DEVTOME.COM HOSTING COSTS HAVE BEGUN TO EXCEED 115$ MONTHLY. THE ADMINISTRATION IS NO LONGER ABLE TO HANDLE THE COST WITHOUT ASSISTANCE DUE TO THE RISING COST. THIS HAS BEEN OCCURRING FOR ALMOST A YEAR, BUT WE HAVE BEEN HANDLING IT FROM OUR OWN POCKETS. HOWEVER, WITH LITERALLY NO DONATIONS FOR THE PAST 2+ YEARS IT HAS DEPLETED THE BUDGET IN SHORT ORDER WITH THE INCREASE IN ACTIVITY ON THE SITE IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS. OUR CPU USAGE HAS BECOME TOO HIGH TO REMAIN ON A REASONABLE COSTING PLAN THAT WE COULD MAINTAIN. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT THE DEVTOME PROJECT AND KEEP THE SITE UP/ALIVE PLEASE DONATE (EVEN IF ITS A SATOSHI) TO OUR DEVCOIN 1M4PCuMXvpWX6LHPkBEf3LJ2z1boZv4EQa OR OUR BTC WALLET 16eqEcqfw4zHUh2znvMcmRzGVwCn7CJLxR TO ALLOW US TO AFFORD THE HOSTING.

THE DEVCOIN AND DEVTOME PROJECTS ARE BOTH VERY IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY. PLEASE CONTRIBUTE TO ITS FURTHER SUCCESS FOR ANOTHER 5 OR MORE YEARS!

Should the Privatization of Canada’s Health Care be Allowed?

The Canadian health system is currently in a state of flux. It is becoming more and more expensive as each year passes by. The government is putting more and more money into the system to try and keep up with the rising costs of the medial system, but the quality of the services are declining. One of the possible solutions to this problem is the privatization of the services in the health care. Privatization is the process of transferring the public ownership of services to private companies. It is essentially transferring public supported services like food and cleaning into the private sector, where private companies can provide their own staff usually at cheaper costs. To provide salaries for their employees, private companies usually include user fees to their services.

There are many advantages towards the privatization of healthcare. One of the key advantages is that the government can redirect its spending on other areas of health. When privatization occurs in the hospitals, employees that work for the hospital are replaced with cheaper employees hired by private companies. This is thought of an act of redirecting money because the government will no longer have to pay for the services anymore. The private companies will manage these services by charging user-fees to the public. Logic can be used to verify this statement. The government provided the salaries for the employees in the hospitals. And then they are laid off and replaced with private companies that supply their own employees. That means that the government does not have to provide salaries for the employees anymore, and now they are left with money to use in other areas of health. Also, this statement can be verified by the authorities. Many authorities that have some background knowledge about privatization can tell us that money will indeed be redirected into other aspects of health and that private companies will replace them with cheaper employees.

Another advantage is that privatization allows for addition options of healthcare to exist. The population of Canada is growing older and older. Because of this, there will be an increase in the demand of healthcare services. These demands are met by the government by increasing taxes or reducing other government sponsored programs. Since the governments are reluctant to raise taxes, there is a tendency to delay the situation until a problem is critical before acting. If privatization is allowed in Canada, then this burden for healthcare can be taken up by the private sector and individuals. We can use our memory, logic and the authorities to verify this. [Insert Memory]

So if privatization is allowed in Canada, we know that private companies will come in and offer these services, because there will be a demand for it. It is logical that if there is a high demand for services, companies will seize this opportunity to make profit. And since we logically know that the government does not want to risk or endanger their chances of winning another election, they won’t do something extreme like raising taxes and taking money from other government funded programs because not many people will vote for them.

Opponents argue that privatization will lead to more problems, such as the decreased quality of health services, and the adverse selection of those who can access health care. When private companies take over, they will use less expensive staff to perform the job. Through our intuition, we feel that this means that the quality of the services will be compromised. We feel that cheaper staff means that they are less qualified. We are unsure if the new staff can do a decent job. Even though they are less expensive, if they can perform the duties to the satisfaction of the patients, then privatization will be the solution. However, authorities have stated that, in BC, the Liberal Government has already privatized part of the services in our hospitals – the cleaning and cooking departments, causing big concerns in society and much debates. We can further verify this through the authority of Cupe.Com. A recent report from this site indicates that in an American hospital, cost cuts have made janitors overwhelmed and inadequately trained, resulting in unsanitary rooms or wards where germs have grown and multiplied for weeks, sometimes years, on bed rails, telephones, bathroom fixtures almost anywhere. They have failed to properly sanitize portions of their facilities, a shortcoming that can colonize new patients with lingering germs. However, we cannot rely on the authorities as a main source of verification. There could be biases which heights one side. The overall quality of health care that Canadians are so proud of will definitely be jeopardized. It may be unsafe or hazardous to our patients too. We cannot take this risk when it comes to human lives. There is no exact, scientific method to verify quality, and there are many things we cannot know exactly, we can use our self-perspectives to see what is bad when we noticed people are getting ill from the food they are eating.

Another disadvantage of privatization is the adverse selection of those who can actually access the health care services. By using logic, we deduct that all citizens have to have insurance to cover themselves for the health care because the government is not providing it anymore.

This will cause tremendous problems for seniors or patients that have long term illnesses. These people are considered by insurance companies as higher risk candidates and they may not be able to obtain adequate health insurance at an affordable cost, or even worse being totally denied to be covered. Through our intuition and self-awareness we feel that everybody needs to survive and maintain or improve their quality of life. This is the same with insurance companies, who are profit makers and they will probably not do business if they can predict that there will be a huge profit loss. These patients definitely require extensive and expensive health care. The insurance companies will charge them exceptionally high premium to cover their backs, or if the risk is too high, simply deny them. This is how the business world operates. It is logical that all companies must gain profits if they are to stay alive. And we know that this is a good reason to think about if we should privatize our health care system as ultimately, only those who have financial abilities will be able to access proper and the much needed healthcare. The vulnerable will be left behind.

In conclusion, we are definitely against privatization because do not believe that this is the best solution to solve our declining health care system.

We learned that there is no universal method of verifying what we take to be true because each of the reasons that are used to justify our knowledge have major flaws in them. For example, authorities might not be credible and optical illusions can counter self perception.

Remember when we said authorities who have some background knowledge about privatization tell us that money will be redirected into other aspects of health. But the problem is, like we said at first, how credible are these authorities? Can we trust them at all? How do we know that they are not biased. Many authorities don’t consider both sides of the issue. They usually support one side and ignore the other. And if they do consider both sides of an issue, how do we know that they won’t downside one side and make their side look more important. We can not be 100 percent certain that laying off government employees is a sure way of saving money because our health care is supported by the taxpayers. When you are laying off employees, a majority of them will be without any source of income. There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of employees that work for the hospitals. If they are laid off, they won’t be able to pay their taxes to support the healthcare system.

Also, when we presented that, through charging user-fees, privatization and private companies can provide our healthcare for us in no other ways the government can, how do we know that people will have enough money to go to these services? If people do not have enough money, isn’t that the same thing as not having the clinics at all because they cannot go.

We suggest, instead of privatizing our Canadian health care, we should have a two tier system. That way, the public offices can exist parallel with private companies and clinics.


QR Code
QR Code private_health_care (generated for current page)
 

Advertise with Anonymous Ads