Sir Farquhar Buzzard, a famous British MD of many years past, once noted that the proper role of the doctor is not to treat a 'disease', but to treat his 'patient'.

And, in that light, the proper role of Medicare is NOT to provide just 'health care'. But 'healthcare TO THE INDIVIDUAL.'

Haven't we overlooked those last three words ~ TO THE INDIVIDUAL ~ for too long now? And in doing so, have we not substituted a 'means' for an 'end'in the process? Isn't that the largest part of the problem?

For we can provide 'healthcare', and we do.
If the 'individual' is suffering from the 'right' disease or other ailment, that is. If he is, he'll get quick and thorough treatment.

Just have a heart attack. A bad one, but still one that can be relieved by immediate by-pass surgery. The air ambulance will jet you into a major Vancouver hospital, and they'll have you under the knife and on the road to either wellness, or the morgue, faster than you can remember the name of the Minister of Health!

Was there a shortage of service there? Did you gasp your last breath a day and a half after being flown in, without the medical team even assessing you? No, in all likelihood, you didn't. They were all ready to go when you arrived. Because you were suffering from one of the 'right' ailments.

But what if you weren't? Then you wait. Why? Because there is no way, other than through 'incidence statistics' to properly allocate available medical resources. Why not? Because we in our perverted belief that a 'profit' is something Satanic, without ever even taking the time to learn what a 'profit' really is, have allowed those who mistakenly see all 'profit' as evil, to try to determine things which, in the abscence of 'profit' cannot be determined. That's why not. And that's also why the never ending debate will be never ending, while a greater and greater portion of our healthcare budget is absorbed uselessly.

Let me give you but one example of what I'm on about. Laser vision correction is not covered by Medicare in most instances. It is considered 'cosmetic' surgery for those too vain to wear glasses or contact lenses, or, in a few instances, unable to, because of their occupation, etc.

When Dr. Gimble, in Alberta, I believe, first began doing these procedures the cost to the patient was quite expensive. Someone said it was around $ 5,000 an eye, but in any case, whatever the amount, it wasn't cheap. And no doubt it was profitable.

Must have been, because now there are a profusion of opthalmologists who have learned how to do it, and are performing the same procedure. And the price? It's advertised in some places for around $ 500 an eye. Possibly, in time to come, it will be even lower than that.

The point is, 'profit', fundamentally the "financial indication of the correctness of some line of entrepreneurial activity", led to the LOWERING of that price 'to the individual'. Which, in this case, he or she pays directly to the practitioner.

Now, if we'd forget about the 'evil' of 'profit' long enough to look beyond it, I think we'd very soon discover that it ISN'T 'profit' at all that was ever the REAL PROBLEM with funding healthcare.

It was, to put it shortly, trying to make something sufficient by 're-distributing' an insufficient means to it. That 'means' is MONEY, and no amount of redistribution of an 'insuffiency' will ever a 'sufficiency' make.

"He (Dix) either doesn’t want to recall,..."

Part of politics is to take full credit for positive events that happened one way or the other and to sweep negative happenings under the dusty rug of voter amnesia.

*Whatever you do - don't mention our past fumbling...*

Mr. Dix and his fellow MLAs are fully aware of the *dismal decade* but will never admit any wrongdoing or mismanagement. It was all due to global circumstances.

Minimize one's own failures and maximize the shortcomings of others is the second oldest political game in the world. The idea is to make hay and get votes.

Facts of life, Ben.

I find it interesting how one day NH can claim a revenue surplus and the next state they are in dire straits. I think this is more to do with administration. Any surpluses are spent on new facilities, thereby increasing the costs. Not that we don't need it, but the explanation of the lack of funds was two seperate issues spun into one. Last time I checked acute care and longterm care are two completely different things!

"It also means people putting aside political partisanship and fighting together in common cause."

The words of Peter Ewart in another article today on Opinion250. Maybe he is right, Ben.

Socredible really doesn't understand what the objection to profit taking in health care is all about or, at least, pretends not to. He seems to think it is based on a belief that profit making in and of itself is objectionable. That is nonsense. Profit making is behind many industries and is a fundamental aspect of our society.

None, and I mean absolutely none, of the people I know who are opposed to profit making in the health care industry are in the least concerned about profit making in the retail clothing industry, as an example. It is not the profit making in and of itself that is the problem, although I personally find investment profits from the exploitation of disease, as opposed to being paid a salary, less than desirable.

The problem is that funding is controlled by government and they predetermine how much money to provide for whatever services they approve in health care. Health care is an intensely and closely controlled area. Everything that is done is cost controlled minutely. These statements about costs being out of control is nonsense propaganda. Costs are very tightly controlled. For that very reason there is absolutely NO spare money available, with the possible exception of a top heavy and still growing administration.

For a private company to come in and make a profit providing services currently provided by the public system would require them to save some money on those costs, and you can bet your life that savings will not come from the administrative area. As an example of administrative attitudes, in the past when a reduction in administration personnel was mandated, the Administrator at the time, Dennis Cleaver, decided that cleaners were administrative and laid some off, then claimed he had reduced personnel in administration. That's the kind of cynical crap people have to deal with, but in the real world, the only way to save money is to lower wages or to reduce the number of services.

That is the reason profit taking is distasteful. Either the profits come from money taken out of the mouths of employees, usually the lowest paid to begin with, or fewer procedures are done and people wait even longer than they do now. Profits come at the expense of the patients, that is the objection.

""We need more health care, no doubt, we have a problem the costs of that health care is going through the roof and soon the bulk of your tax money will go to funding it.""

I would much rather see the tax money I pay going towards our health care, rather than:

2010 Olympics
Paletinian Authority
Paving Roads in Afghanistan
Native Language Grants
Arts Societies

just to name a few of the less desireable places to spend our tax dollars, in my opinion.

I can't disagree with you, Ammonra, but I think we're talking about two separate things here.

There's no doubt what you say about 'profit', the way things ARE RIGHT NOW, is quite true.

My point, however, is that IF 'money' were sufficient, (in our whole economy, not just healthcare, because, really, the 'problem' prevades our whole economy, then the only thing that would determine whether healthcare to the individual could be delivered or not, would be the actual physical reality of being able to deliver it. Not, as now, a highly flawed 'financially' supposed refection of that actual reality. Where, because 'money' is scarce, the provision of what may often be physically possible is made artificially scarce too.

Ammonra, I have to ask if you are serious about the paragraph that includes the sentences; "Healthcare is an intensely and closely controlled area". "Everything that is done is cost controlled minutely." and "These statements about costs being out of control is nonsense propaganda"?

If you truly believe that, we have other problems. Our present form of healthcare is not working. More money thrown at it does not change the situation. Until we recognize and acknowledge that what we are doing isn't working, we will never be enjoying a different outcome. I beg to differ. Chester

Chester, your statements in regards to throwing more money at the system hit the spot.

Already other avenues are being explored. These may lead to reducing the demands on the healthcare system by cleaning up the environment and people doing more to prevent preventable illnesses due to poor diet, smoking, drinking and not enough physical exercise.

Some doctors are already refusing to have patients who will not respond to suggestions or requests to change their life styles and eliminate harmful habits.

Throwing more money at the problem alone will not cure the shortcomings.