OK, after going back and reading through the original post again, I was guilty of reading "controlling health care costs" and translating that as "improving health care". Apologies to Steve, I'll go look for that remedial reading class now.

Who said anything about "improving health care"? Steve's article was about controlling health care costs.

I don’t think I need a remedial reading class – maybe you need a remedial writing class? [to Steve]

Really? You're the one who misunderstood what Steve wrote. Maybe you do need a remedial reading comprehension class.

This sure sounds like intentionally limiting access to try and get people to stay away.

"You aren't expending health care resources on that individual who just walked out of the waiting room who did not see a doctor, have his blood pressure taken, his weight recorded, and so forth. Further, he is not going home with a prescription"

He also isn't being treated. If all illnesses presented obvious symptoms, thsi would be fine. But how many people with high blood pressure know they have it? I don't think I need a remedial reading class - maybe you need a remedial writing class? Seriously, maybe that's not what youi meant, but it's very, very easy to take that meaning away from what you wrote.

"This is a bromide that many “nationalizers” push and it is one I have not seen one iota of evidence supporting."

It's also something many of the doctors here push. They don't enjoy the annual physical or wellness exam - which, incidentally, are now being covered by Blue Cross, who I doubt would do it if it wasn't cost-effective - but they strongly recommend it. And I don't think they're "nationalizers".

"That is not what I wrote, proposed or anything of the like. I’d recommend a remedial reading course."

Well, you said: "Simple, if you want to control for the dollar expenditures you can increase the opportunity costs. Triple the wait times."

If you're not trying to keep people away, by increasing the opportunity costs, and therefore apparently trying to tip the opportunity cost in favor of another activity (opportunity), then what is this part of your proposal attempting?

Oh, oh, call on me Steve, call on me!

The reason that Canada has monopolized health care, even of treatments they do not wish to provide, is so that there is no private system sucking up "resources" ( another word for people like doctors and nurses ) by offering them competitive wages.

kappiy, your comments are puzzling because Canada does equate these procedures as "health care" and regulates them into near non-existance. Canada, through their monopolization of health care system and resources and the mechanisms described, prevents any its citizens access to these procedures completely. They forbid "market based solutions" explicitly.

The idea of improving health care by limiting access is one of the loonier ideas I’ve heard as a solution to any problem.

Harry, I'd agree with you if that was indeed what I suggested. What I am suggesting is that limiting access is how you'd go about limiting the costs.

One of the problems we have now is the lack of preventative care and the lack of early intervention.

Oh please, this preventive care argument is so much baloney. Why don't HMOs do it? That is what they were designed to do, but they don't do it anymore. The reason is that preventive care is expensive. It requires more doctors, more nurses, more staff, and more facilities because access has to be easier.

This is a bromide that many "nationalizers" push and it is one I have not seen one iota of evidence supporting.

And you propose to improve the situation by doing something that will keep even more people away from medical care?

That is not what I wrote, proposed or anything of the like. I'd recommend a remedial reading course.

There is another reason to limit IVF. Recent studies are showing IVF babies suffer continuing health problems. This does impact the Canadian health care system.

Like I said, limit access to control costs.

A better solution would be to make IVF treatment entirely market based. Meaning, there would be no public moneys spent on regulation (for health and safety), and women would be free to sellf their eggs at will.

I don't have a problem with this, but I bet Canada's health administrators would. Can you guess why?

It is a non-essential medical procedure--it's no different, qualitatively, from a nose-job.

Because it is a medical procedure, the state regulatory structure on medicine expends resources on making sure facilities are safe, doctors are qualified, etc...Any governmental support that utilized to regulate such activity is a waste of public resources.

A better solution would be to make IVF treatment entirely market based. Meaning, there would be no public moneys spent on regulation (for health and safety), and women would be free to sellf their eggs at will.

It is important in this case not to equate all medical procedures with "health care."

When we went through it, we paid out-of-pocket at a local clinic in Pasadena, California. Why can't it be likewise handled privately in Canada? And where, exactly, does the Canadian government get off forbidding college students from making a little money by selling their eggs to older couples who can use them?

Maggie, I'd be interested in seeing your links on the health problems supposedly experienced by IVF babies. In any event, your solution--that couples just give up on biological parenthood, la di da--strikes me as particularly heartless.

It seems logical for the Canadians to increase opportunity costs on lavish, non-essential procedures like IVF or plastic surgery.