Shirley Douglas....

[V. Kid]

...Take a look at this link, it's a speech by Shirley Douglas, the daughter of Tommy Douglas, regarding the importance of the single-payer health care system. She elquently defends it, attacks its detractors, and obviously, endorses the NDP. It is a photo-op, but its substantive. Anyhow, it's a pretty good speech, and I thought it would be intresting to bring up.

P.S. I don't know if you got my PM, Jim, but sorry for making assumptions about you, and causing you grief in your thread.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate/!ctvVideo/CTVNews/elxn_ndp_health_051213/20051213/?video_link_high=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2005/12/13/ctvvideologger3_143kbps_2005_12_13_1134492239.wmv&video_link_low=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2005/12/13/ctvvideologger3_45kbps_2003_12_01_1070340596.wmv&clip_start=00:00:00.03&clip_end=00:07:31.45&clip_id=ctvnews.20051213.00124000-00124366-clip1&clip_caption=CTV%20Newsnet%20Live:%20Shirley%20Douglas%20comments%20on%20the%20state%20of%20health%20care

[Canadian_moderate]

1. I support a public health system with access for all

but how do you explain the fact that even the most social-democratic countries have hybrid systems? Does the NDP know something they don't, or is the NDP stuck in a time warp?

The fact is that if Canadians cannot get timely access to healthcare in Canada they will go elsewhere to get it. Why not try to keep that money in Canada? If enough fat cats choose to bypass our public healthcare system, maybe it will free up space for others?

Personally, I think we should look to Europe and Australia for ideas about what kind of healthcare system would serve Canadians best. Private care does not always mean American-style healthcare.

[V. Kid]

2. Rhetoric aside, in our case it would mean American-style health care...

...as American corporations, under the auspices of the free trade agreement, would have access to the Canadian market in a way that they don't in those other countries. Putting aside all the points she raised of course. As such your examples don't apply. There's nothing preventing the rich from going and obtaining services from private clinics, let alone travelling outside of the country, what the speech talked about, if you even watched it, was preventing public dollars from going directly to or indirectly to private for profit health providers. That's what people like Martin and Harper would do nothing to stop, and what Charest and Klein plan on introducing with their scheemes to allow the public to pay for profit driven health care. Personally, I don't want my tax dollars subsidizing private for profit health care dilvery. As I don't want my tax dollars subidizing any buisness, unless the buisness will pay those dollars back to the public purse and create a 21st century style industry (ie: enviromentally friendly automobile production) that would help the economy...but I digress. While adopting the private system's propensity to specialize, for instance having clinics that only do hip replacement surgery, so as to decrease waiting times, is a good idea. Charging more for those services, then charging the goverment, would be an in-efficient use of tax dollars. The simple fact remains, even in those countries, having the public purse subsidize for profit health care is a waste of money as for profit health care is driven by the profit factor.

[Canadian_moderate]

3. Unfortunately private capital is needed

to improve our healthcare infrastructure. Government can't afford the kind of money that is needed.

BTW, most medical clinics are already privately owned and don't try to tell me that the physicians and other staff working there don't strive to make personal profits.

[V. Kid]

4. I don't agree because if one makes it a priority...

...and concentrates on preventitive care then the more caplital intensive investments won't have to be made. If for instance if we spent more money on healthy living, on assisted living for seniors, on cutting down waitlists and getting people treatment before they clog up an emergency room we wouldn't have to spend as much on emergency treatment. If we had more specialization, instead of clogging up major emergiency hospitals with long term paitents, the system would be more efficient.

BTW, Obviously staff working in any enviroment will be looking for "personal profits" meaning P-A-Y. And I know full well that the family doctor's practice isn't owned by the goverment, nor do I want it to be.

But the point I was trying to make, which should be relativley obvious, is that a for profit health care facility, not a non-profit private insitution, not a public insitution, a for profit insitution has shareholders or owners. Those owners, are capitalists who invest their money not simply to create a service to society. But to make money from a venture. They don't do anything else. So essentially, while they do provide capital like you say, their capital comes with strings attached. If you want for profit capital, you have to realize that they're doing it to make a profit. If you have non-profit, public (goverment) or private (shriners, religious insitutions, charities etc), capital they don't have to create a profit and thus that wasted money won't be a factor.