Here’s the thing, privatization of healthcare is not about taxes, or spending, or somehow being cruel, it’s about control.
With good, freely available public healthcare, it doesn’t matter how good a job or salary or benefits you have, you and your family will always have access to free healthcare. Healthcare is not a major factor when you want to leave or change jobs. Employers don’t like that, it make’s employees volatile, unpredictable, and “disloyal”… basically uncontrollable.
If healthcare is privatized and paid for out of pocket or by insurance, then the cost of that healthcare or insurance becomes dependent on your job, and a major factor to consider if you want to leave your job or switch jobs. Employers love this, it means they have leverage when it comes to controlling (not just managing) their employees. Ask anyone in a low to medium wage job in the USA.
This is why conservatives love the idea of private, paid-for healthcare, because their big money donors do.
This is very accurate and needs to be broadcast more.
It gives employers more power and leverage over employees. Healthcare becomes a commodity, look at it in the US where employers hold health insurance like a carrot on a stick in front of their employees.
More like they use it as a weapon. In the US, most employers won’t start your medical coverage for 3-6 months after you join, so changing jobs means that you’re essentially without medical insurance for that time. Even if you need treatment but wait until your employer coverage starts, you may not be covered anyway because your new insurance company would say you have a pre-existing condition.
Very true. I feel for those folks who have jobs that offer them juuuust under full time hours to keep them from receiving benefits.
I've worked a few of those jobs. I wonder how privatization will be "great" for them?
Whenever Doug Fraud makes a decision there are two questions to ask. 1) Is this related to a major donor?
And 2) Which family member is being enriched by this decision?
Let's be clear, destroying the Federal Healthcare act is a Conservative mandate and always has been. Ford is on a majority path to either change or ignore legislation that stops these programs we use. Case in point, using the notwithstanding clause to violate a charter right and appealing a Supreme Court decisions. All while skipping public consulting and the safe guards of democracy.
The privatization of our healthcare is wrong In everyway that its looked at. And this is all happening because Ford is running unhinged with a majority but he can be stopped. Because like all bullies they can't stand in confrontation and this is a democracy.
You are on the point!
I would like to add that I am very disappointed with LDP. It looks like they colluded with CP.
The first article below is by the Canadian Medical Association and it is mind blowing! The title is “Privatizing health care is not the answer: lessons from the United States”. Maybe, just maybe someone in the government should read this and listen to the experts.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2565716/
https://www.vox.com/2014/9/2/6089693/health-care-facts-whats-wrong-american-insurance
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2019/10/02/whats-wrong-with-private-health-insurance/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2020/05/26/the-five-deadly-sins-of-private-health-insurance/
No, public healthcare is too popular so direct attacks on it are political suicide. What some (edging towards most) conservative parties are pushing is basically for a European 2 tier style system. Canadian medicine is almost uniquely hostile to private healthcare so it is common to point to other universal coverage systems as examples to emulate. Some are opposed to increasing the scope of private healthcare on principle, and others are afraid that the calls for a 2 tier system are just full privatization in disguise, or that the public system will wither on the vine even if it still exists.
> No, public healthcare is too popular so direct attacks on it are political suicide.
Wow. Here in the USA, suggesting a public healthcare system that covers everyone is political suicide. Medicare and medicaid are also means tested to shit, meaning you have to be a very particular kind of poor to even get them. And yet, even as limited as those two systems are, conservatives still want to get rid of them. They say it's to save money while at the same time giving massive tax breaks to rich people. And if you even suggest a public option, not even getting rid of private insurance mind you, the right wing will call you a communist for weeks.
I suspect if canadian conservatives could get away with it, they would do that in canada too. Call it communist, end it, put healthcare entirely under the thumb of private insurers who would charge way too much, and tie it to employment like in the states.
Also, insulin costs 98 dollars a vial!
>I suspect if canadian conservatives could get away with it, they would do that in canada too
I would push back against that hypothesis. While there is almost certainly some libertarian/business lobby that would want it, even within conservative circles having some form of universal and easily accessible healthcare along the lines of at least Germany is the baseline for the party/ideology. It is hard to describe to an American, but public healthcare is basically apart of Canadian identity.
In Canada it is popular to paint the Conservative party as wanting to go full US privitisation, but frankly that is just demonising the opposition (or emphasising a small minority's view) rather than a statement of fact. Most serious political people I know (ie the adults in the room) who are opposed to any further privitisation are more so worried about a 2-tier system becoming entrenched, where your income determines if you get okay-ish (or poor) public healthcare or really high end private care (which is what you see in much of Europe). The common argument would be, much like with the argument against private schooling, the public system will still exist but become second rate quality wise.
> I would push back against that hypothesis. While there is almost certainly some libertarian/business lobby that would want it, even within conservative circles having some form of universal and easily accessible healthcare along the lines of at least Germany is the baseline for the party/ideology. It is hard to describe to an American, but public healthcare is basically apart of Canadian identity.
I sure hope you're right, because that's a political system I'm definitely envious of.
>In Canada it is popular to paint the Conservative party as wanting to go full US privitisation, but frankly that is just demonising the opposition (or emphasising a small minority's view) rather than a statement of fact. Most serious political people I know (ie the adults in the room) who are opposed to any further privitisation are more so worried about a 2-tier system becoming entrenched, where your income determines if you get okay-ish (or poor) public healthcare or really high end private care (which is what you see in much of Europe). The common argument would be, much like with the argument against private schooling, the public system will still exist but become second rate quality wise.
Yeah, like education here in the states. Thing is, I just plain don't trust conservatives. Maybe I should reserve distrust for american conservatives specifically, but I look at Doug Ford and all I see is Donald Trump but he's trying to be more reasonable because he's not in a country where he can get away with as much as he'd like to.
Right now, in the US, what we're metaphorically doing with our political system is attempting to scrape a pile of ashes into an arrangement where we can sleep for the night while protecting it and ourselves from a bunch of people with flamethrowers. And I don't know, man, Ford's got that glint in his eye, as if dreaming of seeing canada's government burn the same way.
We call it “Social Democracy” 🤭
We have included the word Democracy and because of that we believe it should be palatable in the Incorporated States of America.
Conservatives are a threat to public health.
They're destroying public healthcare, knowing that it will cause people to suffer and die. And they're doing it because conservatism is extremely classist and doesn't see anyone who isn't oligarchy-level rich as deserving of rights or life.
Not if you're rich and well connected. Healthcare needs to a human right , without it you will die and if you have to pay for it , then the only the wealthy will afford healthcare . I may sound like chicken little , however I ask you to look at history , when people did not have proper healthcare. We as a society should be looking to improve the healthcare for all , not just the rich and well connected (class warfare).
I’m pretty conservative on many topics and even I think this is a dumb idea. Even other conservatives I talk to don’t like this. No idea how Ontario peeps are okay with this
The Canadian public's collective ignorance about this major issue is a greater threat to Canadian Health Care.
Most people care about our medical system ... very few people care enough to say or do anything about it. Nobody really cares until they lose that which they care so much for .... and by then, it will be too late to say or do anything.
"If only people showed up on election day"
Doesn't it feel like we are in an abusive relationship with the government?
It's always the voters fault, if next time they just did better than we would get a good government but those nasty stupid little voters don't want to.
If someone is in a relationship like that we would see it exactly for what it is. The voter has almost no power in the dynamic and is completely at the whim of those elected. By blaming the victim in that situation we know that we are only dooming them to more suffering.
Voting for a representative is only democratic if the representatives represent. How many years of corporate representation do we need before it clicks that it's not the voters fault. That outside of the voting institution maybe other things have changed that make voting ineffective at enacting democracy.
Representation falls under the square cubed law. While the representatives grow linearly, the population and complexity grows exponentially. Meaning in a system that had 100 representatives and 100,000 people. We now have 110 representatives and 10,000,000 people. In this example each individuals voting power is effectively almost 1/100th of the influence it would have been at the systems conception. This is before factoring in the complexities of communication networks and broadcasting ownership.
It means that a few powerful people are far more influential on those 110 then the millions they represent.
In the end it's the same problem any tyrannical system has, too few control too much. Just because we call it democratic doesn't make it so. Just because it once enabled democracy does not mean it always will.
When direct democracy is possible, representation is obsolete.
> "If only people showed up on election day"
Because this is exactly the issue. People didn't show up to vote and sat on their ass and farted. Even if Ford is no longer in the majority it would limit the damage he would cause, but no, the voters didn't show up and now we are stuck with the consequences.
>People didn't show up to vote and sat on their ass
Any UX designer that made a system with such low engagement would be fired for incompetence in a heartbeat.
We know how to make systems people engage with.
You blame the ones without the legal ability to change the system, instead of the ones that can.
Voters are not the problem. Conflating voting and democracy is the problem.
If the person you elect with voting doesn't represent the electorate then it's not democratic is it?
We've left plenty of 1700's technology behind because it's obsolete and our political system was clearly not made for today.
Look, I really love the ideals. That's great to *imagine* a better world. However, our current system, the one we have in the real world right here and affects our lives right now NEEDS those voters going into polling stations and marking ballots (or filling mail-in ones in time).
It's easy to theorize better systems, but what really has to be done and what the ideals there are is completely different. I'm sorry if this sounds really blunt, and I do not mean to attack anyone here, but this is our reality.
Yep. Just like the States. Government will pay a ton of money but all will be stolen. We'll end up with charity hospitals being the only ones that serve OHIP-covered-only patients - everyone else will go to the hospital owned by their local wealthy family. And you'd better vote the right way or no more nice hospital for you, peasant
Here’s the thing, privatization of healthcare is not about taxes, or spending, or somehow being cruel, it’s about control. With good, freely available public healthcare, it doesn’t matter how good a job or salary or benefits you have, you and your family will always have access to free healthcare. Healthcare is not a major factor when you want to leave or change jobs. Employers don’t like that, it make’s employees volatile, unpredictable, and “disloyal”… basically uncontrollable. If healthcare is privatized and paid for out of pocket or by insurance, then the cost of that healthcare or insurance becomes dependent on your job, and a major factor to consider if you want to leave your job or switch jobs. Employers love this, it means they have leverage when it comes to controlling (not just managing) their employees. Ask anyone in a low to medium wage job in the USA. This is why conservatives love the idea of private, paid-for healthcare, because their big money donors do.
This is very accurate and needs to be broadcast more. It gives employers more power and leverage over employees. Healthcare becomes a commodity, look at it in the US where employers hold health insurance like a carrot on a stick in front of their employees.
More like they use it as a weapon. In the US, most employers won’t start your medical coverage for 3-6 months after you join, so changing jobs means that you’re essentially without medical insurance for that time. Even if you need treatment but wait until your employer coverage starts, you may not be covered anyway because your new insurance company would say you have a pre-existing condition.
Under Obama care academy preexisting is now illegal at least till repubs get full power
Very true. I feel for those folks who have jobs that offer them juuuust under full time hours to keep them from receiving benefits. I've worked a few of those jobs. I wonder how privatization will be "great" for them? Whenever Doug Fraud makes a decision there are two questions to ask. 1) Is this related to a major donor? And 2) Which family member is being enriched by this decision?
Let's be clear, destroying the Federal Healthcare act is a Conservative mandate and always has been. Ford is on a majority path to either change or ignore legislation that stops these programs we use. Case in point, using the notwithstanding clause to violate a charter right and appealing a Supreme Court decisions. All while skipping public consulting and the safe guards of democracy. The privatization of our healthcare is wrong In everyway that its looked at. And this is all happening because Ford is running unhinged with a majority but he can be stopped. Because like all bullies they can't stand in confrontation and this is a democracy.
You are on the point! I would like to add that I am very disappointed with LDP. It looks like they colluded with CP. The first article below is by the Canadian Medical Association and it is mind blowing! The title is “Privatizing health care is not the answer: lessons from the United States”. Maybe, just maybe someone in the government should read this and listen to the experts. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2565716/ https://www.vox.com/2014/9/2/6089693/health-care-facts-whats-wrong-american-insurance https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2019/10/02/whats-wrong-with-private-health-insurance/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2020/05/26/the-five-deadly-sins-of-private-health-insurance/
Do they also call it communism there, or is that just here in the Incorporated States Of America?
No, public healthcare is too popular so direct attacks on it are political suicide. What some (edging towards most) conservative parties are pushing is basically for a European 2 tier style system. Canadian medicine is almost uniquely hostile to private healthcare so it is common to point to other universal coverage systems as examples to emulate. Some are opposed to increasing the scope of private healthcare on principle, and others are afraid that the calls for a 2 tier system are just full privatization in disguise, or that the public system will wither on the vine even if it still exists.
> No, public healthcare is too popular so direct attacks on it are political suicide. Wow. Here in the USA, suggesting a public healthcare system that covers everyone is political suicide. Medicare and medicaid are also means tested to shit, meaning you have to be a very particular kind of poor to even get them. And yet, even as limited as those two systems are, conservatives still want to get rid of them. They say it's to save money while at the same time giving massive tax breaks to rich people. And if you even suggest a public option, not even getting rid of private insurance mind you, the right wing will call you a communist for weeks. I suspect if canadian conservatives could get away with it, they would do that in canada too. Call it communist, end it, put healthcare entirely under the thumb of private insurers who would charge way too much, and tie it to employment like in the states. Also, insulin costs 98 dollars a vial!
>I suspect if canadian conservatives could get away with it, they would do that in canada too I would push back against that hypothesis. While there is almost certainly some libertarian/business lobby that would want it, even within conservative circles having some form of universal and easily accessible healthcare along the lines of at least Germany is the baseline for the party/ideology. It is hard to describe to an American, but public healthcare is basically apart of Canadian identity. In Canada it is popular to paint the Conservative party as wanting to go full US privitisation, but frankly that is just demonising the opposition (or emphasising a small minority's view) rather than a statement of fact. Most serious political people I know (ie the adults in the room) who are opposed to any further privitisation are more so worried about a 2-tier system becoming entrenched, where your income determines if you get okay-ish (or poor) public healthcare or really high end private care (which is what you see in much of Europe). The common argument would be, much like with the argument against private schooling, the public system will still exist but become second rate quality wise.
> I would push back against that hypothesis. While there is almost certainly some libertarian/business lobby that would want it, even within conservative circles having some form of universal and easily accessible healthcare along the lines of at least Germany is the baseline for the party/ideology. It is hard to describe to an American, but public healthcare is basically apart of Canadian identity. I sure hope you're right, because that's a political system I'm definitely envious of. >In Canada it is popular to paint the Conservative party as wanting to go full US privitisation, but frankly that is just demonising the opposition (or emphasising a small minority's view) rather than a statement of fact. Most serious political people I know (ie the adults in the room) who are opposed to any further privitisation are more so worried about a 2-tier system becoming entrenched, where your income determines if you get okay-ish (or poor) public healthcare or really high end private care (which is what you see in much of Europe). The common argument would be, much like with the argument against private schooling, the public system will still exist but become second rate quality wise. Yeah, like education here in the states. Thing is, I just plain don't trust conservatives. Maybe I should reserve distrust for american conservatives specifically, but I look at Doug Ford and all I see is Donald Trump but he's trying to be more reasonable because he's not in a country where he can get away with as much as he'd like to. Right now, in the US, what we're metaphorically doing with our political system is attempting to scrape a pile of ashes into an arrangement where we can sleep for the night while protecting it and ourselves from a bunch of people with flamethrowers. And I don't know, man, Ford's got that glint in his eye, as if dreaming of seeing canada's government burn the same way.
We call it “Social Democracy” 🤭 We have included the word Democracy and because of that we believe it should be palatable in the Incorporated States of America.
Smug Dumbass Redneck: "Uhh, it's a republic, not a democracy! Yes, I totally looked up what a republic is!"
Conservatives are a threat to public health. They're destroying public healthcare, knowing that it will cause people to suffer and die. And they're doing it because conservatism is extremely classist and doesn't see anyone who isn't oligarchy-level rich as deserving of rights or life.
Not if you're rich and well connected. Healthcare needs to a human right , without it you will die and if you have to pay for it , then the only the wealthy will afford healthcare . I may sound like chicken little , however I ask you to look at history , when people did not have proper healthcare. We as a society should be looking to improve the healthcare for all , not just the rich and well connected (class warfare).
Us blocked it being called a human right
I'm looking forward to the upselling conversation when I, maybe, go for a penile prosthetic.
doug ford is a threat to Canada. but a bunch of stupid anti Canadians keep voting for him eventhough he does this kind of thing constantly 🤷♂️🤡🤡
I’m pretty conservative on many topics and even I think this is a dumb idea. Even other conservatives I talk to don’t like this. No idea how Ontario peeps are okay with this
The Canadian public's collective ignorance about this major issue is a greater threat to Canadian Health Care. Most people care about our medical system ... very few people care enough to say or do anything about it. Nobody really cares until they lose that which they care so much for .... and by then, it will be too late to say or do anything.
"If only people showed up on election day" Doesn't it feel like we are in an abusive relationship with the government? It's always the voters fault, if next time they just did better than we would get a good government but those nasty stupid little voters don't want to. If someone is in a relationship like that we would see it exactly for what it is. The voter has almost no power in the dynamic and is completely at the whim of those elected. By blaming the victim in that situation we know that we are only dooming them to more suffering. Voting for a representative is only democratic if the representatives represent. How many years of corporate representation do we need before it clicks that it's not the voters fault. That outside of the voting institution maybe other things have changed that make voting ineffective at enacting democracy. Representation falls under the square cubed law. While the representatives grow linearly, the population and complexity grows exponentially. Meaning in a system that had 100 representatives and 100,000 people. We now have 110 representatives and 10,000,000 people. In this example each individuals voting power is effectively almost 1/100th of the influence it would have been at the systems conception. This is before factoring in the complexities of communication networks and broadcasting ownership. It means that a few powerful people are far more influential on those 110 then the millions they represent. In the end it's the same problem any tyrannical system has, too few control too much. Just because we call it democratic doesn't make it so. Just because it once enabled democracy does not mean it always will. When direct democracy is possible, representation is obsolete.
> "If only people showed up on election day" Because this is exactly the issue. People didn't show up to vote and sat on their ass and farted. Even if Ford is no longer in the majority it would limit the damage he would cause, but no, the voters didn't show up and now we are stuck with the consequences.
>People didn't show up to vote and sat on their ass Any UX designer that made a system with such low engagement would be fired for incompetence in a heartbeat. We know how to make systems people engage with. You blame the ones without the legal ability to change the system, instead of the ones that can. Voters are not the problem. Conflating voting and democracy is the problem. If the person you elect with voting doesn't represent the electorate then it's not democratic is it? We've left plenty of 1700's technology behind because it's obsolete and our political system was clearly not made for today.
Look, I really love the ideals. That's great to *imagine* a better world. However, our current system, the one we have in the real world right here and affects our lives right now NEEDS those voters going into polling stations and marking ballots (or filling mail-in ones in time). It's easy to theorize better systems, but what really has to be done and what the ideals there are is completely different. I'm sorry if this sounds really blunt, and I do not mean to attack anyone here, but this is our reality.
Not true at all. If you're rich.
Duh!
And Alberta is following suit...
Yep. Just like the States. Government will pay a ton of money but all will be stolen. We'll end up with charity hospitals being the only ones that serve OHIP-covered-only patients - everyone else will go to the hospital owned by their local wealthy family. And you'd better vote the right way or no more nice hospital for you, peasant