IMHO, both Roland and Mervyn have raised important points. They are also points which the public and Govt will try to duck as long as possible.
There is no doubt that: 1: IF high calibre professionals feel constrained (by way of unreasonable taxation and salary caps), they will move to other jurisdictions, OR take vacations when a certain financial bar is reached ( as I believe happens in Canada). The lack of funding issue is something which has also affected the top UNIs in the UK. They have lost some of the top profs to UNIs in the US. Besides, It cannot be that politicians and professional sportspersons can earn ad infinitum, but not doctors. 2: Doctors too, have to be reasonable with what they charge their patients - or else, ethics apart, patients too can (and do) move to other jurisdictions. 3: Professionals and the general populace would have been more accommodating IF Govts had moved out of the Tax and Wastefully Spend routine they presently are engaged in. In short, Govts should stay clear of "controlling health care delivery or education" except in the case of those who cannot really afford it. Controlling professionals is highly unlikely to succeed esp in the presence of unreasonably high Tax and Waste and in an environment of inefficiency jc ps: I realize that there is a danger of creating a two tier system of health care education; the option is to bring every body down to the LCD. Pardon any Typos. This IPad does some curious auto- corrections On May 28, 2012, at 9:41 AM, "Roland Francis" <[email protected]> wrote: > Mervyn, > It's not anymore about what you or I feel the Canadian medical professional > should earn. That ship sailed when the government realized that there's > little money in the kitty. > > The best that can happen for them is that future increases will not be as > generous as in the past. The worst, that current levels will be slashed. > Your theory about doctors fleeing to other jurisdictions is untrue. In the > past several years those who have determined that money is their prime > consideration have already left Canada. The ones remaining have decided for > themselves that their practice or research or quality of family life or > whatever, is best served by remaining in Canada. In fact it is known that > many who left have since returned. > > You don't have to worry about doctors' second incomes coming from > pharmaceutical and drug companies. If you have been in the financial sector > in Canada long enough, you would have seen how the Ontario Securities > Commission banned mutual fund companies from plying financial professionals > with all sorts of 'incentives' and payments. There is no reason to see why > the CMA under regulatory pressure can't do the same for physicians. > > The bottom line Mervyn is that the Government cannot let us walk away from a > heart bypass costing $150,000 or cancer surgery costing even more with zero > dollars from our pockets. Unless they start making sensible cuts to the > system that will still allow us to enjoy that medical freedom. > > Roland. > Toronto. > > > A medical professional in Canada earns less than his counterpart in the US > or the UK. Medical professionals are highly mobile. If you want them to > remain in Canada, they have to receive decent wages and/or research > facilities. > Secondly, I want to be treated by a professional who earns a decent wage and > not by someone who needs a second income from the drug manufactures in order > to make ends meet. > Thirdly, I believe everyone who earns $300,000 to $400,000 a year richly > deserves that income. The people who make that kind of money had to overcome > a lot of barriers to reach there. In the case of medical professionals, the > barriers are usually in the form of training and examinations. > > 01Mervyn >
