Dr Danielle Martin followed Mr Romanow's speech by arguing that evidence has shown publicly delivered, not-for-profit healthcare to be cheaper and of a higher quality than private, for-profit care. Another advantage, she said, can be seen in the difference between administrative costs in the healthcare systems of the United States and Canada. In the US, administrative costs represent 31% of health spending; in Canada that figure is just 1.3%.
Dr Martin also argued that medicare has not only served patients well but has also been beneficial financially to physicians. In the 1970s and 80s, she said, budget cuts pushed doctors to charge patients directly for care. The Canada Health Act relieved doctors of that burden and instituted a national system that established how physicians would be paid, which in turn, Dr Martin said, led to improved collegiality among doctors because there was less inequality in pay for similar work.
But Dr Martin's goal is not simply to prevent change. She believes, like Dr Doig and Mr Romanow and many others, that medicare must adapt with the times. Dr Martin's goal is to make sure that those adaptations don't threaten the principles that made medicare so valuable to Canadians in the first place. ?A better medicare is possible,? she said.
I know a few doctors in Canada, none complain about compensation, its hrs worked and stress which as pointed out has barriers within the medical profession training, both sides.
Its imploding like most vocations due to boomer retiremnets and same said boomers now requiring more treatment in their senior years. we really need user fees to help prop the costs and to cull the unecessary visits.
My dad has 100's of thousands in the bank, but bemoans paying 15 dollars a month for his heart drugs THAT ARE KEEPING HIM ALIVE due to his lifestyle choices.
Go figure