Bernard Shaw
Good! Perhaps now we can have a civilised discussion?
I agree having the healthiest population in the developed world, to use your phraseology, is the desired outcome and will offer for consideration only, the following
I have a friend who studied with the barefoot doctors of China and she explained a system that with some tweaking could serve Canadians equally as well or better.
Are we clear to this point?
The barefoots work on a modified retainer if you will, whereby their ‘pay’ is predicated on them keeping their clients healthy, perhaps better described as preventative medicine, and while this is not a placebo for all medical conditions it has positive effects.
Not health = no pay
You still with me here, AnGUS? (oops ‘dropped the civility ball here. Sorry)
Nutritional issues, both by doctors and the public might be modified to reflect a healthy outcome. (Big dollops of personal responsibility all round, Eh?)
On the administration/management/government side slashing budgets hasn’t shown to be an effective method of reaching the desired outcomes of health so stop doing what does not work and start doing what does.
We still OK here Angus? Privatised health care no guarantee of better health attention.
“Typically your response to those who would disagree with you is to tell them to go and bugger off.” Your interpretation is faulty; you claimed money was not a problem for you, did you not? You have affordability? Great! Fill your boots!
Go to the mountain, metaphorically speaking, and get that which you seek. No bugger off, Angus you can afford it so do it
foot note. How much more apt your new sig is!
I confess to having Blasphemed, hehe hoho
Dio
So who was arguing for privatised health care? I wasn't. I have been making the case (elsewhere) for two tier health care. So let's just be clear on that point.
I know the barefoot doctors well having lived in China myself. Unfortunately they operate (at least in the province I lived in) in remote areas. When ill in China I was forced to pay for my health care which was something I could do easily as I could afford it. Most Chinese pay for health care and many can't afford it. It was my experience in China that showed me first hand that an ALL private system of health obviously doesn't work.
On a LARGER SCALE such a system (as the barefoot's use) has proven (at least in parts of China) difficult to run. Although their example is worth examining; doctors working on a retainer is an interesting idea.
Health care (in my eyes) is a contract between a patient and a provider. If the provider is unable to give the patient timely care they require then something must be done. If I can get the care I need down the street by pulling my wallet out, I'm going to do it.
Side Note: Perhaps we're both blasphemers. There's nothing wrong with that.
---
"All great truths begin as blasphemies" - George Bernard Shaw
I appreciate your patience. I and perhaps erroneously, see two tired health care morphing into a for profit system thereby creating an even further two tiered society; the haves and the have-nots.
Ah Hell Angus, the way I see it is the world is in the throws of a corporatist take over on every front and that is the fear that grips a lot of us.
On a personal note I am one of those who must rely on a health care system that has been savaged by the so called Liberal party here is BC
I introduced the subject of the barefoot doctors because of the mindset or philosophy of a health care system. Whether I am correct in how they go about it or not wasn’t my point. The point was and remains the idea of a proactive a system opposed to a reactive one.
It is this part here that I see as problematic, not for you, for me.
“Health care (in my eyes) is a contract between a patient and a provider. If the provider is unable to give the patient timely care they require then something must be done. If I can get the care I need down the street by pulling my wallet out, I'm going to do it.” There is more in your statement than I am willing to take on , for the moment.
I do however, agree on the timely part. Unfortunately, and again for those of us without affordability cash equates to timeliness.
I hope I have made some sense.
---
More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray w
How many Canadians will be able to afford, the private option in the future, or the extra insurance? As we can see that the rate of poverty is growing, and those who once were expecting to be middle class, have realized they never will. The rising cost of education, will keep many of the next generation in debt for years, even if they get that prize job. I think we have to look at long term goals, and the big picture. Allowing privatization of the system, will give options to some, but not most, and as we watch corporations taking over companies and the best paying jobs going south, or outsourcing Canadian contracts, the majority of jobs in Canada will be lower wages, without benefits.
We need to stop the process, now, before it is too late. If we fix the non-profit public system today, the rich will also have a great system to use, and maybe they won't complain about paying fair taxes to support the high quality system they believe they deserve; but I believe we all deserve it, regardless of income. Allowing a private system to run along side the public system, is only a bandaid which will appease a small number of people able to pay for it, I would rather see a solution which we can all live with.
I also notice that some posters are saying that people are dying on waiting lists, and I wonder if they have any stats to support that statement. My sense is that emergency care is delivered in optimum time, it is the other surgeries which are delayed. Knee surgery isn't exactly life threatening, although it is painful to wait and some are using the latest victim of addiction to painkillers, as an example of how serious this issue is; which I don't deny it is serious but not life threatening. I think the addiction to painkillers is another issue, due to, as in that circumstance, a person without disability insurance forced to work while in pain.
---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?
So I'm sorry whelan costen, it has become life threatening.
whelan, you still do not understand how a two tier system operates. Perhaps you're too far gone with all the rubbish our government has shoved down your throat.
Yes the rate of poverty is growing, but it has nothing to do with a two tier system of health care. Look at poverty here in Canada and then look at poverty in Europe or Australia, countries that have parallel private health systems. I would argue that these European nations have a higher standard of living than Canada.
If a poor person or family needs medical attention, they will go to a PUBLIC HOSPITAL. While others with more money at their disposal will CHOOSE to go to a PRIVATE CLINIC.
The point I am trying to make is to take the PRESSUE off the PUBLIC SYSTEM, take those who CAN AFFORD to PAY FOR THEMSELVES and put them in a PRIVATE CLINIC thus FREEING up the system for those who CAN'T AFFORD health care. That is how you take the pressure off of the public system. And that in a small nutshell is how two tier health systems work.
This is why the WHO report found that their were low levels of inequality in the French system when compared to Canada.
I would agree that a proactive system is much better than the lathargic system we have at the moment.
---
"All great truths begin as blasphemies" - George Bernard Shaw
I do understand completely; now if you can try to consider this; if you are talking about someone who is today, right now waiting for a test, test results, surgery, or emergency care, and you are telling me that the answer for them, is somehow to ask them to pay, and those things will happen asap; I fail to see how that can happen. Are those private clinics available right now, today? The doctors, are they available and the equipment? I don't think they are, this will take time to build and buy equipment, to hire staff etc. But if it is already available then the answer is not to ask people to pay, but to make those facilities public right now, that ends the problem and nobody has to come up with the money.
I do understand the desperation you seem to think I don't understand, but I do fully. To me that is the exact reaction the government, aka the corporations are depending on. People screaming I have the money, I can pay, take me, take my child and make them well, do it now, we can't wait for another public hospital etc! I stand by my statements, if the people and facilities are available now, make them public now. We do have the money to fund it...the statments from gov on lack of funding are b.s. If they can write off 2.4 billion in uncollected taxes, without a blink, they can damn well fund healthcare, today!
The private insurance, and private clinics etc are a red-herring, a diversion, the truth is we can afford to fund non-profit healthcare in this country for every province and territory, they(the government) has chosen not to, which has allowed the anger seen here in many posts and in many Canadians desperate to save themselves and their families.
We need to put the blame where it is deserved, and rather than find ways around the system, improve the system, and I don't mean next year, I mean now.
I get a very strong sense, that you and others have decided that the public system, which is in a bad state, is that way because it is unsustainable, and that there is no fix, so those who can afford to, save themselves. We are on a sinking ship with only a few lifeboats, the strongest will get in and save themselves; that is how this appears to me; but the truth is their are plenty of lifeboats if people would just stop panicing and jumping overboard in hopes that another ship will save them. It won't, if you aren't impoverished today, you will be after you have a family illness; if you are sick today, forget getting any form of insurance; the truth is not as promising for two tiered as some would make us think.
Finally, here is the point, a two tiered system will hurt the poor, the middle class and reward the rich. In the non-profit public system, where it is properly funded, properly managed, and accountable to the public, all people benefit, not some at the expense of others. Two tiered favours a select group and rewards the corporations, the public system favours everyone, and rewards the public. To me that is a significant difference. I fail to see your argument for taking pressure off the public system, by taking resources and putting them into a private system, which is what will happen. There are only so many people trained in these fields, and presently people are fundraising for equipment etc, in various hospitals, which I don't think is necessary, but it is happening. A private system will be funded through the goodwill of corporations, and rich individuals, with tax write-offs to go with; while the public system struggles for funding. If you can afford to pay, I am not surprised that you believe you have the right to pay and be treated before a poor person, it doesn't make it right. Perhaps that is the moral question, and history has shown us that wealth has its own moral delimas. A social program is suppose to take away the unfortunate circumstances which force people to rely on the goodwill of the rich, or hope they have the moral compass to care about their fellow man; as in do undo others as you would have them do unto you. Or walk a mile in anothers shoes, before you judge, or but for the Grace of God go I. Those moral sayings, most often are lost on the high and mighty, certainly they are lost on the corporate goals of profit first!
---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?