I write this as an individual of "advanced" years. Put differently, I am old. Put yet again differently, I am much more a consumer of healthcare than my grandchildren or my adult children. I therefore have a vested interest in keeping the Canadian healthcare system as it is for I am not wealthy; comfortable, certainly, but not wealthy.
Okay, disclaimers done.
As I look at what our healthcare system has become, where there are obvious cracks and breaks in the system I cannot help but think of where we started. I live and have always lived in Alberta but in, was it 1962?, I was in Saskatchewan; I was visiting but even as a boy I was aware that the doctors were on strike against the provincial government. Of course, that strike failed and provincial medicare came in in Saskatchewan and shortly after that (1966, as I recall) it came in across the rest of the Dominion.
It is my recollection that the reason that it came in was that the federal government promised to pay half of all medical costs; of course, today the feds cover only twenty-four per cent of such costs (according to Mr. Google). That different of twenty-six perc cent is massive and crippling for all provinces. Further, as I recall, the original coverage was pretty bare bones. In fact, as I recall, Ontario (where I don't live!) had OMHIP and OHIP - Ontario Medical Health Insurance Plan and Ontario Health Insurance Plan, or some such. In other words, it was two completely different plans. Now, all provinces cover all medical costs - well, pretty much all! - other than some particular exceptions.
My points in this recitation are twofold: 1) I remember; and, boy, things have changed, very particularly including the money that the feds pay; and 2) the scope of medical coverage provided has expanded immensely (grew like Topsy, as we used to say).
So, you ask, what? Simply this. I'm all right, Jack. But you aren't.
Put differently, my generation is pretty well covered but, particularly, my grandchildren's generation is not at all well covered and it is getting markedly worse.
That means that either we a) dramatically, dramatically "reform" healthcare to get rid of "waste" (tried and tried but not really happened); b) we cut back dramatically on other government spending (how about, no schools? how about, no roads? how about no police? other?) - ask your local swivel servant if any of those are attractive options; c) we increase income taxes to take the majority (a large majority) of everyone's income; or d) we go forward as is and in, oh, say, ten years the medical system collapses and pretty much no one gets covered.
Oh, I forgot option e): have the system change to see if more (either "allowed" or "black market") more providers come into the healthcare system where individuals pay. And that is what the author is describing with the commentary about George Weston/Loblaws and Maple.
Is this good? I don't know, but then, remember that I'm all right, Jack; you not so much. Truthfully, if only item d) is a bit longer than ten years, I am likely to be dead so the lack of planning for this problem is not MY problem, just yours. Remember, I'm all right, Jack. How about you? You had better figure out which option you favor.
Glad you enjoyed the article.
I write this as an individual of "advanced" years. Put differently, I am old. Put yet again differently, I am much more a consumer of healthcare than my grandchildren or my adult children. I therefore have a vested interest in keeping the Canadian healthcare system as it is for I am not wealthy; comfortable, certainly, but not wealthy.
Okay, disclaimers done.
As I look at what our healthcare system has become, where there are obvious cracks and breaks in the system I cannot help but think of where we started. I live and have always lived in Alberta but in, was it 1962?, I was in Saskatchewan; I was visiting but even as a boy I was aware that the doctors were on strike against the provincial government. Of course, that strike failed and provincial medicare came in in Saskatchewan and shortly after that (1966, as I recall) it came in across the rest of the Dominion.
It is my recollection that the reason that it came in was that the federal government promised to pay half of all medical costs; of course, today the feds cover only twenty-four per cent of such costs (according to Mr. Google). That different of twenty-six perc cent is massive and crippling for all provinces. Further, as I recall, the original coverage was pretty bare bones. In fact, as I recall, Ontario (where I don't live!) had OMHIP and OHIP - Ontario Medical Health Insurance Plan and Ontario Health Insurance Plan, or some such. In other words, it was two completely different plans. Now, all provinces cover all medical costs - well, pretty much all! - other than some particular exceptions.
My points in this recitation are twofold: 1) I remember; and, boy, things have changed, very particularly including the money that the feds pay; and 2) the scope of medical coverage provided has expanded immensely (grew like Topsy, as we used to say).
So, you ask, what? Simply this. I'm all right, Jack. But you aren't.
Put differently, my generation is pretty well covered but, particularly, my grandchildren's generation is not at all well covered and it is getting markedly worse.
That means that either we a) dramatically, dramatically "reform" healthcare to get rid of "waste" (tried and tried but not really happened); b) we cut back dramatically on other government spending (how about, no schools? how about, no roads? how about no police? other?) - ask your local swivel servant if any of those are attractive options; c) we increase income taxes to take the majority (a large majority) of everyone's income; or d) we go forward as is and in, oh, say, ten years the medical system collapses and pretty much no one gets covered.
Oh, I forgot option e): have the system change to see if more (either "allowed" or "black market") more providers come into the healthcare system where individuals pay. And that is what the author is describing with the commentary about George Weston/Loblaws and Maple.
Is this good? I don't know, but then, remember that I'm all right, Jack; you not so much. Truthfully, if only item d) is a bit longer than ten years, I am likely to be dead so the lack of planning for this problem is not MY problem, just yours. Remember, I'm all right, Jack. How about you? You had better figure out which option you favor.