Keith Hudson > > What you say can't be so because public services would have extinguished > private health services long ago. (Presumably, you still have private > health services in Canada?)
It's a publicly operated system, though, as I understand it, the clinics that doctors and various technicians operate out of are usually privately owned. Transfers from the federal government to the provinces, mandatory services, fees chargeable, etc., are determined under the Canada Health Act, a federal statute. All provinces and territories provide a range of health services that go beyond the requirements of the Canada Health Act. These include programs such as pharmacare, home care, ambulance services, and aids to independent living. They are provided at provincial and territorial discretion, and on their own terms and conditions. Major hospitals are operated by the provinces. There is no privately operated, for profit, health system parrellel to the public system in Canada, though whether there should be one has been a matter of some debate. The Royal Commission on Health Services recommended against it. > And then it depends from what point of view is the efficiency judged. In > England, for example, the public health services are often considered to > have improved in some regions when a new larger hospital is built. But, in > fact, this has been done at the expense of other social costs which now > have to be borne by the public. The new hospital has caused the demise of > several community hospitals (and village businesses which depended on > them), and the costs of visiting patients in hospital has shotsup > enormously. Many old people simply cannot visit their spouses in hospital > for lack of transport and inability to pay for taxi fares over long > distances. There is a trend away from smaller, community, hospitals to larger centrally located ones, but given the size of Canada many small hospitals will probably remain open because of limitations on how far people will want to t ravel for medical purposes. > No, I'm afraid you can't prove the case with the occasional Commission. > They can be cooked-up to prove anything that the government or the civil > service wants to hear. What should be looked at are the general trends -- > and across several countries. This is what MacRae was writing about. Public > services in several fields -- and health and education most noticeably -- > are now deteriorating in almost all developed countries despite, as in > England, much greater expenditures. The Commission I refered to, the Royal Commission on Health Services, was totally independent of government and took several years to do its work. It was not just an "occasional Commission". I don't think it arrived at its conclusions lightly. It researched health services in other countries, including the US and probably the UK. However, I would admit that it may have had a bias toward public systems because its chair was a former Premier of Saskatchewan, the cradle of Canada's public health system. With regard to education, it's rather remarkable that the public system here in Ontario is still holding up quite well despite underfunding (one can only wish for the "much greater expenditures" you refer to!). Mainstream courses - mathematics, sciences, the arts - are still being taught at a high level of quality. However, services catering to kids with special needs have been cut back. At my daughter's high school, there have also been cuts in janitorial services, so the Principal has had student volunteers help keep the school tidy as part of their required 40 hours of community service. Ed Ed Weick 577 Melbourne Ave. Ottawa, ON, K2A 1W7 Canada Phone (613) 728 4630 Fax (613) 728 9382 _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
