The bottleneck is a lack of funded slots in universities.

Again, more healthcare dollars in the system would fix that because the cost to provinces is the only thing holding back more docs.

Students would feel comfortable taking out large loans to finance their education if they knew that in addition to working in the public sector they could make big money on weekends and evenings in the private sector.

Yeah Cats!

Its a lack of slots, not a lack of trainers.

Its a $$$ issue. Provinces won't put up the cash. But if students paid full, unsubsidized tuition they would.

Knowing there was more demand for their job skills and greater money out there would allow them to get the financing to do that.

Cats away!

Only in a broad sense. You'd be better off if you stopped using words like 'ungodly amounts'.

For many people it's pocket change.

It's not the amount of money that's in question….it's the direction we go in as a country

Steamed enough to pay huge amounts into a wholly private system? I can't believe there would be enough irrational people willing to make that kind of decision to fuel it.

My, aren't we fussy. You asked: but if there is no ill effect to the wait time why are people paying ungodly amounts to skip it? And I answered that everybody recognizes there are ill effects. I am not sure how else I can help you, or whether you even want to be helped.

Why should anyone wait? Especially if they're ill!

I'm not particularly interested in ideology or adjectives. My main concern is making clear that the system envisaged doesn't automatically result in equal quality care – the rich won't just pay more out of the goodness of their hearts, they're going to need a tangible benefit.

And making less people invested in the system won't be a boon to propping up the system. You did note the court found that the government had acted in such a manner that healthcare conditions were creating a threat. That was when EVERYONE was affected. They'll have even less of an incentive to fix it if people start opting out.

You could very easily be right. How then does the private system sustain itself and what's the overall benefit to the public system?

It seems like an enormous amount of things need to go right, and a lot of people have to make irrational decisions for this to work properly.

Check the stats. Our doctors aren't moving away, and the top reason for dissatisfaction among doctors isn't pay.. it's workload. Tell me how having fewer doctors available in the public system is going to help that?

If demand for doctors is higher than the supply – creating workload complaints – then the wages of doctors should rise bringing more supply into the market. Except that we don't allow doctors to increase their wages except by increasing their workloads. Bit of a vicious circle, that.

Who pays for education ? The provinces.

They'd rather spend money on retention and attracting doctors from other provinces than invest in new doctors.

More healthcare dollars means more money to spend on healthcare slots in schools.

Its not a lack of trainers, its a lack of money.

Igarvin is right here.

You're out of line Thwim. Off side!

OFF SIDE CATS.

Actually, if you could get the government to STOP regulating the universities so damn much, there would be more spots available. Provinces figured out you could keep health care costs down if you had fewer doctors, and medical school availability was severely curtailed (in Quebec) several years ago. They have recently found religion and reopened slots. Solution of extra graduates able to actually see patients will start to appear six years later.

But if the province is going to so heavily subsidize the training that it has all the power over how many get in, and re-jig its five-year-plan every couple of years, this sort of nonsense is inevitable.

Yes, it definitely is.

People who think it is worth the price. You are distorting your argument by injecting your subjective two cents: "huge". The question is: "Who will pay for it?" The answer is: "Those who think the price is not "huge", but just right (or lower!)."

Your conclusion is that private care cannot be offered at a price that would induce anyone to pay for it, ie., it cannot work. Why, then, are you threatened by–and spending effort opposing–something that can't happen?

Re-write: you think society's time is best spent continuing to deny Canadians the freedom to decide for themselves what the answer might be.

It isn't available to all because we don't have enough doctors….and that is a political decision.

I think it could. But all I was arguing here is that reduced wait times would be a tangible benefit that some people might pay for.

Also, the proposal does not allow for tax credits to the people who opt out of the public and into the private care. So people's "investment" in the system will be unaltered.

Now you're talking slippery slope and policy options made by hypothetical future governments.

You see why this isn't a good basis for decision making right ?

Right Cats ?

Is there a CURRENT government in Canada that has been putting a little less into its health care system each year? Really?

"You still don't get the creepy prohibition of people freely choosing to devote their own resources to buy insurance for private health care for themselves or their loved ones, it seems"

And you don't seem to grasp the basic concept of my right to object if your choice to spend as you wish results in my child not receiving comparable medical attention, merely because i can't outbid you. The challenge it seems is to please us both. If i can be satisfied that PI does not result in a deterioration of the public system i see no reason to limit anybodies choices.

The argument that a certain system doesn't meet an interpretation of an unrelated abstract concept is rarely much of an argument.

The fact that you refuse to address the point that your argument for the type of health care we would lawfully receive, restricts the freedoms of us all, tells us that yours is not much of an argument.

Gut level George Bush politician over here!

Alert. Cats on Alert!

Huh?

Oh, I know what he said. I just don`t know why.
Having a limit on how fast we can drive autos on the highway undoubtedly is good for our health.
To carry his highway analogy further, restricting the health choices we all have to one bloated, plodding public health system is like keeping everyone driving at 30 km/ hr and then trampling each other at the next on ramp.
Toll highways just reduce the congestion on the public roads—-they don`t eliminate them or reduce service on them.

Speeding tickets are nothing to Cats with all of Cats money !!

Typical conservative supporter I guess.. laws are for the little people, right?

For someone who can craft a sentence reasonably well, you do get ugly with your sweeping generalizations pretty easily.

And that's where your analogy fails, because they are.. there's a limited supply of medical practitioners. Throwing money at them isn't going to give them more time.

Semantics my friend!
I'm sorry but i call bs even though you may have defined the issues correctly in a technical sense. If the real world effect of MYL exercising his right, is to limit mine to a service we have chosen as a society to not fully expose to market forces, then i do reserve the right to restrict his use of property. Again i'm not convinced it is a zero sum game. We restrict/regulate private property rights in this society all the time, if the case for the comman good is compelling enough. Canadians by and large consider health care to fit the bill.

We can have a publically-funded, properly run, efficient timely healthcare system anytime we decide we want it.

These constant half-century old arguments about public vs private are just speed bumps getting in the way.

So give the American vs Canadian nonsense a rest.

It isn't going to change.

And this silly political propaganda of yours is why we'll talk about it forever, and never get anything done.

…a service we have chosen as a society to not fully expose to market forces…

You are saying that that service can have no exposure to market forces.

…then i do reserve the right to restrict his use of property.

Don't you dare call that a right. A right is what an individual has guaranteed to him or her against the demands of others. What you are calling a "right" is just the dictum of the gang that amasses the greatest number of bullies.

Sigh.

He's clearly talking about some conception of natural rights.

You are being obtuse on purpose right ?

Sometimes I can't tell. Honestly can't. You're like the fat dad on The Family Guy.

Cats away!

I did conceed you're technically correct in that i have no "right""to restrict the choices of others

***

Libertarians are at their most drole when hyperventilating over imagined slights to their core principles.

Except in this case he's not declaring a right to your money. He's declaring a right to not have your money influence the standard of care he receives.

Do you have a right to pay someone to cause him injury?
Do you have a right to pay someone to aggravate a pre-existing injury?
Do you have a right to pay someone to deny him care?
Do you have a right to make him have to pay a higher fee for care?

It's all well and good to think, "But I'm not paying for that, I'm just paying for me" but the truth is that actions have consequences, and everything we do affects other people.

My right to the uninhibited use of my person and property ends where your person and property begin.

I have a right to my hammer. I have a right to swing my hammer. I have no right to swing my hammer at you.

It depends. Whose board is it?

Aren't there, like, a THOUSAND things that we restrict you from spending your money on?

If the real world effect of MYL exercising his right, is to limit mine… I had no idea I had that power!

News flash: anyone can exercise this right already, just not in this country. All we have done is decided to export our wealth by forcing people to exercise this freedom of choice outside our freedom-limiting country. Lose, lose. And, apparently, we are jealously proud of this what-it-means-to-be-Canadian jewel.

Provinces would rather steal doctors from each other than pay to train new ones. Its a problem.

However, they still make less than in the US. And not every doctor works long hours.

Thinkin' Cats.

Other than in Quebec, sure.

But the argument she's making is that we should allow private access to health care. We do. That you happen not to be able to afford it is.. well.. part of private health care.

So.. you're lauding him for advocating we do nothing? Huh. Okay.

I guess if you're that easy to please, it does make life happier.

Lol I love how you're so blase about budgetary concerns.

We can HAVE anything we want in the world, provided we get enough credit cards !!

Put it on my card Cats!

Haha what ??

You didn't say "pay".

Go read your above statement that I was replying to. Nowhere does the word PAY come into it.

WHOA Cats caught a mouse!

We are 'able' to do so, we just aren't willing to do so.

You'd like a serious response?Fine.
Right now, evidence-based medicine is what rules the roost. My own blind acceptance of current evidenciary protocol is purely results driven. My wife takes injectable insulin, she continues to breathe. I take anti-rejection medications, and my supressed immune-function allows the transplanted organ to operate without being ejected by my own body.
You disagree with the exclusive rule of evidence-based medicine? How do you realistically propose to offer up a new model? And can you suggest an achievable mix that doesn't unfairly demonize the clear successes of Western medicine?

We do this all the time. It's called the scientific method. You look at a proposed model, you establish experiments that test whether the model asserts with the facts.

Can the mind heal the body? In some cases, yes. That's why there's a name for placebo effect.

However, it's efficacy, especially when compared to evidence driven medicine, is low. How do I know this? Because when it comes to solutions for illness, natural selection works incredibly well for the testing of memes, as those with the wrong belief structure tend to die off.

Or in other words, there's a reason most people don't believe your bunk.