> Medical science is advancing faster than our ability to afford it is.
But that applies to everyone, not just Canadians.
Worried...
> Medical science is advancing faster than our ability to afford it is.
But that applies to everyone, not just Canadians.
But that is exactly why full public health care in all countries (including Canada) will continue to face a heavier and heavier burden as that continues. Don't misinterpret my words, I don't advocate a two-tier system because it's inefficiencies are obvious. The question is, how do we continue to afford these progressive advances in a public system? Do we just increase funding, do we limit ourselves to what we can afford (eg: cut newer expensive procedures), or do we introduce a system where private funding gets the few who can afford these procedures what they need (I'm opposed to the unfair treatment of this last choice)? If only that question could be answered simply, but there is no shortage of ethical, financial, and various other reasons why it does not have a straightforward, simple answer.
The question is, how do we continue to afford these progressive advances in a public system?Either raise taxes, cut services, or both. How do you afford it in a private system with private insurance? Same options.Your other questions depend on society's values. If the value of the health and longevity that is gains offsets the cost, then people (and society) will be willing to pay. But there must be some limit. I doubt that any society would happily pay 50% of its GDP for health care.
Cutting services is not so easy though. To cut health services would be to limit our capability to treat all illnesses that we should be capable of treating. This therefore leads to a two-tier system. The major problem with a two-tier system is that it tends to expand and cause problems with the public system (where doctors will go private since they get payed more in general). This leads to the demolition of a public health care system. I'm not saying that this will for sure happen, but it's definitely worth concern. EDIT: My hope is that there is another way, an "outside the box" solution. Neither of the solutions I can currently see are great, as having 100% universal health care will get more and more costly, but going the other way tends to create a great degree of disparity. I'm sure there is another answer, but the question is what is that answer?
Well I personally am glad to hear your rant. ;-) It's good to know what's going on else where. At some point, especiallly a place so close to us, it will affect us.