[andyt]

Tell the Feds to increase health transfers. that will go a long way. We have to accept that healthcare costs will rise with our aging population and the demands for ever more high tech interventions. Also, we need a truly national system where coverage is the same no matter where you live and economies of scale are realized. That and put doctors on salary.

[housewife]

andyt I really don't think throwing money at it will help. The new guide lines form Cancer Care Ontario leave me to think they want people to get cancer to save heir jobs... either that or they thought the guide lines would be used with common sence.

Oh and the magic "health transfers" are not free. The government does not poop money we end up paying for it one way or the other

[andyt]

Absolutely they're not free. But we'll all want them at one time or another, especially as you get older. That's when things get really expensive. Do you think you won't use the system then, so don't want to pay for it? I'm sure there are efficiencies to be found in the system. We could look to what the Europeans do better than we do, but it would take having a national instead of provincial system. But the Europeans (and Americans) face the same dilemma we do. An aging population and new health technologies coming on stream that are expensive. Do we want to abandon our old people because we don't want to pay so much? Do we want to forego modern medicine that can save and improve lives because it costs too much? If not, we're just going to have to get used to paying more. Personally I'm all in favor of reducing the heroic measures available to the very young (preemies) and the very old or terminally sick. That's where the big costs to the system lie. We could save a lot of bucks by being more hardhearted there, put that money into people who still have quality of life available to them.

[Thanos]

"Free" has always been a ridiculous way to describe the Canadian system. "Non discriminatory regardless of income" would be far more accurate.

[Gunnair]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

andyt andyt:

This wouldn't have happened if pot were legal.

Or if we had free healthcare, a living wage, a redistribution of wealth, a completely non-competitive society, free housing, racial equality, no borders...

Obvious Fake Bart posting...is obvious...

[andyt]

Our roads aren't free, our K-12 education isn't free, police,fire,courts aren't free.

[housewife]

andyt andyt:

Absolutely they're not free. But we'll all want them at one time or another, especially as you get older. That's when things get really expensive. Do you think you won't use the system then, so don't want to pay for it? I'm sure there are efficiencies to be found in the system. We could look to what the Europeans do better than we do, but it would take having a national instead of provincial system. But the Europeans (and Americans) face the same dilemma we do. An aging population and new health technologies coming on stream that are expensive. Do we want to abandon our old people because we don't want to pay so much? Do we want to forego modern medicine that can save and improve lives because it costs too much? If not, we're just going to have to get used to paying more. Personally I'm all in favor of reducing the heroic measures available to the very young (preemies) and the very old or terminally sick. That's where the big costs to the system lie. We could save a lot of bucks by being more hardhearted there, put that money into people who still have quality of life available to them.

So how did a comment about it not being free but fucked get us to this? Whos definition of "quality of life" would be use? And who gets to play god for that one?

[housewife]

andyt andyt:

Our roads aren't free, our K-12 education isn't free, police,fire,courts aren't free.

Nothing is free... one way or the other you pay.

So why did you say our health care was free?

[andyt]

I'll let you sit and think a while to figure that one out.

So no "playing God". All the treatment to prolong life we have available for everybody, no matter their prognosis. But complain how medicare is in a death spiral. Probably complain about high taxes too. Hmmmm.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Thanos Thanos:

"Free" has always been a ridiculous way to describe the Canadian system. "Non discriminatory regardless of income" would be far more accurate.

Not really. If you pay cash you go to the front of the line, even in an emergency waiting room.
Example; on one of my visits to the emerg for a dislocated shoulder that took over 13 hours before anyone looked at it, a 13-14 yr old girl came in with her parents.
Apparently she broke her foot when she kicked her TV during a temper tantrum.
At the "check in", her father forked over a wad of bills and voila, despite an emergency room full of people waiting hours to see a doctor, she was next in line.

[andyt]

Something wrong there. A Canadian ER? Totally illegal. Something very doubtful about this picture.

[Thanos]

You can pay out of pocket for quicker access to the supplementary system, e.g. privately run MRI clinics, psychological services, etc. But throwing cash at someone in a public hospital ER? Sounds suspicious to be me, like someone behind a desk at admitting took it as a bribe.

[andyt]

OR somebody bullshitting.

[housewife]

housewife housewife:

andyt andyt:

Absolutely they're not free. But we'll all want them at one time or another, especially as you get older. That's when things get really expensive. Do you think you won't use the system then, so don't want to pay for it? I'm sure there are efficiencies to be found in the system. We could look to what the Europeans do better than we do, but it would take having a national instead of provincial system. But the Europeans (and Americans) face the same dilemma we do. An aging population and new health technologies coming on stream that are expensive. Do we want to abandon our old people because we don't want to pay so much? Do we want to forego modern medicine that can save and improve lives because it costs too much? If not, we're just going to have to get used to paying more. Personally I'm all in favor of reducing the heroic measures available to the very young (preemies) and the very old or terminally sick. That's where the big costs to the system lie. We could save a lot of bucks by being more hardhearted there, put that money into people who still have quality of life available to them.

So how did a comment about it not being free but fucked get us to this? Whos definition of "quality of life" would be use? And who gets to play god for that one?

andyt andyt:

I'll let you sit and think a while to figure that one out.

So no "playing God". All the treatment to prolong life we have available for everybody, no matter their prognosis. But complain how medicare is in a death spiral. Probably complain about high taxes too. Hmmmm.

I said who not no! I also asked who's definition we would use, which you didnt answer.

It is in a flat spin and yea I may complain about taxes. Hell if I were running the fed gov I wouldn't give Ontario any dam money, less paper work to burn it on the hill.

Do I know how to fix it no do I want to chose who lives or dies. No.

Here's one I do know a large number (not all) of preemies born in north america could have been prevented with prenatal care. Maybe you should try to get them to spend there. Instead of complaining about the cost of preemies

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

OR somebody bullshitting.