Commentary
The current Liberal government could get a windfall by signing medical treaties with states. Perhaps the deal will be used as a trigger for early elections. It is impossible to evaluate a deal without looking and researching the details. On the other hand, I have some doubts and concerns.
More transfers from Canada to the provinces are not unconditional benefits for the province taxpayers. They pay both federal and state taxes, and when inflation is caused by government spending. Is the transaction process here guided by reasonable standards that ensure fair treatment of all state governments and taxpayers? Can you? Where are those seats and potential voters?
Taxing and borrowing in one area can come at the expense of others, such as education. Taxation, or inflation from government spending, can damage the economy as a whole and burden taxpayers to a degree that is actually unhealthy for many Canadians. How do you know that you are creating good value with
Many Canadians, perhaps most of us, think the health care system is really broken and would be willing to pay more in taxes and personally for real improvement. But will this new deal actually lead to better health?
The federal government is looking for more indicators. They can be positive if properly defined and applied. However, alternative methods of registering and observing effectiveness are often more effective. It is observing the decisions that providers and patients make when they are free to choose. Will modern healthcare contracts simply maintain or expand the extent to which politicians and bureaucrats control the system, eliminating individual initiative and autonomy?
What are the metrics used in practice? It should be kept in mind that certain procedures and services are means to an end, such as including healthier citizens. The number of steps taken is not the ultimate measure of success. We need to know if the procedure works for the patient, including how well it works compared to alternatives. Surgery may be the best option, while others may include medication, lifestyle changes, treatment with a physical therapist or psychologist, and acceptance of the condition given the risks of treatment. Furthermore, if the metric’s system focuses on a particular type of surgery, does the system offer them at the disproportionate cost of other types of surgery or other interventions?
These are clearly 10-year contracts. Will they effectively lock in some of the functionality of the current system that requires bold and creative rethinking?
In my recent editorials on these pages, I proposed certain approaches that increase the leeway for private payment options as well as private provider options that do not violate the Canadian Health Act. conservative. The federal government permits privately funded options when local authorities deem it useful and when there is strong evidence and analysis that the privately funded option will help, or at least not harm, the publicly funded system. But is even that modest reform ruled out for another decade? Even if it might save the lives and health of some patients who cannot cope with their utter incompetence?
More broadly, even if there is some flexibility in some respects (even if the federal government is less likely to scold private provider options, albeit publicly funded). , is this series of deals really the result of open discussion, fresh thinking, and the real reform we need?
of Romanow Royal Commission It had an effect on the future of healthcare in Canada. At the time, the system was in a state of strain, with many words being heard and dismissed before simply being told that the same system needed to be expanded and cost more. No more choice for providers and patients, less bureaucracy, less room for innovation and experimentation at the state level.
This new set of deals could prove equally uninspiring and ineffective. It could turn out to be a placebo. It makes us feel better for a little while, but reality overtakes us. can no longer be picked up.
Views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Epoch Times.