I try to be somewhere in between. If we go too much into the former, we become a society fending for ourselves. Sometimes, we need a hand. I'm not suggesting government is the answer to providing that hand, but in the case of health, it could play a role. It's the size of the role I'm concerned with. If we go too much into the latter, then we're in danger of making everyone a ward of the state. As such, it's the state that sets the rules of our personal health choices. Public health is not a zero sum game and we should indeed be conscious of its costs.
Everywhere in the West we see that there are cracks in the social welfare state yet daring to discuss ways to curb costs remains taboo for some. In a wider sense, while we go further in debt paying for it, nations in the East are amassing great wealth - liquid wealth. This can have huge implications for us in the future.
The case of the United States is different because, while it doesn't possess a welfare state (even though it is quite socialist), it has been subsidizing the armies of the West for roughly 60 years. Countries in Europe, after the devastation brought upon by two great world wars which in effect brought them to their knees, were free to expand the welfare state since they didn't have to spend money on the miliatry. Same with Canada. Does anyone believe that if the U.S. was a hostile neighbour we'd be accorded the luxuries we have now? Of course not. We'd have to be realistic and maintain a large army.
I sorta digress.
In Canada, the public health system is too egalitarian. It doesn't permit someone of means to go off the system and pay for serious surgeries. For that, we must leave and go abroad and this is unfair. It also presupposes that all citizens willingly want to give a disproportionate part of their income to something they feel they could do well on their own. Hey, it may not be "moral" but that's liberty. If they don't want to be a part of it, that's their right.
As I've always argued here, the Canadian public health system, as we know, is under severe strain. It needs to be revamped and preserved and the best way to do it is to remove the paternalistic visions of the state and loosen it up a little. Give some power back to the people.
Our problem is the opposite of America's.
***
Which brings me to the unfortunate story of a family from France who have been refused immigrations status in Canada because their daughter - who has cerebral palsy - would pose a severe strain on the public health system.
I understand Immigration Canada is acting (financially) responsibly (especially considering how many people scam the system here) but I thought we were a compassionate society.The argument against them gets weaker since he has a successful business here and therefore is carrying his weight to pay taxes contributing to public health. These are exactly the sort of people we should be allowing into the country.
Is it a valid reason to deny people entrance on this reason?
I say no and I have to say, I'm ashamed (and I don't use that word too often - if ever) of my country for this decision.
Buon Anno Commentator and much success with your Day Care Facility.
ReplyDeleteAs usual I'm half in agreement with you on health care and in absolute agreement on the French immigrant family score, but then what do you expect from a Reform government, eh?
Health and welfare for every one is a collective responsibilty and should remain so. Should we broadly open up to the private system we would be back to savagery and poor man hospital as was the case when I grew up. Nobody wants that I'm sure.
Merci, Paul.
ReplyDeleteIt really is too bad about the French family.
Why do you say it will lead to "savagery?" Isn't that showing little faith in humans? All I'm saying is for those who want pay and go private let them. No one, not the state, not me, nor you, should prevent them in doing so.
How will that jeopardize the public system? In fact, will it not help alleviate the pressure on it? With the doctor, nurse and bed shortages why should people be forced like cattle into the public system?
In some cases, we're paying for it anyway. A person that elects to have surgery not performed in Canada (imagine that) in the U.S., has costs covered by the provincial government of their origins. Why not just have a private sector that takes on major surgeries, that way people stay here? I may be looking at it a little simplistically, but in my one year working behind the scenes that seems to be what people want.
Moreover, like the stupidity of inter-provincial barriers, medicare is not even portable. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Call it two-tier, call it whatever. I just feel a segment of the population is being discriminated against.
When treated outside Canada or the province, care costs are reimbursed for the part our system would have paid the balance is your problem.
ReplyDeleteAs for the private sector helping the public sector, I fail to see how diverting doctors and nurses from it to the private can help alleviate the doctor and nurse shortage in the public sector. If anything it wikk make things worse.
Should we let more private concerns on the scene, and most are backed up by big US insurance and medical conglomerates should we wish, and we will, to go back, under NAFTA we could not without huge compensations that would be even more costly than the present system.
In my opinion, set people free and it's amazing what we come up with.
ReplyDeleteAnd what's with the fear about insurance companies? I'm no fan of them but I remember my tenure in the bank when it was unpopular to make profits - that's Canada for you.
We act as if they run amok without any regulation. That's a tad off for me. Seems to me they're tightly regulated like the banks - the only issue is that of transparency.
We're exaggerating the insurance companies role in health care in the U.S. and under estimating government regulation (not permitting insurance companies operate from state to state) already in place damaging it. It's all mixed up down there. I think, rather, it's the collusion of the two that have conspired to make their system complicated. Then again, how bad is it really if 85% say they're happy with it? Then again, I keep hearing stories, as was the case of a friend of a friend, who had to mortgage a house a second time to pay for hospital expenses for serious illnesses.
But it need not be that way here if we open up a little. Just serve the portion of the population that have the means to do it.
In fact, we're in a good position to improve our system. I can't see how maintaining in its current form is acceptable. It makes no sense to me that the state and only the state will determine the rules of health care. None. Look at what they did to Quebec? The PQ cut health costs to the point we won't be able to train and educate doctors and nurses. It's a fiasco and no one is talking about it.
"When treated outside Canada or the province, care costs are reimbursed for the part our system would have paid the balance is your problem."
And, like I said, for the surgeries we don't perform.
Won't be able to train and educate fast enough to replace the doctors lost is what I meant to say.
ReplyDeleteRather nice site you've got here. Thanx for it. I like such themes and anything connected to them. I would like to read a bit more on that blog soon.
ReplyDeleteSincerely yours
Timm Clade