Private health care more expensive than public.

For years now we've heard the neo-conservative elements of society complaining that public health care is too expensive and that the private sector could do a much better job for less money. Well here's proof that the market can't do the same job for less money than the publicly funded health system. Seems the super-whahoo private emergency clinic can't make a profit on what the government pays for emergency procedures. Funny how the private sector can't do the same job the public sector can for less money.

Of course the reason for this is painfully obvious to anyone with even a basic understanding of economics. The public health system, as a government run operation, is under no obligation to make a profit. It just has to break even. So we now have a private company trying to do the same thing and make a profit. The difficulty here is the private company has the same inputs (equipment, doctors, nurses, etc.) but has to have a return on the investment of money. Since the money that the public system gets is just enough to pay for the need there's no margin for profit at the rates the government pays. So the False Creek Clinic has to make a profit off of a service that has no margin for profit. The only way the False Creek Urgent Care Centre can make a profit is to pay less for it's inputs, which would mean that they wouldn't have any staff; or to charge for it's services which would violate the Canada Health Act.

So expect to hear from the neo-cons whining about how the Canada Health Act is keeping a company from making a profit off of sick rich people who want to que jump. It's a shame when their own arguments come back to bite them on the rear. If the private sector can do things better and cheaper, then the False Creek Urgent Care Centre should have no problem making a profit from what the health system pays. If not, then they should find economies to make a profit, not complain that the government doesn't pay them enough since the neo-cons have complained that the government already pays too much for health care. I suspect that this will show the neo-con's true colours when it comes to health care. It's not the argument that a publicly run system is more expensive than a privately run one. It's that private businesses can't make a profit and provide services based on need rather than ability to pay.

The ability to pay is the central tenet of the neo-con. If you can't afford something, in their view, you don't deserve it, period. This goes to the necessities of life including health care and education. In the eyes of the neo-con, if you get sick or injured and you're not wealthy enough to afford the health care you need to get back to being a productive member of society, well that's too bad, you shouldn't have gotten sick or injured in the first place (and I've had arguments with neo-cons who have said that). They seem to think that health care is the same type of good as, say, luxury cars. Not everyone has equal access to a luxury car so why should everyone have equal access to health care?

I think much of the problem with the neo-con thinking is a complete lack of ability to see beyond next year's tax return (or worse, next quarter's profits). After all, they're not sick or injured at this instant so why should they pay for health care they're not using at the moment. We've had socialized medicine in this country for so long now that most people don't realize what out of pocket expenses they'd have if they had to pay for it themselves. This makes it easier for the neo-cons to tell them that if we eliminated public health care, they'd get an easy extra grand or so a year in tax relief. Sound good until you realize that a one day stay in the average ER (based on the sign in the Red Deer regional hospital, for out of country patients) is about $1000. So it wouldn't take many trips to the doctor to eat up that tax savings. Now if you're youngish without living parents or children this could be a good deal, as long as you don't work at a job that could cause an injury. If you're not young though, it will cost you more in the long run, especially if you have kids or have to care for elderly parents.

It's all in the message. If the neo-cons are successful in convincing people that a short term financial gain is more important than long term financial security, we may lose our public health system. If those of us of a more progressive bent keep reminding people that without the public health system, an accident could leave you destitute, the system may yet still have a chance at survival.