As expected, there are groups in the United States using the tragic and untimely death of Natasha Richardson as fodder to diss ‘Canadian-style’ healthcare. I don't fault the Canadian system for her death. These things happen. Its not tragic because she was pretty, or because she was famous, or because it happened in Canada. She was young and the injury preventable and seemingly mundane. Its tragic because it would seem she sought out treatment too late.
Pragmatism should (usually) come before national pride, so I am not a proponent of the status quo with respect to the Canadian health care system. The notion that health care should still be delivered through a bloated government monopoly is asinine and idealistic.
Health care has come a long way and is a lot more complex and expensive than it was 40+ years ago. When Tommy Douglas’ idea went national, cancer patients simply died. Diagnoses and treatments that we have now for many diseases and disorders just didn’t exist. These are often very expensive. Things have changed drastically since the systems inception. Why shouldn’t the system?
Horror stories abound on both sides of the border and point to the faults of both. We hear of people dying in Emergency Rooms because they had diagnostic appointments weeks or months in the future. And we hear of people not having access at all because of finances. We also hear wonderful stories of the successes each system has. That’s all rhetoric. No system is perfect.
The truth often lies in between both extremes. If we are pragmatic, we might realize that changes can be made in both systems to improve access and timeliness.
Why can’t a ‘for profit’ clinic invest its privately-funded start-up capital in diagnostic machinery and then staff qualified, well-paid (though probably non-union) personnel and charge back the services it provides to the public system? If the public system can do it cheaper, then the private company would have to only live off the excess demand. Perhaps we could even ask the patient if they’d like to cover the difference and take the private option if it can be provided sooner. (I know I would) But if as I suspect, a private venture could do it cheaper, so much the better. The savings can be sent elsewhere. I don’t see the threat to our system that the NDP and Liberals talk about.
I don’t care what the United States ultimately decides to do. I am only concerned with the Canadian system. I think it’s a broken system. Moreover, I don’t think Tommy Douglas would disagree given how things have changed since the 1960’s. We can't let our misplaced pride in being different from the United States stop us from seeing the truth and changing according.
Unfortunately, while the system is considered a sacred cow, we won't be able to save it from itself. Because of that, I believe the system will eventually collapse.
2 comments:
And the tree hugger's want to take fighting out of hockey!!!
More people have died on the ski hill's this year then in hockey fight's!!!
The Sacred Cow needs to go to the slaughter house, the people are suffering because of it. Two tier healthcare opens the system up to compition and gives those of us who can afford private care the opportunity to free the Socialized System up to those who can't afford private care. As it stands now I can get better quicker medical care in a private clinic in Bosnia or Cuba, how utterly sad is that? Socialist's nation are using Capitalism to provide medical care to foreigners whilst a democracy is using a socialist's system of government control. Loopy logic at it's finests.
Post a Comment