Link for those haven't seen it yet.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/...02.whealthhh1102/BNStory/National/home
I have two problems with what you say (as a whole).
1. Your language. Stuff like "fundamentally flawed" is the kind of apocalyptic sky-is-falling language best left for Layton or Bush. Fundamentally the Canadian system is no different from the other OECD ones you look to, where it does differ is a lot more mundane implementation details, like organization and delivery. Go ahead a reread the article, you'll see that the points they make are things like team-based care, tracking patients, access to IT etc. For example needing a central patient profile information system is not a fundamental flaw, its a project that needs to be implemented by a competent software company (hmm, perhaps I should go into this area )
2. The part of your solution where you call for competition between providers and insurers. That may sound excellent in theory, but practice has proved otherwise. These two are the hallmarks of the US system and look at where its got them - paying enourmous amounts of money for a system that at best average. Britain's NHS recently introduced competition between providers, and their system has improved, but at the same time, they've also thrown huge amounts of money at the NHS (so much so that the government is now running a large deficit). There is a place for private business in healthcare, certainly. You and me definitely agree on the high-end clinics part of it. But in general, private care must be a matter of policy, not principle. If it works for some particular area, use it, but rigid top-down principles will only get you bad results.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/...02.whealthhh1102/BNStory/National/home
Originally posted by: Stunt
No I haven't received care from other countries, but unlike the rest of my country; I don't spout off about how great medicare is when the system is obviously fundamentally flawed. The fact of the matter is no country seems to actually like their healthcare system, and none are perfect...but I do have opinions on how to make it better.
I have two problems with what you say (as a whole).
1. Your language. Stuff like "fundamentally flawed" is the kind of apocalyptic sky-is-falling language best left for Layton or Bush. Fundamentally the Canadian system is no different from the other OECD ones you look to, where it does differ is a lot more mundane implementation details, like organization and delivery. Go ahead a reread the article, you'll see that the points they make are things like team-based care, tracking patients, access to IT etc. For example needing a central patient profile information system is not a fundamental flaw, its a project that needs to be implemented by a competent software company (hmm, perhaps I should go into this area )
2. The part of your solution where you call for competition between providers and insurers. That may sound excellent in theory, but practice has proved otherwise. These two are the hallmarks of the US system and look at where its got them - paying enourmous amounts of money for a system that at best average. Britain's NHS recently introduced competition between providers, and their system has improved, but at the same time, they've also thrown huge amounts of money at the NHS (so much so that the government is now running a large deficit). There is a place for private business in healthcare, certainly. You and me definitely agree on the high-end clinics part of it. But in general, private care must be a matter of policy, not principle. If it works for some particular area, use it, but rigid top-down principles will only get you bad results.