Re: Accountability in Canada a joke.
From: Lictor (ghostmlNOSPAM-REMOVE_at_online.fr)
Date: 08/29/04
- Next message: Kent H.: "Re: aspirin as a preventative --- basic query"
- Previous message: MB: "aspirin as a preventative --- basic query"
- In reply to: Robert: "Re: Accountability in Canada a joke."
- Next in thread: Robert: "Re: Accountability in Canada a joke."
- Reply: Robert: "Re: Accountability in Canada a joke."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 23:18:30 +0200
"Robert" <RobertJ@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10j4ah46u3k4d23@corp.supernews.com...
> You will be surprised on some of those changes that they will make. It
will
> include more private enterprise for one particular reason only.
> Accountability.
The goal of many of the current changes to health care systems is to make
them go bankrupt. Exactly like what the right wing is doing in the USA with
what is left of your public system. What do you think? That the right wing
in the various countries of the world is actively trying to protect a system
that benefits 99% of the population instead of one that benefits the 1% of
the richest?
> Exactly as they are accountable for their own business. They must make
> changes or lose customers. It is competitive. There is no compitition in
> public healthcare in Canada so no one is accountable as is typical of most
> government.
There is also no competition in the American system, as exhibited by the
prices you pay your drugs. Your country has *laws* that protect a
monopolistic situation, where you cannot use the free trade system and
purchage their drugs abroad. Likewise, your public hospitals make no use of
competitive mecanisms to get the best deal possible on their drugs and
medical equipment. Likewise, there is supposed to be competition between the
insurance providers, but they don't try to compete. Much like the music
industry, competition has not pushed the cost of CDs down. What is
competition worth if you don't use it?
On the other hand, a well designed public system has a huge leverage to
negotiate prices. When you're "purchasing" drugs for 60 million people, you
can drag the prices amazingly low. Now, imagine the same situation in the
USA while negotiating drugs for 250 million people...
Obviously, your competitive model doesn't work. Just check the prices of the
private insurances - have they gone down thanks to competition? What about
the prices of your drugs? With your level of competition, they are the
cheapest of the world, right?
> The government and the private sector do not do business the
> same way. The government guys buys a toilet seat for $1200 and gets
promoted
> where in the private sector he gets fired.
Errr... $1200 toilet seats are only found in the USA. Just like $1000
hammers and $50 nails. In the rest of the world, public entities use the
full range of the free market to get the best prices they can. My girlfriend
works as a private contractor in urbanism for municipalities, and I can tell
you they negotiate their prices to the best of their ability. They will pit
the various providers to get the best cost/quality ratio through a bidding
system. All the bidding is public, as a citizen, you can check the whole
process if you want. If your municipality bought $1000 hammers, you can
check from who they were bought, and what were they criteria to buy these
instead of the $5 ones. If you find that the process was not done in the
best interrest of the citizens, it's illegal and harshly punished. We have
several judges that just *love* to send politicians to jail and/or make then
ineligible... You should try sending your politicians to jail from time to
time, it's highly educationnal to them.
If your country is run by morons, it's no surprise your public systems are
under-performing.
> They do it because of necessity or fail and the government has not
incentive
> to do anything. How many more citations do you need to prove my point in
> that accountability does not exist and they are NOW studying on how start
> being accountable.
The government has a very high incentive to do anything. If it doesn't
succeed, it is fired. If it tries to attack part of the social security
system people do not agree on, you have people marching in streets and
complaining. My current government lost the last two major local elections
because of that, and this means a lot of right wing politicians are now
unemployed.
We do have accountability. The accounts are public, anyone can check them
and see where the money goes and comes from. I don't know how you think a
public administration is managed, but they work exactly much like private
companies, they have to have a balanced budget, they have to keep track of
where money is spent... Many CEO have moved between the private and public
sector back and forth, it's not like they operate on wholly different rules
(except for the non-profit rule). As always, nothing is perfect, and moves
are done to improve things. But we have a level of accountability that is as
good as yours. At least, we don't have to track the money leaked to the
Barbados or Panama.
> Exactly, the American public system is also not accountable as are most
> government programs.
But you're too lazy to change that. You only deserve what you worked for.
> They are accountable to the politicians.
The politicians are accountable to *you*, if you bother to do your duty as a
citizen instead of blindly believing everything you're told.
> So your answer
> to place all healthcare under the American public system is silly. Does
> France spend 1 billion a week in Iraq? You can not compare.
Well, spending 1 billion a week in Iraq was the choice of your country.
Correction, the choice of Bush Jr. For once, our President did listen to
what the population wished, and we decided not to join in the Iraqi fiasco.
Besides, the Iraqi invasion will benefit billions to Bush's friends, it's
not like the balance of the operation is negative.
Anyway, I don't see why you bring Iraq here. What's the point? That your
government wastes billions to solve the Bush's familly problems? So what?
What is it supposed to mean?
The whole social security system in France is mostly *not* on the government
budget. If our government was spending 100 billion a week in Iraq, the
social security system budget would not move a cent. It's getting 95% of its
budget on its own taxes, which are kept completely separate from the revenue
taxes. That would be a problem in the USA, since collecting taxes seem to
cost an insane amount of money, thanks to your thrifty administrations.
Anyway, social security is much like a CIA that would work on its own taxes
instead of the budget, it's pretty independant from the government. The
government has no control on how the social security system manages its
budget, it can only attempt to negotiate with it.
- Next message: Kent H.: "Re: aspirin as a preventative --- basic query"
- Previous message: MB: "aspirin as a preventative --- basic query"
- In reply to: Robert: "Re: Accountability in Canada a joke."
- Next in thread: Robert: "Re: Accountability in Canada a joke."
- Reply: Robert: "Re: Accountability in Canada a joke."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
