So says David Gratzer, a physician who once practiced in Canada.
Related posts:
- MLK Jr.-Harbor Hospital: A preview of socialized medicine?
- How to cause the downfall of socialized medicine
- If Socialized Medicine is So Good…
- Socialized medicine: "Sound the alarm before its too late"
- A Cuban doctor on socialized medicine
- Doctors spend more time on social work than medicine
- We already have socialized medicine
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 3 comments }
As a medical student from Canada, studying outside of Canada, I don’t claim to have all the answers. I have a few thoughts…
-If one is sick, it’s much better to be poor in Canada and have insurance than in the US and not be able to afford it. And while Canada has it share of frequent flyers and individuals who abuse the system, if you are poor and have a genuine complaint, it is far better to live in Canada, where at least you are insured and have access to health care; health care that does not have to be metered out based on what sort of insurance you have (or don’t have).
-One of the issues the article didn’t tackle was the availability of health care providers. There is a finite supply of doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals, and even if private clinics spring up tomorrow on every street corner, the personnel to staff them will have to come from the public sector. Creating new private clinics and providers will not solve the physician and nursing shortage, it will simply create a section of the population (the uninsured) who do not have access to those providers. I would have less of a problem with private clinics if the health care professional wasn’t already in such short supply.
-When it comes to investment in medical technology such as imaging equipment, I can see a place for private investment to provide for more infrastructure.
-I have never bought the argument that private providers can provide health care more cheaply than the government can. For the simple reason that the government doesn’t have to make a profit, and doesn’t have shareholders to keep happy.
-The champions of private medicine in Canada talk endlessly about the improvements in efficiency and cost that privatization and competition will bring to health care delivery. While efficiency is important, the one point they seem to miss is that for the most part, efficiency and cost savings don’t arise magically when conditions of competition are created. They arise from an institution or practice being run well. This is where I agree with the author of the article; mindless government interference in running health care causes far more trouble than it solves. One of the best ways to solve Canada’s health care problems would be to hire competent administrators and fire half the officials in the health department.
“One of the best ways to solve Canada’s health care problems would be to hire competent administrators and fire half the officials in the health department.”
But the problem Beach Bum, is that government is inherently incapable of doing that with any reliability. Without the constraint of the profit motive, human nature to protect ones friends dominate the hiring process and that is why incompetence always finds refuge in government. Private entities have all the same natural forces creating bureaucracy, but the number at the end of the profit-loss statement keeps it in check in the end.
There are other problems with your argument, in that you leave out a few things, like the wait for certain procedures in Canada.
And that the supply of professionals is not finite, the desire of the public to enter these professions and the desire of institutions to provide that education is a result of market forces that respond to price–and price controls always create shortages.
it is far better to live in Canada, where at least you are insured and have access to health care; health care that does not have to be metered out based on what sort of insurance you have (or don’t have).
The Quebec Supreme Court said “access to a waiting list is not access to health care”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/
If there is a waiting list of “X” people, waiting for a certain surgery, and ultimately some number less than “X” (say “X-Y”) gets the surgery, than that difference – “Y” – did not get health care.
Some died. Some went private. Hey, maybe some took the waters and had a miracle cure. Nevertheless, because of rationing, there are some who do not get the healthcare promised under a government scheme. Whether that number is more or less than in the USA proportionately is another matter.
“I [Beach Bum] have never bought the argument that private providers can provide health care more cheaply than the government can. For the simple reason that the government doesn’t have to make a profit, and doesn’t have shareholders to keep happy”
And then you turn right around and talk about wasteful bureaucrats who add cost but no value – “mindless government interference in running health care causes far more trouble than it solves”
A problem that could involve as much as half the administration – “fire half the officials in the health department”.
Good luck finding the Philosopher Kings to run healthcare. I’ll take the free market over an official with the power of government behind him.
Comments on this entry are closed.