We got some decent feedback on last night’s program dealing with public versus private sector involvement in health care.
I’ve never moderated a discussion in my life where I didn’t think after the program was over, “Darn, I wish I’d remembered to ask about…” or “Blast, we ran out of time before I could get to….”
And last night was no exception.
If you missed it, we were debating the merits of a new private sector proposal to take 1,500 knee replacement surgeries out of the public hospital system and do them in a private, for-profit clinic in Toronto called the Don Mills Surgical Centre.
Patients would still use their OHIP card to pay for the procedure, not a credit card.
We asked the following question: as long as Medicare is paying, who cares who profits?
The debate was a solid one, but some issues never got covered.
For example, I never got around to asking critics of this private sector proposal a few of the following questions:
· 63,000 unnecessary deaths take place in public hospitals in Canada every year. If we took the simple, uncomplicated surgeries out of the hospital setting, wouldn’t that number decline? Or wouldn’t at least the risk of unnecessary patient deaths decline?
· Hospitals are also occasionally overrun (far too often these days) by outbreaks of superbugs. Wouldn’t many patients be safer and less likely to contract one of these bugs by taking their procedure out of the hospital setting?
· Someone made the point on the program that private clinics are all about profit first, not necessarily good service. It’s all about the money, they alleged. I wish we’d asked about hospital CEO’s who make $800,000 a year, and hospital projects that routinely go over budget by millions of dollars, all paid for by the taxpayers.
The critics of the proposal needed to address those points, but unfortunately, we didn’t get around to it.
Next time…as I seem to say after most broadcasts…
Hippocrates in his Epidemics wrote, “As to diseases, make a habit of two things – to help, or at least to do no harm.”
Perhaps this should be a guiding principal for all of us. Mr. Paikin, I believe your bias in favour of more for-profit incursion into our public health care system is very harmful. This bias was evident by your questions, the follow-up questions on your blog, and the questions you did not ask the proponents of more for-profit health care in Canada.
As Ruth Grier pointed out, our health care system needs reform and innovation. We must always look for ways to improve care. However, I believe it is crucial that the public delivery of health care must be protected in order to preserve our Medicare system.
Here are some points that need further debate and/or answers.
· Why did the proponents of more for-profit clinics repeatedly point to examples in Europe? They know as well as we do that we do not live in Europe, we live next to the United States. We have trade agreements that will make it impossible to stop more American investor owned private for-profit health care providers from moving in to Canada. (NAFTA & GATT)
· Why do the proponents of for-profit clinics want to set up cataract or knee and hip replacement clinics? They are profit driven and want to do the easiest most profitable procedures. They aren’t offering to treat elderly people with complex, medical problems.
· Why did you not pursue the point that was raised by Frank Dobson and Natalie Mehra several times, that the for-profit clinics that have been tried here and in the UK actually cost more. They both cited examples, (cataracts in the UK, cancer clinic at Sunnybrook) and there are many more. Here was solid evidence that cost savings, the purported reason for for-profit clinics, have not occurred and you did not follow up on this very important point.
I am a retired teacher who has been deeply involved with the fight against the Public-Private-Partnership (P3) hospital in Brampton. We have experienced all of the points brought up by Ruth Grier and Natalie Mehra. Our hospital deal is secret, we are still fighting a court case to get full financial disclosure of the deal. The limited information that has been made public shows this deal to be far more expensive than the traditional method of funding hospital construction. We were promised 608 beds in this new hospital, a month ago we were told there would only be 350. Last Friday Health Minister Smitherman upped the number to 479. This deal reminds me of another local case of public funding and private delivery – 407. Our money is siphoned out of the public purse, with little or no public accountability or transparency and a percentage of the funds designated for health care goes to provide investors with a profit.
I firmly believe that the path advocated by the Fraser Institute and other proponents of increased for-profit involvement in our health care system will weaken and ultimately destroy it. We will then have the model of health care we see in the United States. Instead of presenting these private clinics as providing the public with “choice” or with the unproven assertion that they will save us money, let’s be truthful and show the path to American style health care.
In your blog you challenged the opponents of for-profits to answer three questions. How about challenging the forces interested in taking more money from our health care system in the form of profits for investors to answer the questions I have posed.
posted by Dora Jeffries on 04 April 2007 at 2:45 PM
Last night I thought about the situation on a hospital ward such as where my Mom suffered unnecessary complications following surgery. There were a mixed bag of patients, some easy and some not, which enabled the nurses to balance their load. Envision now all the easy patients flowing to a private clinic and all the hard ones left to the hospital. Note as well that since there are only so many nurses to go around, the hospital might end up short-staffed as well as bearing the burden of more complex and demanding care. Now explain to me why we might not expect even greater risk of hospital deaths, let alone nurses burnout and perhaps workplace injury, leading to even fewer nurses. This is setting the stage for a vicious cycle of more pressure, complications that would be missed and hurriedness leading to sloppiness and subsequent infections. Nor could safety be assured for those "easy cases" siphoned off to a private clinic. My Mom suffered a pulmonary embolism after hip surgery but the surgeon was so keen to ship her off to rehab and use her bed to the next client that he ignored her symptoms. It is by the grace of God that my Mom had a heart condition and had been seen by a cardiologist at the hospital in her pre-screening so I could appeal to someone within the hospital to assess her condition. It was not her heart but an adverse event that was predictable from her early blood work. It could kill her if she were transfered as planned, and only the potential threat of hospital liability raised by the cardiologist convinced the administrator who was mediating with the surgeon at the foot of my Mom's bed, that she should stay. Who would be there in the private clinic looking out for problems that were not expected because the patients were "easy"? Ruth Grier was right that reform is needed within hospitals, indeed the whole health sector. What we need in greater integration, not fragmentation, especially not from a provider who will bleed not only money from the system in profits but personnel and capacity to cope with what is left behind.
posted by Kovendi on 04 April 2007 at 3:53 PM
Some good follow up questions from you...many thanks.
Two follow ups from me:
1. Frank Dobson said the government in Britain wanted to direct traffic to the private system, therefore they gave private clinics an 11% bump in fees to do so.
No one is advocating that here, in fact the contrary. The private clinics are, in some provinces, being invited to offer the same services, but the cost has to be less not more.
Seems to me that could be nailed down by signing a good contract, unlike what the Labour government appears to have done in the UK.
2. Of course the costs in private clinics in the U.S. are higher. They're not promising to do the same procedures for less. They're promising to serve their richer clientelle and therefore are charging what the market will bear. Obviously, that's more than what Medicare would allow.
Thus, using American stats to make a point about the Canadian system appears to be comparing apples to oranges.
I always feel compelled to add that viewers shouldn't misinterpret probing questions for my opinions. I'm just doing my job.
But part of that job is not letting one side of the debate get away with saying, status quo is best. It's religion and no debate is permitted.
I hear defenders of the current Medicare system arguing that too often.
But you're quite right in pointing out that Ruth Grier wasn't saying that as it related to hospital-based care.
Thanks for the feedback.
posted by Steve Paikin
on 04 April 2007 at 7:03 PM
Marilyn, I have to differ on the private centres. Let me explain by posting my comments here that I posted elsewhere in response to other posts by Boris with some corrections in wording.
One thing I need to clarify is that you got me wrong Boris. I am well aware of the problems that may create if they implement the proposed model. Another thing must be said that in Gatineau (across from Ottawa) there is a private clinic that will open soon for X-rays, mammograms, etc and the provincial health administration will pay for those to reduce waiting times.
That is what I was essentially saying: each provincial health administration be it OHIP, la Régie d'assurance Maladie in Quebec (which should be Assurance Santé), Manitoba health, could pay for those services.
Let me explain another misconception: We do not have universal health-care in Canada. Some services and treatments are paid in some provinces and not in others. Take the treatments for autism in Ontario and Alberta as examples.
So, Boris, don't tell me I'm cynical of governments and naive!!! As a person with a disability (Cerebral Palsy) I should know what I'm talking about Boris. I came to Canada in 1964 from Hungary and lived in Toronto and Newcastle and in 1967 I moved, forcefully, to Quebec and there were and still are, many differences.
The model I proposed could work. Hospitals like the Shriners already function like that or similar, they have various activities for raising funds as do St Jude's and others like Good Samaritan! Governments only do quality checks if they get involved. As for more deaths in private hospitals I do not believe that. In Canada we have 10.000 deaths due to so-called "errors". So Boris, public health-care is no less dangerous than private. The cynicism and naiveté is this: We don't really want a good public health-care because governments that are elected like that of Harris closed hospitals and almost destroyed it as they did with education. I am not saying we do not need publicly funded health-care, but in essence, come to think of it, what is publicly funded health-care? The public donates funds to a hospital via fund raisers or telethons. You do not cut or reduce budgets of health-care, education or social programmes.
posted by Steve Dolesch on 04 April 2007 at 7:42 PM
I had a problem hit me and had double vision. The doctor told me it would take 6 months to get a MRI. That would be 6 months wondering if I had a brain tumor. I made the decision to go to Quebec and pay $750.00 for the test and got an appointment in one day. Could I afford the money, no, necause I had been retired for years but the alternative was to worry for 6 months.
Would it have cost the government any more? No. They just did not allocate enough money for it.
Using private clinics is the only way out of a backlog of operations waiting to be performed. Our society is aging anf the condition will only get worse. Ask anyone who cannot walk with the pain if they would rather wait 6 months for an operation or go to a private clinic.
Alarmists conjure up al kinds of scary scenarios but the answer is not to recoil in fear but to look for the best of the plans in other countries. PLEASE DO NOT ONLY LOOK AT THE U.S.
Ideolgy should not stop us from getting a better system.
Owen
posted by Owen on 04 April 2007 at 10:27 PM
Owen, I hear you loud and cleaarly.
There is another medical practice no one talked about: taking care of yourself with natural remedies whatever they may be. No one on the programme mentioned anything about prevention, using natural remedies that actually work, slower perhaps, but they don't shock the body. Whenever something pops up on my body like zits that become rashes I don't run (or roll, I use a wheelchair) to a clinic every-time. If I know the cause of something I treated naturally. Same thing for a cold, if I get it, which again is rarely, I treat it right away. Clinics are good but not for colds and minor things. Emergencies are for emergencies not for colds or other minor things. Can I add here that a man is suing a hospital (see CTV.ca) because they took away the wrong testicle. Talk about errors.
I just want to forward people's attention to CTV.ca regarding "so-called medical "errors". Each story has other links to more links. Click "Man sues hospital for removing wrong testicle" in the Health tab on CTV.ca
posted by Steve Dolesch on 05 April 2007 at 5:16 PM
Marilyn wrote:
"In 1998, the year of the Harris Health care cuts, I had a hip operation. Physiotherapist were overworked and did not have time to read the doctor's reports. She did not know that my femur had been cut during the operation. The physiotherapist made me sit with my legs dangling. This caused my femur not to heal and I had to have another operaion to put a steel rod in my leg."
It’s nice of you to give a break to your overworked physiotherapist but it is (s)he and only (s)he who is respnsible for the damage caused you.
One day, while spending the better part of 5 years on dialysis, one of my doctors came in and, finding the nurse hadn't drawn blood for an important test, which was on the order form to be read before every patient goes on, gave her hell. She didn't get on the phone to Queen's Park.
When nurses don’t read charts it’s not because of cuts but because they want the patients in and out so they can get on with their lives. In my experience, the majority of dialysis nurses were lazy, incompetent or worse. I can count on one hand the number of nurses who spent their entire shift reading the charts of her patients, looking for patterns, asking questions and trying to help the patient be as healthy as possible for the duration of a 15 year waiting list. Those two nurses knows who they are.
I saw one friend die the first year but the ramp got increasingly steep. When my blood pressure became untreatable I agreed to the entreaties of my family to try to get it done in the States. It cost a lot of money—collected and donated by wonderful friends, colleagues, relatives, mates, but I got a great transplant. If that hospital’s professionalism was any indication, bring it on!!!! And besides, the private care facilities will have to beat the standard payment. No one is losing here. We need private care to create competition. I have seen enough slovenly, lazy, uncaring and arrogant medical treatment here to last me two lifetimes. Even after transplant, my organ was threatened by incompetence, arrogance, ego. Anyone who thinks the system’s just great has never been sick!
posted by DG on 05 April 2007 at 10:03 PM
The questions asked by the host were so biased it was hilarious! I loved how the questions from the host were mainly of the nature of the following: "If the private for profit sector can provide the same care but cheaper then what is the problem?"
Given the nature of and bulk of evidence on for profit care, this question similar in nature to asking: "If martians can fly spaceships cheaper than NASA and still do the same experiments in space then what is the problem?"
Broadly speaking this mythical cheaper and same quality for profit provider does not exist. Also, unless their is evidence to the contrary...neither do Martians.
The profit motive is at odds with quality health care for all. The dismissal of more costly deals made with private for profit providers as "bad deals" that wouldn't happen here is hilarious. A gaze at the cost overruns of P3s shows quite clearly how this has happened here.
Why anyone would think that the State can police a private facility better (and demand better quality and a certain level of cost) than its own facilities is beyond me. Again, the way that private sources of power (for profit health care providers) can manipulate the State to receive better returns on investment is well known. This happens within the State as well (see your comment on CEO pay) but can be controlled better given the minimal public accountability of the State.
Why we would want to open the door to further privatization of health care for reasons other than private gain for a few, ignorance on the issue or ideological blindness (willfull ignorance) is beyond me and I don't think possible....given the evidence.
posted by Chris Arthur on 06 April 2007 at 11:35 AM
I find it always a poor joke when NDP and Liberal Politicians say they are against for profit health care.
As it has been factually stated so many times most of our health care service is private and for profit.
How can former health ministers ever state otherwise. If they foolishly thought doctors should be civil servants why have not the NDP and Liberal Provincial governments hired medical practioners as civil servants? Why have they not closed our hospital system with its many closed shop non profit societies and provincialized them. Many hospitals at least should be under City or County Governments.
Few hospitals are owned or managed by any level of government in Canada yet get mainly taxpayer support!. If these fools believed in what they say, then when in power, they should have acted and taken these facilities over!!
The other joke is does anyone now think Hydro One, Ontario Power Generation., thec Red Cross are better run with not for profit CEO's earning millions? Would it make a difference if private managers of private power companies that competed earned the same millions. What the "H" is the reality difference.
Government would be wiser to act as auditors, regulators and monitors enforcing standards, access times, and set socially acceptable fees.
If a private for profit group can meet standards and operate more efficiently than non profit or government then we would be wise to let them. Conversely, if non profit organizations or government can compete cheaper and more efficient let them all be in the marketplace and the client will choose and bankrupt the inefficient or poor service supplier.
Larry Hallatt Chesley Ontario
posted by blacklocus on 06 April 2007 at 3:14 PM
I recently returned from Nanaimo British Columbia where the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital was completing a $16 million expansion to replace 15 maternity rooms with 15 new maternity rooms.
Yes, more than a $1 million per room to replace the old. Tell me does not for profit makes sense.!! I could see building one or two OR's each for a million apiece, maybe a pre mature nursery with full equipment for $3 million, but 15 birthing suites at more than a million each, come on people.
It simply makes no sense in diverting health care money in this manner. Not even the largest Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver hospital tries to deliver 15 babies at the same time, they simply do not have that number of specialist teams. Most women could be nicely accommodated in a private room costing $50,000, then when deliver was immenen, they could be wheel next door to a OR delivery station with full equipment.
Would not at least $10 million of this wasted expenditure, been better spent on a $5 million dollar heart ICU unit and a $5 million dollar critical surgical ICU unit each with ten beds and full equoipment.
Not for Profit Organizations often do not use money effectively or efficiently.
Were was the government oversight.....lets face it, not for profit staff in the Health Ministries are half our problem.
Look at Harper's latest joke of an extra $1 billion to cut access times. Each Province is allowed to set which "one" procedure it wishes to meet in terms of quick access time. So far all Provinces have selected procedures that have been no problem.
None of the five Federal Parties takes Health Care reform seriously, they all just spend money for expensive poor quality service. A plague on all the Parties...and lying Health Ministers.
Larry Hallatt Chesley
posted by blacklocus on 06 April 2007 at 3:42 PM
Steve, surprised, if not disappointed, that neither you nor Frank Dobson even mentioned the growing scandal with the outsourced NHS IT fiasco. In a period of just over 4 years, a potent mix of government ignorance and industry incompetence and greed has seen almost 13 billion pounds dribble down the drain with nothing to show for it. Details can be found in an extremely readable article in a recent edition - 1179 - of Private Eye, the renowned satirical magazine published in the U.K.
posted by waj on 06 April 2007 at 8:35 PM
If two companies are equally well managed, and one is for profit, the profits have to come out of wages, benefits, or services. Where else?
Competition introduces costs as well as savings. If a community is of a size that would be adequately served by one MRI machine, but there are three hospitals, each hospital has to buy an MRI in order to be competitive. These machines must then be paid for, and since the supply is three times what is actually needed, probably about two thirds of the procedures would be an unnecessary expense.
Resources are better directed to improving delivery of services through efficiencies in the public system, that to setting up a parallel private system.
A parallel private health system is a red herring. What we need is good management of the resources we have, with the bottom line being the health of the public, not the CEO's salary or stockholders' profits.
Opinionated
posted by opinionated on 07 April 2007 at 4:26 PM
Hello Steve:
I want to comment on your April 3 show on private vs public health care.
Firstly I want to note that I have watched many Agenda shows in which featured proponents of opposing views on various current subjects.
I admired the way that you challenged the views of the participants in these shows and the way in which your questions were structured to expose weaknesses and inconsistencies in their arguments and positions - in the best tradition of investigative journalism.
On April 3 I was disappointed; you let the privatizers off the hook.
In my view you were biased towards the so called private enterprise approach - this was revealed by the portion of the shows title "..... -Who Cares?" and the fact that "public" was not even in the title.
I would also like to point out that you stated that most politicians were "afraid" to join the debate regarding the "sacred cow" of health care. Did you speak with George Smitherman ....he is coming out and speaking regularily and strongly in favour of public health care.
Ed Schmeler.... Brampton
posted by BramptonEd on 09 April 2007 at 11:15 AM
It bothers me to see comments suggesting that hospital CEOs are overpaid at $800,000 per year. We never see comments that baseball players are overpaid at $6 million. or hockey players at $4 million, etc.
Surely the value of a Hospital CEO is far greater to the public than someone throwing a ball around.
posted by Bruce on 10 April 2007 at 11:04 AM
No one is worth millions in salaries. Professional athletes and, for that matter, movie star make big bucks because they are said to bring in the bucks with their performances (i.e. ticket sales and corporate revenue in advertising, investment in stocks/particular projects etc). Those bucks come from a paying public throwing after-tax discretionary income around as they will. Corporate CEOs in business also make big bucks although many if not most don't earn it on the basis of their performance. It's often awarded by their Board only on the basis of what other CEOs earn and the spin that they are worth it. Our public hospital Boards are trying to play the same game and it makes less sense than payment in business because there is no hope of revenue growth in public health care by their actions alone. At best, they are competent managers of the public purse entrusted to them for highly regulated tasks by government. Not one is indispensible for the survival of a hospital and given the number of Health Administration programs around, many are replaceable at far less cost. What is truly ironic in Ontario is that the Harris government created the Health Services Restructuring Commission to deal with the purported 40% of health care dollars that was being spent on administration instead of patient care. Hospitals were closed and merged, and lo and behold, the new CEOs claimed higher salaries for managing larger organizations. Even worse, because health care must be accessible under the Canada Health Act and the public demands it, multiple sites were often retained, each with an upper middle management executive with salaries to match. While back-office functions may have merged and/or been outsourced for poorer wages and benefits, top management salaries offset most gains. The residue has likely been lost in the new costs of bricks-and-mortar infrastructure renovations and/or rebuilding necessitated by closings and specializations to build critical mass. I doubt that the non-patient portion of the health care budget has lightened one iota and, indeed, believe that patient care is an even smaller proportion of health care than a decade ago. As a taxpayer, family caregiver and potential patient, I haven't been presented with any evidence of savings for all this upheaval since those kinds of numbers are just not reportable to the public. And until I see them, I don't see any reason that justifies such high salaries for hospital CEOs. Beds, nurses and doctors are in ever-increasin short supply and they should come first. If hospital CEOs are not happy with reasonable incomes they should go to Bay St., ACTRA or try out for the Maple Leafs. I'm sure I won't miss them.
posted by Kovendi on 11 April 2007 at 6:23 PM
Reply to Dora-secret hosp. deal and Owen -"whats wrong with that"
I did watch this show and just now read the posts. I would like to be updated by Dora when and if they get the court issues settled and find out what is in the secret hospital deal. I would just as happily read it in a National newspaper please call the press. Thank you for taking the time to find out on behalf of myself and other patients that want to know. I would have to agree most things in your post. To Owen the problem with a hosp. cherry picking - taking the easy cases in that they charge the same amount to our health system (an average cost). Private hosp. take all the easy ones so they can make more money. The idea is the ratio of easy and difficult equals out to an average cost. So let me give u an example if u and say Harry are hired to pick apples and you each make one dollar every basket. You can only pick the apples at the top of the tree which requires u to climb up and down a ladder. Harriy will be faster and make more money than u. Now add to that the cost of say the ladder and a shoulder bag to put the apples in while on the ladder. That too cuts into your profit so now u are making much less than Harry. Harry takes his money and pays back Charley the local thug who loans him busfare every wk and takes 10% of of Harry's wages as his profit. So now you my poor freind represent the public health care system. Since all the easy work went to Harry he paid his dues and still makes way more money than the poor man on the ladder you my friend- do u now understand what is wrong with that. So eventually the public system is bankrupt or poor and very over worked. ( with bad knees from climbing the ladder ) the old broken ladder needs to be replaced and he can't afford it so he is bankrunpt. Harry is living comfortably making his way in the world and Charley is living off the fat of the land since he has good knees, money in the bank and never had to watch the hungery Owen drag his ladder around all day. That is how the world works and why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Canadians decided long ago that it was a priority and human right to have access to health care. The system that seems so broken now was once impressive and praised by many new Canadians not use to such principles. Now the spin is we can't afford it and it is beyond repair. Many people new to Canada now say it is still better than where they came from. I think it was a terrible decision made by our representatives to allow for profit care and it needs to be stopped. U may think it is too late I hope it is not.
As a further expample since Owen mentioned the shouldice clinic here is my personal situation where this for profit hosp is concerned: I didn't know it was private when I went there. Was told I needed to drop 20 pounds quit smoking for the month before surgery and was asked about insurance I told them I had none. The cost to me was to be $400.00 I agreed thought it must be a really difficult operation if it needs it own hospital to fix it. I failed to lose all the weight requested and was told to call back to reschedule when I had. I talked of this with a friend who told me about a mutual friend who had just had the surgery in the public system he was at least 300 pounds when I last saw him. My friend couldn't beleive they put off my surgery because I was still pounds over weight. That I think is cherry picking.
posted by sandy55 on 02 May 2007 at 11:34 PM
sandy55
I am new to this and have been sending several times sorry about that would like to add that I was actually 6 pounds over their target of 110 pounds which I have not weighed since I was 15 years old I am in mid life now. I am 5 feet tall. I wonder if I had insurance if they would still be as picky, food for thought. I really have no idea how they choose the fact is they do get to choose. That to me does not seem right.
posted by sandy55 on 03 May 2007 at 12:28 PM Sandra Gionas I'
posted by sandy55 on 11 May 2007 at 11:04 AM
Reply to Dora-secret hosp. deal and Owen -"whats wrong with that"
I did watch this show and just now read the posts. I would like to be updated by Dora when and if they get the court issues settled and find out what is in the secret hospital deal. I would just as happily read it in a National newspaper please call the press. Thank you for taking the time to find out on behalf of myself and other patients that want to know. I would have to agree most things in your post. To Owen the problem with a hosp. cherry picking - taking the easy cases in that they charge the same amount to our health system (an average cost). Private hosp. take all the easy ones so they can make more money. The idea is the ratio of easy and difficult equals out to an average cost. So let me give u an example if u and say Harry are hired to pick apples and you each make one dollar every basket. You can only pick the apples at the top of the tree which requires u to climb up and down a ladder. Harriy will be faster and make more money than u. Now add to that the cost of say the ladder and a shoulder bag to put the apples in while on the ladder. That too cuts into your profit so now u are making much less than Harry. Harry takes his money and pays back Charley the local thug who loans him busfare every wk and takes 10% of of Harry's wages as his profit. So now you my poor freind represent the public health care system. Since all the easy work went to Harry he paid his dues and still makes way more money than the poor man on the ladder you my friend- do u now understand what is wrong with that. So eventually the public system is bankrupt or poor and very over worked. ( with bad knees from climbing the ladder ) the old broken ladder needs to be replaced and he can't afford it so he is bankrunpt. Harry is living comfortably making his way in the world and Charley is living off the fat of the land since he has good knees, money in the bank and never had to watch the hungery Owen drag his ladder around all day. That is how the world works and why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Canadians decided long ago that it was a priority and human right to have access to health care. The system that seems so broken now was once impressive and praised by many new Canadians not use to such principles. Now the spin is we can't afford it and it is beyond repair. Many people new to Canada now say it is still better than where they came from. I think it was a terrible decision made by our representatives to allow for profit care and it needs to be stopped. U may think it is too late I hope it is not.
As a further expample since Owen mentioned the shouldice clinic here is my personal situation where this for profit hosp is concerned: I didn't know it was private when I went there. Was told I needed to drop 20 pounds quit smoking for the month before surgery and was asked about insurance I told them I had none. The cost to me was to be $400.00 I agreed thought it must be a really difficult operation if it needs it own hospital to fix it. I failed to lose all the weight requested and was told to call back to reschedule when I had. I talked of this with a friend who told me about a mutual friend who had just had the surgery in the public system he was at least 300 pounds when I last saw him. My friend couldn't beleive they put off my surgery because I was still pounds over weight. That I think is cherry picking.
posted by sandy55 on 02 May 2007 at 11:34 PM
sandy55
I am new to this and have been sending several times sorry about that would like to add that I was actually 6 pounds over their target of 110 pounds which I have not weighed since I was 15 years old I am in mid life now. I am 5 feet tall. I wonder if I had insurance if they would still be as picky, food for thought. I really have no idea how they choose the fact is they do get to choose. That to me does not seem right.
posted by sandy55 on 03 May 2007 at 12:28 PM Sandra Gionas I'
posted by sandy55 on 11 May 2007 at 11:05 AM
The truth about Medicare, the one item that is never considered, the fundamental Socialist Ethic, "control of the means of production of wealth." In 2007 I understand Free Medicare cost the Canadian government about 160 billion dollars. How much would it have cost if every person paid his own medical bills either through private insurance, or if able, out of pocket? Privately produced wealth is now "public domain!" They got us with public love and compassion. Would private health insurance tolerate the abuse inherent in Medicare? Not for a minute. Would human dignity and nobility be maintained with private insurance? Of course, it is the only way nobility can be sustained. Charity, by whatever name, is morally debilitating. Didn't the whiteman boss of the US south take care of his slaves health? All they had to do was work for virtually nothing. How much would a real pre 1968 dollar be worth? Today, it is not even worth a nickel by those standards. Frank Toplitsky
posted by smartypants on 21 May 2008 at 1:45 PM
The Health Care Issue is one of the most hot and controversial topics in the country. Government is trying hard in improving the health care reform. Well, Betsy McCaughey has gone on a real tear. Betsy McCaughey, a journalist of distinction and former Lieutenant Governor of New York state, has taken aim at Obamacare and especially Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, brother to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, and in her op-ed piece that's being billed as New York Post Deadly Doctors, she claims that the public health care plan will deny care to the mentally disabled and elderly. However, nothing in the bill has come to light that would indicate she's correct, and the oversight agency for the program would be only be staffed by physicians. Regardless of criticism by Betsy McCaughey and others, most still need payday loans for the most basic of care.
posted by MickeyM005 on 13 August 2009 at 6:00 AM
*You must have a FREE TVO account in order to comment on posts
Don't have an account?
*You must have a FREE TVO account in order to comment on posts
Throughout my years at TVO, viewers have stayed in touch with me through letters, cards, faxes, emails, and phone calls. Here's another option: my blog. Through this forum, I'll let you in on some of what goes on behind the scenes of The Agenda. And I hope you'll send me your thoughts and constructive criticism on how we're doing as well.
The Agenda with Steve Paikin Allan Gregg in Conversation Big Ideas
Think Again
Private Health Care
I have cerebral palsy because my mother was refused a caesaren. My prolonged birth resulting in a lack of oxygen to the brain. This was in 1948, befored there was public heath care. The private inaurance company wished to avoid the extra cost of a caesaren.
In 1998, the year of the Harris Health care cuts, I had a hip operation. Physiotherapist were overworked and did not have time to read the doctor's reports. She did not know that my femur had been cut during the operation. The physiotherapist made me sit with my legs dangling. This caused my femur not to heal and I had to have another operaion to put a steel rod in my leg.
By 1998, the government had privatized long term physiotherapy. Conhsequently I could not get the long-term physiotherapy I needed It was easier for the physiotherapist to tell me I would never walk again rather then take the time to give me the daily stretching I needed. Gradually the muscles in my feet tightened so that my feet inverted and made it difficult to put weight on them. I can no longer walk and be independent because of the privatization of long-term physiotherapy. If Heath Care is privatized many more people will be neglected and left without the treatment they need.
Marilyn
posted by Marilyn on 04 April 2007 at 11:44 AM