Two-Tiered Health Care?

Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by Gwazi Magnum, Dec 4, 2015.

  1. Basically having gone through Brovo's thread on politics I noticed a ton of people saying they wanted a two tiered system, but basically just stating it and moving on.

    So I'm just genuinely curious, why two tiered?
    If you're someone who thinks otherwise, how come?

    Edit: To clarify, I'm not asking what's the benefit of Health Care. I'm a big supporter in health care for everyone myself. I'm just asking about the two tier system specifically.
    #1 Gwazi Magnum, Dec 4, 2015
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2015
  2. I have no idea what a two-tiered system is and what it does or means. >:[

    What I do know, is that having a life-long life-threatening disease is AN EXPENSIVE BITCH. Just one dose of my brother's meds is 100k or more, and he needs it to LIVE. Getting insurance has been a NIGHTMARE. Private insurers jack up their prices like mother fuckers to the point where you need one of those high-ass rich people jobs to be able to afford it. .__.; And by that point you wouldn't need a private insurer anyway cause your fancyass job would have benefits and healthcare packages.

    The normal average person with low-paying, blue collar jobs are just flat out screwed when it comes to healthcare. You have to pray you can find a job that actually provides benefits to it's employees, then you have to pray you can keep that job long enough to qualify for those benefits. Many places will list you as a "Part Time" employee, even if you are working 40+ hours a week just so they don't have to pay you higher wagers or give you benefits packages.

    Lots of people will just say, why don't you go to school and get a better job. But that costs money on top of the money you're already spending just trying to live.

    Getting government help with funding is also a bitch. My brother doesn't qualify for any social security benefits simply because he is able-bodied enough to work. Which is a huge bunch of SHIT, because I know SO MANY local people who are getting checks every month, who ARE also able-bodied enough to work but don't, and they have some pretty "scammy" problems that don't even require assloads of money for medical bills.

    So we've been fighting with THAT. c____c For the past couple of years he's been participating in medical studies and testing medications in exchange for free medication. But that still doesn't pay for his yearly clinic visits to the only in-state hospital. (four hours away from us. e__e) Thankfully we finally manage to get insurance stuff worked out with the clinic visits.

    I know a lot of people bitched about the Obama administration's new policies on healthcare, but those policies actually helped us A LOT in getting somewhere with our insurance and healthcare problems. And if they continue to work on it and fix some of the other shit problems (Like how insurers are now trying to price gouge and punish their customers because of healthcare reform), maaaaybe they can fix the messed up system. >>
    • Thank Thank x 1
  3. From the impressions I got in the other thread it was either:

    1) Provincial Level Health Care and Federal Level Health Care
    2) The Choice between government care or privatized Care

    Both could be wrong though.
    I'd look it up, but I'm still reading through the political thread myself. :P
    Oh yea, I definitely get the importance of there being health care.
    I wasn't questioning that for a second, I was just wondering about why the two tier system specifically.
  4. I was just ranting. ;__; The fight is real, man.
  5. Yea I get it.

    Dealing with that expensive medication in America, the land of where medically ill people are expected to die on the streets because 'taxes are evil' must be hell. :/
  6. I admit, I had never even really considered the idea of a two-tiered healthcare system before coming across Brovo's thread. Up until that point, I had been more of a proponent of healthcare being owned solely by the state, because, yeah, I think we can all agree that the American system of people needing to pay absurd amounts of money for the shit that'll keep them alive is fucking ridiculous. But, I have also heard talk of the problems with state-owned healthcare, like longer waiting times to be treated and I think even a lower quality of the care provided to begin with. I admit I'm not super-informed on the topic, seeing as how I don't live in a country that has that kind of healthcare system, but, yeah, being forced to pick between the two, it's fairly obvious that one set of problems is a much bigger deal than the other. Hence why, if I was only given two options, I would've picked state-owned over privatized.

    But, a two-tiered system sort of sounds like the best of both worlds. On the one hand, free healthcare for those who need it. Hooray! People don't have to launch themselves into debt for the privilege of not dying! And then, at the same time, wealthier individuals who can afford it get the choice of paying for privatized healthcare, so that they can avoid the long wait times and whatever other troubles come with a state-owned healthcare system. You could argue it's a bit unfair that those with more money would have better healthcare, but hey, that's better than those without as much money being forced to pay ludicrous costs just to have any healthcare at all. Plus, if wealthier individuals are paying for privatized healthcare, then that automatically makes the public health care system less crowded by virtue of the fact that there's fewer people using it, so, really, everyone gets a faster and more efficient healthcare system, just in varying degrees. And, well, I guess it doesn't make sense to force everyone to adhere to a public health care system when some people are well-off enough to afford the costs that would come with privatized healthcare and are willing to pay for a fast pass to get themselves out of a crowded system.

    So, yeah, two-tiered seems like the right system to get everyone what they want. Can't afford privatized healthcare? No problem, you get it for free. Have enough money that you don't really want or need public healthcare? That's cool, you can pay for privatized if you want, and the waiting room seat that you would've otherwise occupied will be taken by someone else who needs free healthcare more than you do. Boom, everyone wins.
  7. Being a Canadian with Government funded healthcare I'll try to shed light on these.
    Oh yea, this is a problem.
    Like a serious one, as in if my Dad had been sent in 5 minutes later for an operation a years ago he'd be dead serious.

    For clarification he was feeling a huge pain in his gut, and he outright hates going to the hospital.
    But he was the one who ended up asking to go, so clearly (to our household at least) it was serious.

    The Hospital ended up putting him in the waiting room for 24 hours before calling him in.
    And just as he was making his way to the room his appendix burst, which made the staff have to rush big time.

    And for a non-lethal example when I used to suffer from consistent headaches in my late teens.
    And I ended up being put on a 3 month wait list to see a specialist about it, and said specialist only gave me 10 minutes before giving me some nose spray.

    Said nose spray worked... For a few weeks, but it ultimately made my nose so dry it started spontaneously bleeding, and when that happened the headaches came back even worse than they were originally.
    And then I would have been required to wait another 3 months for another 10 minute appointment to test another medication.
    I ultimately ended up saying "Fuck it" and after a few years the headaches went away on their own... Mostly.

    I think I just built up a tolerance to it, because when I think about (like when typing this out) I can feel some of it coming back again.
    Yea, this happens too.

    My above mentioned nose spray example also kind of helps address that one.
    But admittedly that's not really a flaw with tax funded healthcare, it's a flaw of America clinging onto their health care.

    Because the reason we have lower quality is because all the best doctors to go America for the big cash.
    If America was tax paid, like everyone else doctors would have no incentive to leave their home countries for bigger profits.
    That way more skilled doctors stay in their own countries, and everyone benefits.

    So really, any country that takes measures to fix this 'flaw' is more accurately put, making up for the flaws/inconvenience of America's shit.
    Which creates this humorous if it wasn't so sad situation where it's not just American's suffering from the USA's stubbornness with health care. XD
    When put like that it does sound appealing (at least as long as America clings to it's poor people should die philosophy at least), though personally I would still have concern where this would basically create an even bigger monopoly.

    I mean, even now we have Doctors ditching other countries to move to America so they get bigger pay.
    Right now we at least can limit that to doctors willing to leave their home and families for it.

    But if we were to make it local?
    Even more Doctors would go for the big green's by being privatized because now they can do it from home.
    Which could end up creating an even bigger waiting list for those who rely on state care.

    I don't know, I could easily be wrong with that.
    It's just a worry I have about it in theory.
    #7 Gwazi Magnum, Dec 4, 2015
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2015
    • Love Love x 1
  8. When doctors leave from Canada to America, they're going to a place where costly, privatized healthcare is the only healthcare -- it's a system where people who want any healthcare at all will have to fork over the cash. So, it makes sense that doctors would want to work in a country that only offers privatized healthcare in order to maximize profits.

    But in a two-tiered system, you still have plenty of people who plan on sticking with free health care, so... yeah, I just feel like there wouldn't be quite as much room for doctors in the privatized sector when there aren't as many people paying for private health care, and less incentive to work in the private sector when you don't have an entire population of people being forced to pay those costs.

    But, now we're getting into economics, and I'm certainly no economics expert, so what do I know? XD
  9. Perhaps, but I'd be worried about town life then.

    For example I live in a town called Oakville.
    A rather well off place (though boring), but it's been getting a huge rush of rich people looking to retire, or buying a ton of land only to build monster houses on them.
    If Privatized Health Care were to come to Canada, I can see a lot of those Doctors making a decent living off of those rich folk in Oakville alone.

    Meanwhile neighbouring towns like Hamilton and Brampton, well known for being a lot more poverty struck, not as safe, higher crime rates etc.
    They're people would probably get the shaft from Doctors because now they'd be switching to the richer towns.

    But yea, we are entering economics here.
    Something neither of us know much about. XD
    #9 Gwazi Magnum, Dec 4, 2015
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2015
  10. No. That doesn't make any sense. That's already how every healthcare system in the world works. :ferret:
    It's this. This! Next time you make a thread about a topic, might want to at least know what the topic actually means first. :ferret:
    Uh... Emergency room staff =/= general practitioners =/= other specialists. There are over two hundred different specializations in medicine. If your father's appendix burst while he was in the waiting room, they would have rushed him to the emergency room regardless of whether or not he had an appointment for it because that is an immediately life threatening injury. Like, not to downplay waiting lists, but, not every doctor is the same, and people aren't usually left on waiting room floors to die, if they're obviously dying. :ferret:
    It's not life threatening, so yes, you're getting put on a waiting list. Also, if the pain was serious (ex: tumour), it wouldn't have just gone away over the years, so, you probably grew out of it. I know I used to have some nasty ass migraines when I was a child that persisted through my teen years, but faded over time. I haven't had a migraine in years now. :ferret:
    Canada is 28th, United States is 32nd. Please, in the future, before you state something as fact like this, google it. :ferret:

    The US has a higher infant mortality rate.
    Canadians have longer lifespans on average than Americans.
    Mortality due to "medical misadventures" are higher in the US than in Canada.
    A'ight, okay, I mean, I'm not the best educated on US politics, but, a good place you might want to start looking, is here, with John Oliver. Mainly because he explains it better than I possibly can, what the real issue is. It's not that the entirety of the US is against better healthcare, it's that certain political assholes who run on an agenda are fucking it up at the state-level in ways which the federal level cannot combat. States have more power in the US than provinces do in Canada. US power is more decentralized, Canadian power is more centralized. There's cons and benefits to both systems, but that's a topic for another time.

    So, I mean, next time you wanna bash on the US, there's plenty of reasons to do so. Blacks being beaten by cops, a blatantly broken political system that enforces a two-party system with no real choices for voters, et cetera, but, the medical issues are more political than anything else. If it weren't for how fucking choked in bureaucracy the entire system was, they would have one of the best run, best funded medical systems in the world. (And really, that should come as no surprise. Their total GDP output is nearly equal that of the entire European Union. They should, by all rights, fuck Canada in the ass without lube in medical superiority, but they often don't, because the Republicunt party is run by ideologically radicalized, insane assholes.)

    If we were to make it local? Assuming we didn't go full retard and unleash it with no regulations at all? We'd have... Drum roll... The current Canadian dental system. No, really. Our dental system is entirely privatized. Orthodontics too. In fact...

    "The Canada Health Act does not cover prescription drugs, home care or long-term care, prescription glasses or dental care, which means most Canadians pay out-of-pocket for these services or rely on private insurance."

    In some sense, we already have a certain level of two-tiered care. For example, in British Columbia, there is something called Plan-G, which allows those who cannot afford psychiatric medicine (which is covered by prescription drugs) access to subsidized psychiatric medicine.

    Logically, if it were phased in, one would highly regulate it and tax the shit out of it, for the purposes of using said tax money to then fund and expand the public healthcare system. IE: Rich person pays to skip line, pays exorbitant fees, some of those fees go to public healthcare, which buys more medicine, more beds, and pays more doctors.

    Also, it would decrease strain on the public healthcare system, as less people would use it, but it would remain about as funded as it is now. Atop that, it would create a demand for jobs in all of the provinces (for both the private and public sectors), which would drive educated people to immigrate to Canada for jobs, considering most of the world is in an economic downturn. Especially since we'd have a private healthcare system that would willingly pay higher than the public system, that would draw in more doctors from abroad. Basically: When there's an economic void, let supply and demand take its course. It's one of the most effective and constant tools in Capitalism to correct a problem, like in cases of manpower. :ferret:
    Or, and bare with me here, the people of Oakville would pay into the private health care system, instead of using the public system. Meaning more public system spots are available for poor people, meaning shorter waiting lists. Atop that, the taxed private system's taxes can go to fund and upgrade the existing public healthcare in those areas, thus making them better able to handle an influx of poor people.

    The biggest issue with a two-tiered system is that we have a very shitty way of handling prescription and psychological care, which would be exacerbated by adding a private system into the mix. Especially with prescription medication, since private health industry folks can copyright life saving medicine and keep the patent to themselves for upwards of 20 years, making mad bank off of it at absurd prices, which is the current situation in the US. It's part of what's feeding their obscene suicide rate: A lot of people can't afford antidepressants and choose suicide as the way out.

    Anyway, figured I'd go and correct a bunch of stuff about the Canadian healthcare system. Thanks for reading.

    • Useful Useful x 1
  11. Just to clarify, anything I don't quote isn't me trying to ignore something but rather it's something I already agree with (or get the reasoning of) and have no reason to argue.
    Considering you quoted that very post I assume you read that already though.

    I was going to look it up if no responses were in by then, though regardless I'm a bigger fan of learning through interaction/dialogue.
    Obviously... You seemed to miss my point here though.

    I wasn't arguing that severe vs seemingly not severe be treated the same.
    I'm saying it creates situations where something could happen in the waiting room, thus forcing staff to take immediate action.
    And in cases where minutes can save lives? That action of getting them to the emergency room could be a big deal.

    Do I understand why we're like that? Completely.
    But it's still a flaw compared to privatized.
    One can address a flaw while still recognizing the reason for it and not outright demanding it be changed.
    Once again, still a flaw compared to Privatized though.
    Not an expert here so I won't argue this much.

    But it should be noted they're probably looking at America's combined health care effect, both the rich people and the poor who can't get it.
    If we're just comparing the quality of those who can afford it VS Canada's? It'd probably be a different story.

    And that's what I was comparing when I said what I did above. Those who are actually benefiting from said systems.

    If I'm wrong here call me out on it, I'm just raising a potential explanation.
    Same applies.
    Said ass holes still need to get elected though.

    Though noted, this is more a State issue than Federal one.
    I'll remember that for the next time this topic comes up.
    You just agreed the Two-Tier system was public & private care.
    That's not our dental services which is all private.
    That's exactly what I said... What am I bareing with exactly?
    Before someone miss-understands I'm talking about the thrown papers, not the facts.
  12. Yes. The point being that before you start a discussion topic about something, and attempt to debate the merits or faults of any system, you should at least do a cursory examination of what that system actually is... Otherwise you just end up making false claims that help nobody. Like your earlier debate with Kaga about the merits of a privatized healthcare system were based on facts which are plainly, simply, straight up wrong by measurable metrics. :ferret:
    Except that the American healthcare system has waiting lists too, and waiting rooms. So this example is a non-starter, because it can occur in both systems. Waiting rooms are especially bad in impoverished, crime-infested areas of the US, and is part of the reason that the black mortality rate is much higher on average than the white mortality rate: The hospitals that operate in those neighborhoods are horribly swamped and overwhelmed with patients.
    ... How? Doctor attempted to diagnose you, gave you something, moved on. A lot of brain and head related issues are still not well understood by the medical community. It's not like the private system is going to magically invent a cure for your migraines: Some things are just impossible to diagnose due to a lack of knowledge on the subject matter at hand. It's also very clear that your headaches were not, in any way, life threatening. They didn't get worse, and they didn't affect the rest of your physical health. The system is made to treat the ill and the infirm, not people with minor irritations. No offense. :ferret:
    The fact that there are people in the US who cannot afford medical care and who get exempted from the system as a result is a clear indicator that the system is inferior. Add to that fact that even the poorest, most indebted citizens must be treated by law. You can't just leave someone to die, that breaks the hypocratic oath. You can, however, saddle them with debt, and that's what is plaguing the US system more than anything else. Because you can save someone from a coma, and then stick them with a 60K+ bill after, against their will. It is presumed that they would want you to save them, ergo you can presume to charge them for your service.
    You're still, like, blatantly wrong though. Completely. So I'm correcting you, mate. Because what you were saying about the Canadian healthcare system vs the American healthcare system only proved how little you understood about either system, and I ain't go no sort of master's degree for either of them, so... I'm just telling you what should be easily available knowledge. :ferret:
    The point is that we have a health care system, in which some aspects of our health care system are private, and some aspects are public, and in some ways, they cross over into a two-tiered system. Example: Plan-G. Now, what do you call a system that is privatized, but has public options for those who can't afford the private system? :ferret:
  13. Calm thy tits, boys and girls. You're swerving toward that stupid angry derpbate thing that caused the Debate tag to be removed. Keep it civil or slaps will be liberally applied to wrists and/or faces.

    On the topic of the thread though, the two tier system is good because in an ideal form it would have the awesome parts of both public and private healthcare systems. Everyone would have cheap and readily available healthcare through the public system, and the private side of things would spur competition for best quality since they couldn't gouge people for simple and necessary supplies and procedures (as happens in the US healthcare industry) and that would force them to go for quality to attract paying customers. In reality it ends up not being that fantastic, but still generally better than having just one or the other.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Well in regards to Kaga I was basically debating whichever one she found it to be.
    Main objective was to define two-tiered (which I would have done myself soon after if your post didn't come in making me reply), but I was up to discuss any system in theory in all honesty.

    Though as far as facts are concerned?
    I'll admit I was going off of personal experience with that one... Though in all honesty she never really even replied to those points so it wasn't much of a debate.
    More of a "Here's my personal perspective" then we got back to the two-tiered system in theory, where we both agreed were out of our league and knowledge base.
    The flaw wasn't the lack of the magic cure.
    It was the long-ass wait periods in-between, in which I'd simply be twiddling my thumbs.

    Still though, just addressing a flaw. Not claiming it can realistically be fixed, and even if it could the lethal cases should definitely be prioritized.
    And if it's one America shares? I'll drop it when comparing the two systems, but I'll still bring it up when asked about Canada's system specifically.
    No, but it was actually slowing me down at work and making me less aware of my surroundings (a bad thing to have when said job was working with Autistic Children).

    Still, not lethal and admittingly if I got it now while just dealing with college stuff and college limbo it really would just be a minor (though painful) irritation like you said.
    But the fact it impacted work performance is something that ideally at least could have been addressed sooner.

    +Also I was in High School at the time, and it was causing me to get sick and be late for classes. So it had educational penalties as well.
    Yea, I've heard about those cases. :/

    Honestly if I was in such a state I'd just put a gun to my head when no one's looking.
    Spare the family from inheriting a shit ton of forced debt.

    You know, assuming it was one of these cases where I was deteriorating, and not like a car accident where it hits you out of the blue and you have no time to react or respond if knocked out by it.
    Remember that "Same applies" was part of the same post.

    I wasn't digging into the future, reading your next response and then going "Nah, sticking with my earlier point". :P
    Noted with Plan-G. But dentistry is still completely privatized.

    I'm not offended by what Brovo's saying. :P
    In fact I'm actually glad to be getting corrected on this stuff so I know better in the future.

    At what point though would Private advancements be crossing over to the Public version?
    Assuming it does at all.

    Because you know, it never happening would be kind of bad.
    Like, Private's curing all forms of cancer and Public is still stumped. :P
  15. In an ideal two-tiered system, medical patents and copyrights wouldn't last very long. You'd have, oh, maybe 5 years where the giant taxpayer funded public system has to buy hype new things from the private sector to make them available to the people who can't normally afford them, then afterward the public health system's own drug/tech branch could just copy it and make the thing(s) available at production cost.

    Also, again in an ideal setup, there would be plenty of state-funded medical research. Any research grant funding from the state would have to come with a stipulation that any discoveries are at least partially the property of the government and therefore available for use in the public healthcare system. Cool things like a vaccine for HIV could come from such funded research and thus have no trouble with private sector concerns.
    • Thank Thank x 1
  16. Aye. It wasn't really much of a debate. I openly admitted that I wasn't super-knowledgeable about the topic and so did Gwazi. It was a rather informal discussion of how things would work in theory, and both of us dropped the discussion once we realized we were getting into territory that we really knew absolutely diddly squat about. XD

    Not every topic has to be a super-structured debate. Sometimes you can just have an informal discussion based on personal anecdotes like you would have in a casual conversation with an RL friend -- just so long as you acknowledge that it's a casual conversation based on personal anecdotes and that you're not trying to act like you totally know the topic inside and out with statistics to back it up. *shrugga-shrug-shrug*
    • Useful Useful x 1