I think you might be confusing two different things. Canada has a mix of private and public too. Vision care, pharmacy, dental and fertility are all largely private with private insurance and private delivery. This is different from a two tier system where say the rich get one option they pay for and the poor another. Now health care systems are in general complicated and there are many models out there broadly under the umbrella of "universal health care", Canada's certainly isn't the only or necessarily best one, but as I said earlier, theses distinctions are highly technocratic ones about tradeoffs in efficacy, not the kind of sweeping moral claims you were setting it up to me.

Sure, when you construct a win/win situation it is, by construction, win/win, and I agree I am also willing to sacrifice some egalitarianism if it helps everyone, just unequally. But that doesn't mean your constructed example actually represents reality and that it is obviously a "win/win".

One of the reasons why the specific narrow criticism of Canadian healthcare - nonurgent joint scans - is delayed is because health dollars are poured into other aspects of the healthcare system. If you had a 30% reduction in the number of people needed these scans because the rich went elsewhere, your construction only works if 100% of the original mri capacity remained. But over the long run, why would it? If already provincial healthcare systems make the choice to underinvest in mri scannners for wait times, why do you think they wouldn't continue to underinvest in the future, just at the new 30% lower level. Perhaps you also have the better doctors flying to the for-profit system and maybe you start chipping away not just at mri scans but at allowing full ORs and surgeons to replace hips being for profit. Very quickly you can imagine how a two tiered system where it isn't "win/win", but instead the poor just have access to worse care than baseline and the rich to better. I oppose that.

Your "win/win" construction fails the previous test as well. Could we not simply take all that money the rich are now funneling into the system and instead tax them. Spent that tax money on more mri machines and tech and now we have improved the wait times for everyone - it is win/win - but is win/win in a much more egalitarian way than your proposal? Again these types of constructed examples likely fail in a real world situation, but how effortless it is to create a dominating constructed example should cause a bit of humility on how obvious you think your point is.


Ah yes the standard conservative trope about government leading to "bureaucracy". Remember, every inefficiency due to bureaucratic machinations, needs to be contrasted with the inefficiencies that come from the private sector, such as all the profit that is taken out of the system, and the massive overlapping of similar duties (each company has their own accountants, say). Indeed, when you look at the US which has public and private systems, remarkably medicare and medicaid are both actually extremely efficient from an administrative perspective. So the point is this: you can't magically assume that by adding a parallel paid tier for the rich you start saving all this money. You might well lose more.

Finally, it might be good for you to state your full position here. You seem to want a private option for nonurgent MRI joint scans. Anything else? As in, where is the point your argument breaks down. When I had cancer I got my scans on the same day, because they were urgent. Should all my surgeries and radiations and hospital treatments all of that I could have paid more for better service in your view? Or do you support MOSTLY public only universal health care and are simply objecting for a couple narrow places on the fringes here you want private tiers too?

One other thing to keep in mind when comparing to other jurisdictions other than the USA is Canada's health care is managed provincially as other countries its nation wide.

One argument as well is you have a two tier system the doctors will go to the most profitable system That is not always true as many people get into medicine to help others I myself have sold houses to Doctors that left the USA for less money for a better place to live. As well they hated the US system especially the Insurance companies

Though I agree with Cuepee if you let folks seek treatment for hip and knee replacements in a private system you free up more space. Do you think Mitch Marner has to wait 6 months for an ACL tear?

Unless the health systems responds by taking dollars out of non-urgent mri scan capacity because some proportion don't use it any more and then the wait times are right back where they began. Beside, if this is a priority, why not just slightly increase taxation on the rich who can afford private care, and spend that money on more mri capacity. No need to make one system for the poor and one for the rich here.

No .
And all of this is just to standardize personal values across the board so everyone being equal in front of the law .
No exception .

No I think you are confusing two different things.

Two Tier does not refer to the fact that some services may lay outside the scope and thus are paid for and delivered privately. All the system have elements of that.

What Two Tier is referring to is the fact that the gov't allows for a Private System to run alongside the Public one which accepts ALL people by mandate, but where people who want to opt out can instead go.

All the countries above Canada, in yearly ranking, I know in the past had that two tier system although I have not delved in to it lately.

Anyway I would actually be for one tier. The government should get entirely out of providing the services and let the private sector compete and do it all. Gov't should not tie up annual budgets in medical equipment because what happens is then they need for it to operate for 10 years (X years) to get the value out of it EVEN IF a newer better device is developed tomorrow. We are denied the latest and greatest as they simply are not depleting the budget every time their is an advancement. If a private sector practice blows their budget on equipment today and one day later there is new, greater, better, more effective equipment they cannot afford a competitor takes instant advantage, buys it and steals all their clients.

And yes with a Single Payer Insurance system the gov't would still maintain massive leverage to ensure competitive pricing and to deal with any attempts at collusion type, price gauging.

There is massive power in being a Monopoly health care Payer and I support the gov't abusing that power to keep the fractured market in place.

The main arguments against this or a two tiered system is that their is massive money in maintaining the existing system and there is even more money the more they mismanage it and boondoggle (see eHealth Ontario amongst countless ones).

So the status quo argument are mostly for protection of the current racket, but they feed out more specious arguments such as 'two tier bad' (despite EVERY country with better outcomes having it) and count on Canadian citizens to repeat them.

Except for the fact that was not just a made example out of my head or a hypothetical. That was reality every single day. And it is not firnge or minimal as I feel you are trying to suggest.

We even had top Liberal Politicians, who are all about the Canadian system status quo caught flying across to the US to get immediate care.

And the cry is literarly 'shame', 'shame' they should stay in line like the rest of us.

NO. F*CK no. Get out of line, fly to the US if Canada refuses to take advantage and allow the Canadian system to enjoy that money. Give it to eh Yanks instead.

As everyone who flies to the US for super expensive service is freeing up much needed room in the lines for those less fortunate and usually paying out of pocket giving the Canadian system a second win.

The cries of shame, shame are the worst elements of pettiness and jealousy. 'Come back in line and delay everyone and cost our system more just because I hate to see a rich person get a benefit a poor persona cannot even if that benefit gain creates multiple spinoff benefits to the less fortunate'.

And yet for every reason you say 'my reasoning fails' I offer up France and the UK and every system ranked better and higher than Canada's in both cost and outcomes where the very things you say lead to failure, exist and where none of the bad outcomes you predict in THEORY have played out in PRACTICE.

So I will take reality to theory especially when that theory is right out the big bureaucracy protectionist play book.

Lol. You are a truly terrible debator. Good luck to you sir!

This thread has now been qp'd. Basically meaning most posts will be buried between perpertual page long walls of text

That's a shame. I was hoping to learn how taxing the rich (but not the really rich - their accountants and lawyers know how to game the system) further is going to solve the looming health care crisis in Canada.

Nothing inconsistent about those two posts.

Yes if we are going to have one tier then the best one tier is get gov't out of delivery of service and just use Single Payer insurance.

YEs also all the reasons you theorise about what would fail or go wrong if Canada went two tier fail miserable in reality where two tier is used in all countries rated higher than Canada.

Sorry if your comprehension skills struggles with those two accurate points.

Its the answer to everything for the left.

The biggest problem with out health care system is obesity and addiction are adding tremendous costs to the system. As well we spend sop much money to keep a person alive in their final years. As well neo natal care has advanced so far but is expensive as heck.

Unless our Healthcare system focuses on peoples health and improving it were heading to a two tier system. We all know we will never focus on peoples overall health and Covid has shown us that as not one person said Get yourself in better health.

I created the below post on April 15th asking 'Could Water be an economic Boon for Canada'. I am curious if someone could give a compelling reason why this could not work???

I am raising it again as US news is talking now about one of the most serious droughts to hit the Western Regions and how Cities and States are trying to 'buy up' as much 'emergency water' from as many sources as possible forcing the price to skyrocket...


‘Megadrought’ in American West May Trigger First-Ever Water Shortage Declaration

As i stated upthread historically the main group who have posed instance resistance to any talk of Canada as a Nation or any City or Province monetizing their water are leftists. We have seen instant 'shame' campaigns launched to shut the idea down before it starts as they push the ideal that Natural Resources should not be monetized and should be free for all.

Great in concept and theory but, as is too often the case, woefully naïve and in practice dumb. And yet they will cling to that navie notion and claim 'wins' as gov'ts shy away from this area as Nestle and others come in and exploit the situation and bribe politicians happy to be bribed since they cannot monetize that asset any other way.


And in Canada's case the incredible amounts of excess water instead mostly flow to our rising Oceans and contribute to the problem of sea levels rising, which ironically may require coastal nations one day to spend immense amounts of money to desalinate that water so they can use it and reduce sea levels, or at least slow the rise.

So Canada today, could start a process to capture that vastly increasing run off water as the artic continues to thaw, and transport it via pipelines to key US aquifers and enjoy riches that would almost certainly outstrip anything we could ever get from Oil while helping the US and helping the planet.

And yet here we are... doing nothing...

Piping water into Arizona so they can keep adding subdivisions to a 5 million person sprawl is such a terrible idea. But, considering that the best idea (making them move elsewhere) isn't going to happen, perhaps Canada should sell the water to the South-West before the US decides that they'll just drain the Great Lakes and ship that instead.

ps: **** Nestle

Why is it a terrible idea if you consider sea levels rising and coastal areas being decimated requiring mass migrations of people, which are accepted science around climate change?

It will be near an impossible task for the world to stop significant sea level rising as the arctic regions continue to melt. But I believe you will see nations try to protect their landmasses via desalination efforts, dam and wall type barricades (currently in use) and other mostly pointless but expensive efforts. They will then have mass amounts of water that will need to go somewhere???

Generally I would agree with you to not live in areas that have no water and require constant influx (which would include much of Cali btw) but in this case the problem those areas TYPICALLY pose may in fact be the cure for what we would do with all the excess water.

Interesting You Tube video I just watched last night

Imagine after New Orleans failure the world's 'at threat' Coastal regions instead resort to drawbridge like barricade structures to keep the water back, while keeping those areas inhabited and all the people at risk when these things inevitably fail.

Imagine all the cost after the fail both in terms of lives and monetary?

Rising Waters: Can a Massive Barrier Save Venice from Drowning?


My question above ties into the age old adage "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".

If we can prevent significant amounts of this runoff water from reaching the Oceans should we not?

Should we let leftist ideology prevent that simply because they believe natural resources should not be commoditised? Even then as they are anyway just not to the benefit of the citizens where they are sourced and taken?

...

lozen you live in Edmonton correct?

You would have direct experience with the challenges the Saskatchewan River poses most years due to immense spring run off as the glaciers that feed it are increasingly melting.

I was an avid mountain bike rider when in Edmonton for 8 years and every spring I would be circumventing fencing used to try and block my access to the River Valley as areas of the immensely deep banks over flowed. And in really bad years (which are increasing) the rivers banks would fail leading to flooding across many areas in the city and surrounding rural areas. Mass devastation. And not just in Alberta as it does havoc all through the Province of Saskatchewan as well when it breaks banks there. And at the exact same time we are reading about drought in nearby West Coast US neighbour States. One areas with far too much water and the other desperate for more as their lands scorch and burn.


Calgary just south of Edmonton has the exact same dynamic with the Bow River and its flooding and we all remember this imagery of the downtown and worse in surrounding rural areas.



Both the Saskatchewan River and the Bow River terminate at Hudsons Bay which then dumps excess water into the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans.



So here we have it. Year after year and increasing in frequency Canada pays an immense cost Financially and in lives lost as excess water tries to push through to Hudsons Bay but breaks bank is on route due to excess volume.

We could 'theoretically' take this huge cost for Canadians, and instead turn it into a huge financial boon for Canadians, while at the same time doing our incremental part to help reduce one of the biggest challenges Climate Change is going to force the world to engage with, rising sea levels.

In my view it is time we have a serious debate about this and not allow misguided, but well intentioned leftists, to shout it down.

I wish you would take a moment and address that thoughtfully. I am open to the debate and a well thought out answer that is just not ideological and that takes into account sea level rising the issues around 'excess water' with no place to go.

Yes we have had flooding on the North Saskatchewan in Edmonton many times . I agree with you diverting water that ends up in the Ocean anyways could be a great way to diversify from Oil. Does it make good sense ? Of course but will the minority that are against it stop it ? Of course

I think this is an interesting conversation, but this is a weird way to get it started - kind of like an "advance strawman". Just present your case, and see where the conversation goes.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I'm not completely convinced either way, but I'd need to see a lot of evidence that it's a good idea.

My first thought is - do we have enough excess water, at the right times? Just speaking for BC, in spite of all the water that goes into the ocean, we have water restrictions every summer - I doubt it would be good for us to be sending any of our water away from the late spring to the early fall. Perhaps we're the only province that faces this issue; I'm not sure. Then you need to factor in climate change and growth, and see where that leaves you for summer water supply in 5, 10, 20 years. But leaving aside summertime issues, there seems to be little question we have more water than we know what to do with in the wintertime and surrounding months. If you send it down south at that time, is there the ability to store it for when it's needed most? That's a sincere question, because I honestly don't know, but I suspect it's a much more complex problem than most of us realize. And I think there are some pretty big logistical issues, especially if you are bringing water from the prairies - long distance, insulating pipes, and crossing the continental divide. All surmountable with enough money - but will it be financially feasible?

While he could have elaborated more, it didn't take much for me to follow that line of thinking, and I think it's the biggest problem with this idea. Lozen's video highlighted some of the issues.

Great video.

It's a sticky problem for the southwest - Utah may have a legitimate case, if they've allocated the Colorado River between the states and Utah hasn't been using that share, it seems unfair to tell them now they can't have it. But it also seems ridiculous to build huge new communities in the desert when there's such a water shortage. I don't know the answer to that specific issue, but it leads well into the larger one...

So, let's assume we have the excess water when needed and/or we can send it "off season" and there is ample storage, and that it's economically feasible. Is it a good idea? I'm not sure that it is.

Clearly, there's a water issue in the American southwest, and it's completely manmade. It seems like sending water there is just kicking the real problem down the road. And it would be one thing if that was a tactic to put the problem off until a better long-term solution is found, but I don't think that's what this would be. I think instead, without taking other actions in conjunction with increasing water supply, it actually has the potential to make the problem worse. It simply allows the southwest to continue growing as it was before until it uses all of that supply, which means the exact same problem further down the road, and if Canada has a need for more water in the meantime, then the problem becomes even larger and more difficult to manage.

The real problem IMO, is the planning mindset that was clearly displayed in that video when the reporter said "it almost suggests we've conquered nature", with which the tourism director readily agreed. Yeah, almost...except for a very, very important thing - water. The southwest US states need to get together on this and figure out a plan going forward. Ways to conserve water, and a plan for curtailing growth to make it sustainable. Or perhaps they need to realize that no growth is sustainable any more. But whatever the plan is, they need one before there is any consideration of shipping water there. If they have a workable plan for the future, and we have excess water that is economically practical to ship south without creating a similar problem for ourselves in the future, I'd be good with it.

The least important issue IMO, is the one you mentioned at the beginning. I think it's least important because there's no reason for it to be a barrier to helping our neighbour. To me, if we met the conditions I mentioned to send water down there, then the only barrier that objection presents is whether we profit from it. I think there is *some* merit to the argument that commoditizing water may not be a wise way to go, but that doesn't mean we couldn't have Americans pay all the costs and not charge them for the water - but we should be able to trade off for some other natural resource, which then satisfies said leftists while providing our country a benefit. I think there has to be some kind of compensation, even if it's not financial - if you're going to suggest that natural resources don't belong to any one country, then that shouldn't apply to water alone. I'm not saying I completely buy into that idea anyway, but if we agree to it, then it needs to apply to other resources as well.

I grew up in Guelph Ontario where this fight was being fought very loudly in real time.

Guelph and surrounding counties were considering monetizing some of their excess water. We had advocates (Greenpeace and others) from all over and from the University crying 'shame', 'shame' as loud as they could to demonize any politician who dared consider "monetizing a Natural Resource when water should be a human right and free for all'.

The advocates won.

Within 2 years Nestle had private contracts with every municipality to take "Excess Water" and now Guelph and that region is one of Nestles biggest profit centres for bottled water. I remember being at a gas station in Texas and seeing the Nestle water 'bottled in Guelph'.


Nestle makes billions and Guelph makes almost nothing. In the meantime the communities who signed these contracts with Nestle end up fighting them in court when Nestle overdraws the water.

And I would bet any money that Nestle is using dark money to surreptitiously fund the groups who fight against the gov't monetizing water just as it is big oil money funding much of the protests against the Oil Sands to keep the product as much out of hte market as they can.

Useful idiots.

Instead we get Nestle using mass amounts of plastic to transport product around the world while the leftists celebrate that they 'won' because they stopped gov't doing it thru pipelines.

Yes, I agree that's a problem - but I don't know if any of those people exist here. Best to wait for that argument until someone makes it IMO.