D
dan e 1980
Guest
ganja:
this is what i hear from my american friends. evidence? i can't provide you with documents (but i'm sure they exist) do you want to talk to my buddies?
|
|
|
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
ganja:
this is what i hear from my american friends. evidence? i can't provide you with documents (but i'm sure they exist) do you want to talk to my buddies?
T
tayser2
Guest
tell me, how does someone dieing from cancer, aids, etc, get this kind of coverage?
Well firstly, in order to find out your diagnosis, you'd visit a GP in a practice, not at a hospital.
GPs in Australia are about 45% bulk bill and 55% upfront payments with a medicare deducation a few days later.
- bulk billing GPs: walk in, have your consultation, flash your medicare card, walk out without handing any cash over.
- upfront GPs: walk in, have your consultation, pay about $45 for a 10 minute consultation, fill out medicare form, walk out, 3-4 days later a cheque from the RBA will be in the mail for about $30-33 reimbursing you for what medicare would have covered you for if you had seen a bulk billing doctor at their practice.
tests (x-rays, cat scans, ultrasounds and what not): a higher proportion of providers bulk bill in this instance, bloodtests it would be rare you'd have to hand over cash.
operations (such as removal of a skin cancer): you'd just have it at a public hospital and have it - no payment at all.
medication: pharmaceutical benefits scheme is where government pays 95% of medicinal costs, you'll rarely have to pay over $30 for any medication under the PBS, and if you're in a public hospital (such as observation after ops or whatever) you won't pay anything.
where the private system would alter the above (I'm no practioner so I'm probably missing areas, but for argument's sake) is you might elect to have surgery at a private hospital. I doubt there'd be any prioritisation bias as surgeons are just busy full stop. You're definitely a lot more comfortable in private hospitals as they're smaller, and you actually have a lot of choice like in meals & entertainment and maybe a higher nurse to patient ratio.
it's funny that mike mentions going to an emergency room for a paper cut, or if your kid falls off a bike and splits his/her chin open & needs stitches or you break a limb and need to get it put in a cast or what not. that simply does not happen here: you just go to your local GP's practice and get fixed up there.
things like apendicitis, if you've got a pain in that area, you go to your GP, they make an assessment and if it's needed will send you to the local hospital & they organise everything (like letting the hospital know you're coming, transfer of patient records etc etc) - things don't work that way up there?
A
afransen TO
Guest
ganja, if our system is inadequate, the answer is not to allow private insurance. That rather skirts solving the problem, which usually is a matter of rationing and too little supply to meet the demand. Private insurance means people with $$$ get first dibs on care.
B
bizorky
Guest
^Pretty much right. Add to the point that Geeky made about private care servicing minor procedures - until something goes wrong and the public service must pick up the patient needs.
As for a surcharge or user fee for patients who can pay, how is this ability to pay to be determined? Are major emergencies to be charged? Or just people who have cuts that need stiches? What is the income threshold? How does one prove their right to have the fee waived when they walk into a clinic or a hospital (HI everyone, I'm really poor)? Will it be the same fee for the same access across the country (meeting the equal access ideals of the Canada health act)? Will it penalize those with chronic illnesses who need to access medical facilities more often? Will it force the poor to stay away from accessing health care more often because eve a few visits a year can be a hardship?
Private insurance companies are not compelled to sell you insurance. If you have a chronic disease or ever had a tumour you will be nailed. If you lie on your application about such things in order to get coverage and are found out, you will be cut off. If you get sick and draw heavily on your private insurance, you may find yourself unable to be insured once you recover. Or you may just end up paying extremely high premiums. Private health insurance is a business. It is about spreading risk, and if you are too much of a risk (have an illness, had an illness or are prone to illness) you are a risk and should expect to pay higher premiums. Public health care can offer equal access (which is not always perfect) but that is the ideal that is aimed for.
As for a surcharge or user fee for patients who can pay, how is this ability to pay to be determined? Are major emergencies to be charged? Or just people who have cuts that need stiches? What is the income threshold? How does one prove their right to have the fee waived when they walk into a clinic or a hospital (HI everyone, I'm really poor)? Will it be the same fee for the same access across the country (meeting the equal access ideals of the Canada health act)? Will it penalize those with chronic illnesses who need to access medical facilities more often? Will it force the poor to stay away from accessing health care more often because eve a few visits a year can be a hardship?
Private insurance companies are not compelled to sell you insurance. If you have a chronic disease or ever had a tumour you will be nailed. If you lie on your application about such things in order to get coverage and are found out, you will be cut off. If you get sick and draw heavily on your private insurance, you may find yourself unable to be insured once you recover. Or you may just end up paying extremely high premiums. Private health insurance is a business. It is about spreading risk, and if you are too much of a risk (have an illness, had an illness or are prone to illness) you are a risk and should expect to pay higher premiums. Public health care can offer equal access (which is not always perfect) but that is the ideal that is aimed for.
G
ganjavih
Guest
ganja, if our system is inadequate, the answer is not to allow private insurance. That rather skirts solving the problem, which usually is a matter of rationing and too little supply to meet the demand. Private insurance means people with $$$ get first dibs on care.
I didn't say the answer was private insurance. I'm just saying that government cannot underfund the system, allow long and unsafe waiting times and ban alternatives at the same time. Either guarantee safe waiting times or allow for other options, you can't have it both ways.
I think there's probably some role for the private sector in the health care system... not really sure what though. There is some evidence in other countries that competition and 'consumer-driven' health care can significantly reduce costs and keep quality high. Perhaps a task force should be formed to study the health care systems in other countries and see what works and what doesn't.
S
scarberiankhatru
Guest
"that simply does not happen here: you just go to your local GP's practice and get fixed up there."
All the GP's at the clinic I go to spend about half their time in ER's, so there's no difference.
"I'm just saying that government cannot underfund the system"
Since health care funding is a black hole, I wonder if it's been rising as a percentage of overall government spending as fast as I suspect it is. No matter how many doctors and MRI's are paid for, people keep living longer, new diseases/cures spring up, and people expect treatment for everything that a generation ago they would have either ignored or died of. Might as well spend a few billion on preventative care rather than spend it on reducing wait times from X to Y because it will theoretically save Z lives.
All the GP's at the clinic I go to spend about half their time in ER's, so there's no difference.
"I'm just saying that government cannot underfund the system"
Since health care funding is a black hole, I wonder if it's been rising as a percentage of overall government spending as fast as I suspect it is. No matter how many doctors and MRI's are paid for, people keep living longer, new diseases/cures spring up, and people expect treatment for everything that a generation ago they would have either ignored or died of. Might as well spend a few billion on preventative care rather than spend it on reducing wait times from X to Y because it will theoretically save Z lives.
U
unimaginative2
Guest
The thing that always goes unmentioned in these analyses that panic about health spending rising faster than GDP is that health spending declined as a percentage of GDP throughout the 90s. We're just catching up.
G
GeekyBoyTO
Guest
ganja:
I think there is role for consumer and competition-driven model of health care within the public system. That, more than private health care, is what sort of reform needed IMO.
GB
I think there's probably some role for the private sector in the health care system... not really sure what though. There is some evidence in other countries that competition and 'consumer-driven' health care can significantly reduce costs and keep quality high. Perhaps a task force should be formed to study the health care systems in other countries and see what works and what doesn't.
I think there is role for consumer and competition-driven model of health care within the public system. That, more than private health care, is what sort of reform needed IMO.
GB
T
TdotTrickyRicky
Guest
"But what exactly is the benefit of private delivery of services? So far, all I've read and heard is for a list of relatively simple ailments that lends well to "mass processing" that has attracted private interests in settings with extensive public support. Shouldn't the issue in this case be focusing on exactly what makes that system efficient and apply it to our public care model instead of a copycat approach?"
Essentially the benefit of private health would be to take users out of the public system who choose to. That would free up resources for the rest because the tax base dedicated to the remaining users is not deminished as a result. So long as it is not accompanied by an erosion of the public system I don't have a problem with this concept. I also do not have a problem with the concept of "jumping the queue" for those who choose to pay. What is the point of striving to have money if you can't use it to improve your standard of living? Why force people to jump the queue to other countries when it could just as easily be recycled back into private clinics here in Canada?
Essentially the benefit of private health would be to take users out of the public system who choose to. That would free up resources for the rest because the tax base dedicated to the remaining users is not deminished as a result. So long as it is not accompanied by an erosion of the public system I don't have a problem with this concept. I also do not have a problem with the concept of "jumping the queue" for those who choose to pay. What is the point of striving to have money if you can't use it to improve your standard of living? Why force people to jump the queue to other countries when it could just as easily be recycled back into private clinics here in Canada?
D
dan e 1980
Guest
an american prespective on private healthcare:
how long are hospital waits? emergency room times?
depends on how busy they are, which hospital, time of day, phase of the moon, and how serious they deem your "emergency"
if you have a pre-existing health condition, can you get private health insurance coverage? if you can, how much more does it cost?
they will want to exclude anything having to do with the pre-existing condition most of the time, and even then your rates will skyrocket - inclusive of the "p.e.c." will be astronomical
with private health insurance, do you get to choose the hospitals where the procedures get done or services are administered?
more places have HMOs now which basically put together networks of doctors for you to choose from (based on whether they'll take the cheap $$ the insurance co wants to spend and keep referrals and expenses to a minimum)
are there limits on how many times you can see the doctor in a certain period of time? what kind of limits are there with private healthcare?
there are usually not too many limits on the number of visits, but there is often a maximum benefit amount per year and over that you have to pay 100%
if you can get coverage, how much does private health insurance cost for the average person? do your rates go up if you use medical services often?
varies - if you get it through your employer it's cheaper usually, plan on spending a minimum of about $100 per month for really shitty coverage - I know people who pay $250 per month and still don't have great coverage.
do wealthy people get better services than the everyday people?
absolutely. they get better doctors and don't have an hmo employee or other insurer keeping tabs on how expensive their care is
if you don't have health insurance and can't get it, what do you do? how do you pay for healthcare if you can't afford it?
you either get medicaid (income requirements) or you pay out of pocket, or you fu<k yourself and your credit.
how long are hospital waits? emergency room times?
depends on how busy they are, which hospital, time of day, phase of the moon, and how serious they deem your "emergency"
if you have a pre-existing health condition, can you get private health insurance coverage? if you can, how much more does it cost?
they will want to exclude anything having to do with the pre-existing condition most of the time, and even then your rates will skyrocket - inclusive of the "p.e.c." will be astronomical
with private health insurance, do you get to choose the hospitals where the procedures get done or services are administered?
more places have HMOs now which basically put together networks of doctors for you to choose from (based on whether they'll take the cheap $$ the insurance co wants to spend and keep referrals and expenses to a minimum)
are there limits on how many times you can see the doctor in a certain period of time? what kind of limits are there with private healthcare?
there are usually not too many limits on the number of visits, but there is often a maximum benefit amount per year and over that you have to pay 100%
if you can get coverage, how much does private health insurance cost for the average person? do your rates go up if you use medical services often?
varies - if you get it through your employer it's cheaper usually, plan on spending a minimum of about $100 per month for really shitty coverage - I know people who pay $250 per month and still don't have great coverage.
do wealthy people get better services than the everyday people?
absolutely. they get better doctors and don't have an hmo employee or other insurer keeping tabs on how expensive their care is
if you don't have health insurance and can't get it, what do you do? how do you pay for healthcare if you can't afford it?
you either get medicaid (income requirements) or you pay out of pocket, or you fu<k yourself and your credit.
E
EnviroTO
Guest
Essentially the benefit of private health would be to take users out of the public system who choose to. That would free up resources for the rest because the tax base dedicated to the remaining users is not deminished as a result.
When there is a shortage of doctors how can taking doctors out of public healthcare possibly free up the public system? Free it up to do what? Hard to do anything once the doctors leave.
So long as it is not accompanied by an erosion of the public system I don't have a problem with this concept.
It can't help but have a negative impact on the public system. You create a private system where wages for doctors are not as controlled and the doctors which can command higher salaries will leave the public system. At least the existance of a border between Canada and the US partially slows the brain drain... when you don't need to cross the border to make more money outside the public system the situation will be much worse. The public system will be forced to increase doctor salaries and thus taxes to compete for quality doctors, or will need to make due with the doctors who were not recruited by the private sector (i.e. the less qualified ones), which leads to a public health system that is either more expensive doing the same thing for less people, or is the same cost but providing a lower quality of service.
I also do not have a problem with the concept of "jumping the queue" for those who choose to pay. What is the point of striving to have money if you can't use it to improve your standard of living? Why force people to jump the queue to other countries when it could just as easily be recycled back into private clinics here in Canada?
Because wealthy individuals are not blocked from going around the world for healthcare there is no need for private clinics in Canada and having them only reduces the staff available for the public system. Jumping the queue will be at the expense of someone who may have greater need for care but can't get a diagnostic appointment because of lack of resources. Why not go to the US if you find it to be money well spent? Why sacrifice public healthcare in Canada so you don't need to go across the border? I have a problem with people that feel good health should be reserved for the wealthy. If you have money you can afford to take time off work, relax, get a nice massage chair and reduce the strain on your body while you wait for your MRI... less wealthy people don't have that luxury and need to continue to work to support their family and can't afford the massage chair.
S
scarberiankhatru
Guest
"these analyses that panic about health spending rising faster than GDP"
Yeah, that'll happen when you cut billions and then put it all back a few years later.
Yeah, that'll happen when you cut billions and then put it all back a few years later.
D
dan e 1980
Guest
Westerners Seek Cheap Medical Care in Asia
By RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM, Associated Press Writer Sat Sep 24, 7:20 PM ET
BOMBAY, India - Bradley Thayer, a retired apple farmer from Okanogan, Wash., traveled 7,500 miles to get his torn knee ligament fixed, and says he paid a third of what it would have cost him in a U.S. hospital. And that included air fare to Bombay.
Thayer, 60, had no health insurance when he fell and injured himself while summering in British Columbia. He says his U.S. doctors told him he would have to wait six months for surgery and pay bills totaling $35,000. So he joined a rising tide of American and European patients heading to India, Thailand and Singapore for top-class orthopedic surgery, plastic surgery, infertility treatment and cardiology that come much cheaper than in the West.
It's the latest in outsourcing — Asian doctors study in the United States or Britain, acquire their skills and reputations in hospitals there, then take them back to their home countries and wait for the business to come to them.
"Flying halfway around the world is cheaper," said Thayer, beaming from his Bombay hospital bed. "I came straight to India. It's a long way to come without tests, but I feel great."
He had never been to India, and he first he had to overcome the stereotypes at home.
"My friends and relatives said I was crazy. They said, 'they'll cremate you along the Ganges.'"
But he already felt familiar with Asian doctors. "In Canada and America when you read the names of doctors in hospitals, every third or fourth doctor is Indian," he said.
Hospitals in Bombay, Delhi and Bangalore have been taking these so-called "medical tourists" since the mid-1970s, initially from the Middle East and South Asia, later from Africa, and now from the West.
So far, news has spread largely by word of mouth, or on Web sites set up by patients to extol their Indian experiences and become vocal proponents. Now the Indian government is getting behind it, offering one-year medical visas extendable for an additional year, and organizing exhibitions abroad to advertise Indian hospitals.
It is also planning to create a list of recommended hospitals. That's important because while India has top-notch doctors, it is still notorious for its filth and poverty. Even at some top hospitals, nursing care can be poor and hygiene standards dramatically lower than in the West. So it's important to shop around.
"Many foreigners are still not completely convinced about India. They worry about safety standards," said Vinod Tenguria, founder of Vedic India, a company that arranges hotels for patients.
Cosmetic surgeon Dr. Mohan Thomas, a member of the government's council for medical tourism, says foreign patients need to choose carefully.
"Check the doctor's credentials, the hospitals he is attached to and, most important, see some work he has done," advises Thomas. "Check how much effort the hospital takes with cleanliness starting with the bathroom."
He says 25 percent of his patients are from overseas, primarily Britain, the United States and Africa.
Invariably they go to the best private hospitals and stay in high-end private rooms, which are on usually on different floors from the cheaper general wards.
India is a diverse country accustomed to huge disparities, and although public health standards have risen as the economy has boomed, many poor people can't afford basic medicine, let alone private hospitals. There is no national health system, and government hospitals are overcrowded and underequipped. A recent outbreak of encephalitis killed more than 700 people in small towns and villages of north India.
"It's always the poor who suffer whether in India or America," said Sushant Mishra, a health worker in a northern Bombay shantytown. "We saw the poor blacks suffering during the Katrina hurricane. They didn't have access to food, water or even regular medical facilities in the richest country in the world. Life's the same everywhere."
India is still a relative newcomer to the international medical market, attracting 150,000 foreign patients last year, compared with Singapore's 200,000 and Thailand's 600,000.
But India's numbers are increasing. In Jaslok, one of Bombay's top private hospitals, three Americans were recovering from orthopedic surgery in June alone.
Texas-born businessman Robert Carson, 46, says he pulled out of hip replacement surgery the evening before it was scheduled in a Bangkok hospital.
A TV program about a new treatment — hip resurfacing — convinced him the procedure was less invasive and promised more mobility since the bone was shaved and not cut as in a traditional hip replacement. The procedure is not offered in Thailand. Three days later he was in Bombay and being operated on by Dr. Ameet Pispati, a British-trained pioneer of the procedure.
"I'd come back in a minute even if costs were equal to the U.S.," he said. "I would come because of the personal care."
He had found his American doctors stingy with information, whereas "the doctor here was very communicative. He told me what could go wrong and what he's done before," said Carson. "And it's not because I'm a foreigner; other Indians also received equal personal care."
Many doctors give their patients their home and cell-phone numbers and encourage them to call with questions.
The absence of long waiting lists also draws patients.
"I could have had total hip replacement done in the States for nothing because I have a health plan. But I found it worth it to come here. I didn't want to stand in line," said Gordon Deboo, a retired
NASA research scientist.
Deboo, 73, from Walnut Creek, Calif., was thrilled that his wife could stay in the hospital room at no extra cost.
In some cases, entire families travel with the patient.
"My daughter and son-in-law came with us. They didn't trust us," said Edna Harsha, a 59-year-old school bus driver from Lakeville, Minn., recuperating from hip surgery with her husband by her side.
She lay in a hospital room with a commanding view of the Arabian Sea, looking at photographs of Bombay's sights taken by her family.
Couples from the United States, Ireland and Southeast Asia also head to India for infertility treatment — with some women bringing frozen sperm in liquid nitrogen containers.
Dr. Firuza Parikh, a leading infertility specialist, said she generally asks women to plan to stay for two IVF cycles, or two months. They stay in hotels or rent apartments.
"The husbands usually come for a shorter period and we freeze the sperm," she said.
In vitro fertilization can cost $20,000 in the United States and $15,000 in Europe. In India it costs about $2,500.
Thayer, the retired farmer, has a suggestion for India: to anchor a cruise ship in international waters off Los Angeles — "One deck for orthopedic surgery, one deck for cardiology. We need a change in America, we need cheaper medical treatment. We need a big hospital ship from India."
By RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM, Associated Press Writer Sat Sep 24, 7:20 PM ET
BOMBAY, India - Bradley Thayer, a retired apple farmer from Okanogan, Wash., traveled 7,500 miles to get his torn knee ligament fixed, and says he paid a third of what it would have cost him in a U.S. hospital. And that included air fare to Bombay.
Thayer, 60, had no health insurance when he fell and injured himself while summering in British Columbia. He says his U.S. doctors told him he would have to wait six months for surgery and pay bills totaling $35,000. So he joined a rising tide of American and European patients heading to India, Thailand and Singapore for top-class orthopedic surgery, plastic surgery, infertility treatment and cardiology that come much cheaper than in the West.
It's the latest in outsourcing — Asian doctors study in the United States or Britain, acquire their skills and reputations in hospitals there, then take them back to their home countries and wait for the business to come to them.
"Flying halfway around the world is cheaper," said Thayer, beaming from his Bombay hospital bed. "I came straight to India. It's a long way to come without tests, but I feel great."
He had never been to India, and he first he had to overcome the stereotypes at home.
"My friends and relatives said I was crazy. They said, 'they'll cremate you along the Ganges.'"
But he already felt familiar with Asian doctors. "In Canada and America when you read the names of doctors in hospitals, every third or fourth doctor is Indian," he said.
Hospitals in Bombay, Delhi and Bangalore have been taking these so-called "medical tourists" since the mid-1970s, initially from the Middle East and South Asia, later from Africa, and now from the West.
So far, news has spread largely by word of mouth, or on Web sites set up by patients to extol their Indian experiences and become vocal proponents. Now the Indian government is getting behind it, offering one-year medical visas extendable for an additional year, and organizing exhibitions abroad to advertise Indian hospitals.
It is also planning to create a list of recommended hospitals. That's important because while India has top-notch doctors, it is still notorious for its filth and poverty. Even at some top hospitals, nursing care can be poor and hygiene standards dramatically lower than in the West. So it's important to shop around.
"Many foreigners are still not completely convinced about India. They worry about safety standards," said Vinod Tenguria, founder of Vedic India, a company that arranges hotels for patients.
Cosmetic surgeon Dr. Mohan Thomas, a member of the government's council for medical tourism, says foreign patients need to choose carefully.
"Check the doctor's credentials, the hospitals he is attached to and, most important, see some work he has done," advises Thomas. "Check how much effort the hospital takes with cleanliness starting with the bathroom."
He says 25 percent of his patients are from overseas, primarily Britain, the United States and Africa.
Invariably they go to the best private hospitals and stay in high-end private rooms, which are on usually on different floors from the cheaper general wards.
India is a diverse country accustomed to huge disparities, and although public health standards have risen as the economy has boomed, many poor people can't afford basic medicine, let alone private hospitals. There is no national health system, and government hospitals are overcrowded and underequipped. A recent outbreak of encephalitis killed more than 700 people in small towns and villages of north India.
"It's always the poor who suffer whether in India or America," said Sushant Mishra, a health worker in a northern Bombay shantytown. "We saw the poor blacks suffering during the Katrina hurricane. They didn't have access to food, water or even regular medical facilities in the richest country in the world. Life's the same everywhere."
India is still a relative newcomer to the international medical market, attracting 150,000 foreign patients last year, compared with Singapore's 200,000 and Thailand's 600,000.
But India's numbers are increasing. In Jaslok, one of Bombay's top private hospitals, three Americans were recovering from orthopedic surgery in June alone.
Texas-born businessman Robert Carson, 46, says he pulled out of hip replacement surgery the evening before it was scheduled in a Bangkok hospital.
A TV program about a new treatment — hip resurfacing — convinced him the procedure was less invasive and promised more mobility since the bone was shaved and not cut as in a traditional hip replacement. The procedure is not offered in Thailand. Three days later he was in Bombay and being operated on by Dr. Ameet Pispati, a British-trained pioneer of the procedure.
"I'd come back in a minute even if costs were equal to the U.S.," he said. "I would come because of the personal care."
He had found his American doctors stingy with information, whereas "the doctor here was very communicative. He told me what could go wrong and what he's done before," said Carson. "And it's not because I'm a foreigner; other Indians also received equal personal care."
Many doctors give their patients their home and cell-phone numbers and encourage them to call with questions.
The absence of long waiting lists also draws patients.
"I could have had total hip replacement done in the States for nothing because I have a health plan. But I found it worth it to come here. I didn't want to stand in line," said Gordon Deboo, a retired
NASA research scientist.
Deboo, 73, from Walnut Creek, Calif., was thrilled that his wife could stay in the hospital room at no extra cost.
In some cases, entire families travel with the patient.
"My daughter and son-in-law came with us. They didn't trust us," said Edna Harsha, a 59-year-old school bus driver from Lakeville, Minn., recuperating from hip surgery with her husband by her side.
She lay in a hospital room with a commanding view of the Arabian Sea, looking at photographs of Bombay's sights taken by her family.
Couples from the United States, Ireland and Southeast Asia also head to India for infertility treatment — with some women bringing frozen sperm in liquid nitrogen containers.
Dr. Firuza Parikh, a leading infertility specialist, said she generally asks women to plan to stay for two IVF cycles, or two months. They stay in hotels or rent apartments.
"The husbands usually come for a shorter period and we freeze the sperm," she said.
In vitro fertilization can cost $20,000 in the United States and $15,000 in Europe. In India it costs about $2,500.
Thayer, the retired farmer, has a suggestion for India: to anchor a cruise ship in international waters off Los Angeles — "One deck for orthopedic surgery, one deck for cardiology. We need a change in America, we need cheaper medical treatment. We need a big hospital ship from India."
B
blixa442
Guest
I reckon the only other two places in the world that have replicated the Canadian health care system are Cuba & North Korea.
Perhaps the best scenario would consist of having a public insurance system with private delivery. This way everyone would be covered, but at least there would be some competition & innovation among the companies delivering the services. I suspect that would greatly speed up the treatment process and at the same time it would also increase quality and innovation. Any private players not providing satisfactory services would quickly be challenged by better competitors. As it stands the absence of profit motive and lack of accountability prevents people from having the incentive to provide better ervices.
In any event, the day the first boomer hits 65 will be the day we will all wave good bye to our socialist experiment in health care.
Perhaps the best scenario would consist of having a public insurance system with private delivery. This way everyone would be covered, but at least there would be some competition & innovation among the companies delivering the services. I suspect that would greatly speed up the treatment process and at the same time it would also increase quality and innovation. Any private players not providing satisfactory services would quickly be challenged by better competitors. As it stands the absence of profit motive and lack of accountability prevents people from having the incentive to provide better ervices.
In any event, the day the first boomer hits 65 will be the day we will all wave good bye to our socialist experiment in health care.
A
afransen TO
Guest
Unfortunately, opening up the market to private delivery (officially, at least) means letting in American conglomerates, as a result of NAFTA. I'm not sure that would necessarily be in the public interest.