ClumsyMonkey.net

So I just submitted an essay for a scholarship contest to try and win a slice of $10,000... This was the question... "Would the privatization of the health care system improve or hinder the service you receive." This was my essay, and maybe it will spark some discussion in the otherwise dying politics section...


A Consumer's Canada: Improving Service for all Canadians.


Canadians are preoccupied with the notion that privatization of any sorts goes against Canadian ideals and beliefs. Although gradually various public sectors have gone to private industry, the thought of a privatized health care system immediately raises red flags within the Parliament, and public. Canada, as a strong economic force in the world has been hindered by socialist beliefs and we, as Canadians, can benefit greatly from any privatization in our struggling health care system.

There is a large misconception about privatization: the rich will benefit and the poor will be left behind. This is not true. Capitalism will create opportunities for the rich and the poor to attain the health care that they can afford. Minimum standards can be put in place to ensure the poor receive the current standardized level of health care. The government has control over rules and regulations and therefore can act in the interest of all Canadians by ensuring that those who earn greater wealth have the freedom to obtain health care that they can afford, while those who are not high earners will still receive a satisfactory level of health care. The current system makes the weak strong and the strong weak, and it has hindered the progress of our economy. A private capitalistic system will create more health care enterprises than the current public system, thus shortening waiting times, which in some instances are up to a year, and allow more immediate help for more citizens.

There are those people who believe the transition from public to private health care needs more of a grey area. Strictly transitioning from public to private is considered too extreme for citizens who are acclimatized to being hand fed by the government. The grey area that could create better service for all Canadians, and can be done immediately, is a two-tiered system. This system is visible throughout Europe in nations that are considered to have the best health care in the world. This allows those who cannot afford to pay for private health care to receive the basic levels already seen in our system, while allowing those citizens who can afford better care to go private. This will also create shorter wait times, as citizens jump at the chance to have immediate health care.

The fact is Canada needs to reduce the pressure on its overburdened universal health care system. As consumers, Canadians should be allowed to search for better health care opportunities. This will allow all Canadians to receive better service that is competitive with other top nations around the world. The current system is stagnant due to a lack of competition. By introducing private health care, various enterprises (private vs. public, or private vs. private) will need to possess a desire to compete and provide the best service possible in order to survive. While Canada’s socialists might cringe at the idea of Canadians being considered consumers rather than citizens, it will inevitably provide better service for all.

wow none of the Canadians want to discuss the health care system?

I believe that this is a touchy subject to many Canadians. Many believe that the word "privatized" in terms of health care means "none". I agree with you in that there should be a two-tier system. One that provides for the poor but allows the wealthy to explore other options. This is similar to Bush's social security reform initiative. We have the same problem here in the US in terms of social security reform. When people hear "private" they think the government is trying to steal their check. As far as my knowledge, that isn't the case. I think of it as a publicly accessible 401k where the money I put in I'll get in return down the road. That sounds a lot better than crossing my fingers and hoping that the next generation will put enough money in there to support me.

i'll actually respond to this jim

and corey, its not so much a that private means 'none' as you put it but more a case of stressing an already fragile system
throwing money at it haphazardly isnt going to fix it.. nor will allowing folks to buy there way fix whats wrong

I like our health care system but I don't know nearly enough about it to argueor defend it.

It's a good essay, well written, to the point, and has many valid points. good luck on your contest Jim.

i think your dead on. when you privatize you release some of the burden on the state health care system, thus allowing for standard health care to be efficient. and of course the ones with private health care should have adequate care also. (since they're paying for it.)

the problem i see in the privatization of social seciurity is that the market is too volatile to be putting your nest egg in. if you've got a couple of grand to blow that's fine go right ahead, but to throw alot of peoples nest eggs in there sounds a little dangerous.

A little?

The idea is ludicrous.

But this thread isn't about US social security, it's about Canadian healthcare... so I won't say anymore about that.

Bandalero wrote:It's a good essay, well written, to the point, and has many valid points. good luck on your contest Jim.

i think your dead on. when you privatize you release some of the burden on the state health care system, thus allowing for standard health care to be efficient. and of course the ones with private health care should have adequate care also. (since they're paying for it.)

Thanks Reno. It was a tough essay to write since its 500 words max.

I think the problem in Canada is we've been told for so long that this is a great health care system that is accessible to all that we all just believe it's great. The fact is it only covers so much, and beyond that we pay out of our pockets or with the help of company benefits. So because of this, why people would be against privatization is beyond me, as they're already paying for the basic health care straight from their paycheque via taxes, and they're already paying for any uncovered medical expenses through their company benefits or their own pocket.

What I do like about our system is that anything life threatening is covered by the government. My grandfather has had 2 quad bypass surgeries and a bypass surgery in his neck, all of which was free. The only thing his company paid for was the private hospital room. What concerns me about a private health care system is: would older citizens have to be willing to risk their nest eggs to ensure they recieve the care they need?

My only solution to this is that everyday problems (checkups, colds, minor surgeries. etc..) are done by the private sector, allowing the public sector to focus strictly on problems that contribute to the long term health of an individual (i.e. Heart surgery).

You know what's funny Jim? I wrote a fifteen page essay on the same topic this past year. Comparing the privatized health care of the United States to Canada's public approach. Furthermore, I did research on Raplh Klein's 'third-way' approach and compared that to each system. If I get some time, I'll post some key points which I think are crucial to the debate.

That would be great. I'd love to read it.