Let's examine the claims in this opinion: calgaryherald.com/opinion/column…
As with others making similar arguments, the author points out the surgeries already being performed in private facilities. The fact that something is already done doesn't make it a good idea. This is a huge expansion in the # and nature of private surgeries.
The author claims that there's no evidence the surgeries done in private facilities in Alberta are of lower quality. This is true. However, there's also no studies they are of equal or better quality. And there is evidence about lower quality for-profit care in other contexts.
The author claims that quality is tightly regulated in either public or private facilities. This may be true, but many studies still show discrepancies. Perhaps the gov should provide more detail on how it plans to regulate quality in these facilities to avoid this.
The author claims that Canada ranks poorly in terms of equity and that "countries with both government and independent health-care systems perform better than Canada." This is the basic correlation versus causation fallacy.
The author claims that I say that wealthy people will be able to buy faster access to these facilities. I didn't say this. I say that "this could be the first step in shifting towards that kind of private finance."
The author says that Canada also performs poorly on equity due to a failure to cover services such as physio, dental, and drugs. YES! This is so true! I'm definitely on board with expanding coverage for these services as are many others. This is the best part of the opinion.
The author also notes that caps and the failure to use the public system to its full capacity increases contributes to wait times. Again, yes, this is absolutely correct. So why turn to the private system without using the public one to its full capacity?
However, the author is incorrect that finite health professional hours won't result in reallocation of time to the private system. While surgeons may have caps, what about Alberta's shortage of anesthesiologists? And what about other health professionals?
The other elephant in the room in the opinion is cost. Who is going to pay for the $200 mill facility? Taxpayers will pay, one way or another, to build a private facility that will make some of the wealthiest specialists wealthier instead of using capacity in the public system.
Gah! I hate that twitter won't let you fix typos!
The organization where the author works is helping to bankroll a constitutional challenge to BC laws preventing two-tier care, including prohibitions on private insurance for publicly-insured services and extra billing.
