Page 3 of 3
Re: universal healthcare in the US - an analysis
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 11:55 am
by Baron Von PWN
saxitoxin wrote:2dimes wrote:saxitoxin wrote: There's intentionally no emergency room and no surgeries, 100% out-patient. Nostalgia!
My understanding (admitedly vague) is any day surgury they can manage to schedule gets done there so the patient doesn't get the wrong idea and figure they'll have a sleep over and get breakfast. "This isn't a hospital, there's no place for you to sleep, go home or back to the shelter or wherever you usually sleep dude."
All food preperation for hospitals has been moved to capital city. The patient chow is cooked there and trucked down in bulk. Then they take the items and build those wonderfull tray meals for each patient according to what they checked off in the "build-a-meal" charts from the day before.
So yeah there's certain things that are excellent. My issue is it morphed from health"care" to budgetary responsible health"repair".
They used to go by Calgary regional health authourity. CRHA but changed to Calgary Health Region because things started being tagged Can't Really Help Anyone by the bad people that didn't love them.
It's not that the system sucks here, it's just depressing that it could be so much better. I think a public system in the US&A could easily be the best in the world but won't because of all the fighting about it. Too many people will not make an effort to make it the best because they disagree with the concept.
Well, in addition to the service menu, one of the fundamental things that makes the Polyclinic workable is that it is locally managed. In the former country I was from, each Polyclinic was budgeted, staffed, built, managed, etc. by a local council composed of practicing physicians and members of the neighborhood formation of the Combat Groups of the Working Class. The Ministry of Health did not manage Polyclinics.
This made them most responsive, unlike a system where mid-level civil servants in some faraway national or state/provincial capital make decisions based on statistical averages.
This is why I firmly believe socialized medicine can never work in a capitalist country. Socialized medicine in a socialist country has been seized by the workers in an agitated fervor of armed revolution. Socialized medicine in capitalist countries is a gift from the leadership caste to the workers and they'll manage it in a way that's just good enough to stop the riff-raff from complaining but not much else. Meanwhile, they'll jet to foreign destinations for their own care, like Williams and many other Canadian politicians.
A market system requires market forces. I saw that in Alberta the wheels of bureaucracy in the Health Ministry are mulling whether they should raise the quota of authorized eye surgery or not to speed-up the atrocious factory-hospital waiting lists. In a private-market system there would never be a wait because market forces react faster than people can organize, protest, petition and so forth for their health care. In a socialist nation (obviously the one I prefer) there would never be a wait because health is decentralized and your neighbors react instantly to your needs. Hybrid systems do not work. You can't start a bonfire in a swimming pool.
sure you can. Fill the pool with diesel.
Re: universal healthcare in the US - an analysis
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 11:57 am
by saxitoxin
Baron Von PWN wrote:saxitoxin wrote:2dimes wrote:saxitoxin wrote: There's intentionally no emergency room and no surgeries, 100% out-patient. Nostalgia!
My understanding (admitedly vague) is any day surgury they can manage to schedule gets done there so the patient doesn't get the wrong idea and figure they'll have a sleep over and get breakfast. "This isn't a hospital, there's no place for you to sleep, go home or back to the shelter or wherever you usually sleep dude."
All food preperation for hospitals has been moved to capital city. The patient chow is cooked there and trucked down in bulk. Then they take the items and build those wonderfull tray meals for each patient according to what they checked off in the "build-a-meal" charts from the day before.
So yeah there's certain things that are excellent. My issue is it morphed from health"care" to budgetary responsible health"repair".
They used to go by Calgary regional health authourity. CRHA but changed to Calgary Health Region because things started being tagged Can't Really Help Anyone by the bad people that didn't love them.
It's not that the system sucks here, it's just depressing that it could be so much better. I think a public system in the US&A could easily be the best in the world but won't because of all the fighting about it. Too many people will not make an effort to make it the best because they disagree with the concept.
Well, in addition to the service menu, one of the fundamental things that makes the Polyclinic workable is that it is locally managed. In the former country I was from, each Polyclinic was budgeted, staffed, built, managed, etc. by a local council composed of practicing physicians and members of the neighborhood formation of the Combat Groups of the Working Class. The Ministry of Health did not manage Polyclinics.
This made them most responsive, unlike a system where mid-level civil servants in some faraway national or state/provincial capital make decisions based on statistical averages.
This is why I firmly believe socialized medicine can never work in a capitalist country. Socialized medicine in a socialist country has been seized by the workers in an agitated fervor of armed revolution. Socialized medicine in capitalist countries is a gift from the leadership caste to the workers and they'll manage it in a way that's just good enough to stop the riff-raff from complaining but not much else. Meanwhile, they'll jet to foreign destinations for their own care, like Williams and many other Canadian politicians.
A market system requires market forces. I saw that in Alberta the wheels of bureaucracy in the Health Ministry are mulling whether they should raise the quota of authorized eye surgery or not to speed-up the atrocious factory-hospital waiting lists. In a private-market system there would never be a wait because market forces react faster than people can organize, protest, petition and so forth for their health care. In a socialist nation (obviously the one I prefer) there would never be a wait because health is decentralized and your neighbors react instantly to your needs. Hybrid systems do not work. You can't start a bonfire in a swimming pool.
sure you can. Fill the pool with diesel.
THERE'S A TICKLE TYPHOON WITH YOUR NAME ON IT! 
Re: universal healthcare in the US - an analysis
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:32 pm
by 2dimes
Alberta is the most capitalist provence, the oil and beef industry here has a very Texas thing going on. There is often Texas license plates here as some Oil companies actually operate in both places. The bonus is we're the have provence, to the point that the stoped charging Alberta health premiums, before the recession there was even talk of not having any provincial tax on the personall level as the corperate tax was sufficient.
The concept Alberta Health care want to morph to here is the Private/Public merge. The funds are public so in theory they have enough to run. The management is private so in theory it's run well and is responsive.
Funny thing is if everyone working is unionised and permanent government staff, some get lazy and start playing a round of "what's the least I can do at work?"
If everyone is contracted and has to bid next year the game is, "What's the least I can pay my wage slaves while getting the maximum bid accepted and keeping them producing"
Sometimes the private contractors cost more but since at the worker level they bust their hump to prevent being replaced it appears there's value in it.
When the utilities here were privatized they said, "Oh this will be wonderfull. Open market means compatition and prices will go down." Wrong! What happened was instead of providing electricity at cost. We now need to show a profit for the companies that bought the generation at a relative bargain. The outfits that can afford to buy multi million dollar generators did and now want a return on the investment. I think that's fair but it does not make electricity costs less than when the Government was producing it for a simlilar cost not needing to show a profit.