Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
I was asking for your observation.
|
then i'd have to say the cost of healthcare. I can't see any legitimate political party that wants to increase the medical costs of their own constituency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
The idea behind our system sprang from a need: Saskatchewan had a shortage of doctors and the province ended up subsidizing the doctors required to fill the gap. This eventually led to the first of several publicly funded universal health care systems in Canada.
The history of our system is based on a number of provinces building public options for health care and then finally receiving support federally to help cover shortfalls. It will be a much different history than what you'll see the States. That's a different creature.
I guess you could say we first focused on access to health care. Once that is out of the way, the ongoing challenge is to manage the costs and the funding, especially with an aging population.
I'm not saying it's easy, but I would say managing the costs and revising the system is a better option than pulling the plug on what's essentially a groundbreaking piece of legislation. It will reduce the deficit while removing millions of Americans from those who remain amongst the uninsured.
Should it be repealed? In my opinion, no.
Is there room for improvement? Yes.
|
so if I understand the canadian healthcare dilemma, it started because of a lack of doctors? why?
as large as this bill is, do we still really know whats all in it? I say it should be repealed and replace with a simpler piece of legislation that handles the immediate need of controlling the costs of healthcare.