Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[dismalist]

...

Except there is no such thing as customers in single payer or socialized medicine. Physicians already have more patients than they can see on any given day. Hence why there are often long wait times in these systems. There are only so many hours in a day that a physician can work. Whether they spend 10 hours seeing patients with diabetes or 290 hours seeing patients for gender affirming care, they are paid the exact same. There is no incentive to providing gender affirming care in such systems, since physicians are already overworked and get paid the same regardless of who they see or for what those patients are seen. There are already more than enough patients to go around (look at Canada and how many Canadian are without a family doctor). There is simply no monetary incentive in places like Canada to provide gender affirming care. It's just the right, ethical thing to do, even when physicians actually lose money on providing it, because other forms of care take less time and fewer resources. Physicians actually earn less sometimes, prove gender affirming care, so definitely no financial incentive at all in those circumstances.

I don't think those of you who haven't worked in healthcare in places like Canada or Germany realize that there is no need to find new patient groups. It's hard enough providing appropriate care to existing patients. There is no nice to find new patients at all. I realize the U.S. with its perverse health care system, is very different. But that's just not the case in most high income countries. People are actually providing gender affirming care at a loss to their income, because it can take more time and effort. You could see three sore throats in the time it might take you to provide gender affirming care. So you get paid 1/3 what you could have made if you just saw those sore throats. Wow, getting paid less is such a huge incentive!

The descriptions are nothing more than price discrimination -- if there are not enough sore throats at $1, I am better off with three gender affirmations at $0.33. It's like "financial aid"!

Political clout to get more through the government is what's at issue in Bevanian and Bismarckian systems. Many work in public bureaucracies [private one's are not immune]. Is there anyone on this discussion board who is against an expansion of higher education?

[MarathonRunner]

...

Except there is no such thing as customers in single payer or socialized medicine. Physicians already have more patients than they can see on any given day. Hence why there are often long wait times in these systems. There are only so many hours in a day that a physician can work. Whether they spend 10 hours seeing patients with diabetes or 290 hours seeing patients for gender affirming care, they are paid the exact same. There is no incentive to providing gender affirming care in such systems, since physicians are already overworked and get paid the same regardless of who they see or for what those patients are seen. There are already more than enough patients to go around (look at Canada and how many Canadian are without a family doctor). There is simply no monetary incentive in places like Canada to provide gender affirming care. It's just the right, ethical thing to do, even when physicians actually lose money on providing it, because other forms of care take less time and fewer resources. Physicians actually earn less sometimes, prove gender affirming care, so definitely no financial incentive at all in those circumstances.

I don't think those of you who haven't worked in healthcare in places like Canada or Germany realize that there is no need to find new patient groups. It's hard enough providing appropriate care to existing patients. There is no nice to find new patients at all. I realize the U.S. with its perverse health care system, is very different. But that's just not the case in most high income countries. People are actually providing gender affirming care at a loss to their income, because it can take more time and effort. You could see three sore throats in the time it might take you to provide gender affirming care. So you get paid 1/3 what you could have made if you just saw those sore throats. Wow, getting paid less is such a huge incentive!

The descriptions are nothing more than price discrimination -- if there are not enough sore throats at $1, I am better off with three gender affirmations at $0.33. It's like "financial aid"!

Political clout to get more through the government is what's at issue in Bevanian and Bismarckian systems. Many work in public bureaucracies [private one's are not immune]. Is there anyone on this discussion board who is against an expansion of higher education?

Unless we suddenly have a new baby boom, I see no need for an expansion in higher education, at least in Canada. Programs are being closed in some Canadian universities, as there is low enrolment in those programs, and while that is sad, it is reality. In Canada, at least, I think we need universities to focus on their strengths, and invest in those. Ontario has many universities, do all of them need to offer all programs? We already specialize with programs like medicine, optometry, dietetics, education, veterinary medicine, with only one to a few universities in Ontario offering those programs. Why not do that with programs like engineering, sociology, psychology, business, computer science, etc. Let universities focus on their areas of strength and the synergies that go with those strengths.

[dismalist]

...

Except there is no such thing as customers in single payer or socialized medicine. Physicians already have more patients than they can see on any given day. Hence why there are often long wait times in these systems. There are only so many hours in a day that a physician can work. Whether they spend 10 hours seeing patients with diabetes or 290 hours seeing patients for gender affirming care, they are paid the exact same. There is no incentive to providing gender affirming care in such systems, since physicians are already overworked and get paid the same regardless of who they see or for what those patients are seen. There are already more than enough patients to go around (look at Canada and how many Canadian are without a family doctor). There is simply no monetary incentive in places like Canada to provide gender affirming care. It's just the right, ethical thing to do, even when physicians actually lose money on providing it, because other forms of care take less time and fewer resources. Physicians actually earn less sometimes, prove gender affirming care, so definitely no financial incentive at all in those circumstances.

I don't think those of you who haven't worked in healthcare in places like Canada or Germany realize that there is no need to find new patient groups. It's hard enough providing appropriate care to existing patients. There is no nice to find new patients at all. I realize the U.S. with its perverse health care system, is very different. But that's just not the case in most high income countries. People are actually providing gender affirming care at a loss to their income, because it can take more time and effort. You could see three sore throats in the time it might take you to provide gender affirming care. So you get paid 1/3 what you could have made if you just saw those sore throats. Wow, getting paid less is such a huge incentive!

The descriptions are nothing more than price discrimination -- if there are not enough sore throats at $1, I am better off with three gender affirmations at $0.33. It's like "financial aid"!

Political clout to get more through the government is what's at issue in Bevanian and Bismarckian systems. Many work in public bureaucracies [private one's are not immune]. Is there anyone on this discussion board who is against an expansion of higher education?

Unless we suddenly have a new baby boom, I see no need for an expansion in higher education, at least in Canada. Programs are being closed in some Canadian universities, as there is low enrolment in those programs, and while that is sad, it is reality. In Canada, at least, I think we need universities to focus on their strengths, and invest in those. Ontario has many universities, do all of them need to offer all programs? We already specialize with programs like medicine, optometry, dietetics, education, veterinary medicine, with only one to a few universities in Ontario offering those programs. Why not do that with programs like engineering, sociology, psychology, business, computer science, etc. Let universities focus on their areas of strength and the synergies that go with those strengths.

And the money that is saved will be used to reduce taxes? :-)

[ciao_yall]

And the money that is saved will be used to reduce taxes? :-)

No, it will go to elder care because there are not enough young workers paying into Social Security, Medicare and other programs for retirees.

[dismalist]

And the money that is saved will be used to reduce taxes? :-)

No, it will go to elder care because there are not enough young workers paying into Social Security, Medicare and other programs for retirees.

You hope! :-)

[dismalist]

--Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

No. Science is a culture of evidence.

Here's evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsqTz4zg8Xk [Two minutes from Yes, Prime Minister]

What does the evidence suggest? :-)

[Wahoo Redux]

Unless we suddenly have a new baby boom, I see no need for an expansion in higher education, at least in Canada. Programs are being closed in some Canadian universities, as there is low enrolment in those programs, and while that is sad, it is reality. In Canada, at least, I think we need universities to focus on their strengths, and invest in those. Ontario has many universities, do all of them need to offer all programs? We already specialize with programs like medicine, optometry, dietetics, education, veterinary medicine, with only one to a few universities in Ontario offering those programs. Why not do that with programs like engineering, sociology, psychology, business, computer science, etc. Let universities focus on their areas of strength and the synergies that go with those strengths.

I think we are there already, aren't we?

[marshwiggle]

...

Except there is no such thing as customers in single payer or socialized medicine. Physicians already have more patients than they can see on any given day. Hence why there are often long wait times in these systems. There are only so many hours in a day that a physician can work. Whether they spend 10 hours seeing patients with diabetes or 290 hours seeing patients for gender affirming care, they are paid the exact same. There is no incentive to providing gender affirming care in such systems, since physicians are already overworked and get paid the same regardless of who they see or for what those patients are seen. There are already more than enough patients to go around (look at Canada and how many Canadian are without a family doctor). There is simply no monetary incentive in places like Canada to provide gender affirming care. It's just the right, ethical thing to do, even when physicians actually lose money on providing it, because other forms of care take less time and fewer resources. Physicians actually earn less sometimes, prove gender affirming care, so definitely no financial incentive at all in those circumstances.

I don't think those of you who haven't worked in healthcare in places like Canada or Germany realize that there is no need to find new patient groups. It's hard enough providing appropriate care to existing patients. There is no nice to find new patients at all. I realize the U.S. with its perverse health care system, is very different. But that's just not the case in most high income countries. People are actually providing gender affirming care at a loss to their income, because it can take more time and effort. You could see three sore throats in the time it might take you to provide gender affirming care. So you get paid 1/3 what you could have made if you just saw those sore throats. Wow, getting paid less is such a huge incentive!

The descriptions are nothing more than price discrimination -- if there are not enough sore throats at $1, I am better off with three gender affirmations at $0.33. It's like "financial aid"!

Political clout to get more through the government is what's at issue in Bevanian and Bismarckian systems. Many work in public bureaucracies [private one's are not immune]. Is there anyone on this discussion board who is against an expansion of higher education?

Unless we suddenly have a new baby boom, I see no need for an expansion in higher education, at least in Canada. Programs are being closed in some Canadian universities, as there is low enrolment in those programs, and while that is sad, it is reality. In Canada, at least, I think we need universities to focus on their strengths, and invest in those. Ontario has many universities, do all of them need to offer all programs? We already specialize with programs like medicine, optometry, dietetics, education, veterinary medicine, with only one to a few universities in Ontario offering those programs. Why not do that with programs like engineering, sociology, psychology, business, computer science, etc. Let universities focus on their areas of strength and the synergies that go with those strengths.

The difficulty is with the departments that provide service to lots of others. Math, for instance, is required by lots of other disciplines, so what "credit" should that give them in retaining their own major even if the enrollment is low?

[MarathonRunner]

...

Except there is no such thing as customers in single payer or socialized medicine. Physicians already have more patients than they can see on any given day. Hence why there are often long wait times in these systems. There are only so many hours in a day that a physician can work. Whether they spend 10 hours seeing patients with diabetes or 290 hours seeing patients for gender affirming care, they are paid the exact same. There is no incentive to providing gender affirming care in such systems, since physicians are already overworked and get paid the same regardless of who they see or for what those patients are seen. There are already more than enough patients to go around (look at Canada and how many Canadian are without a family doctor). There is simply no monetary incentive in places like Canada to provide gender affirming care. It's just the right, ethical thing to do, even when physicians actually lose money on providing it, because other forms of care take less time and fewer resources. Physicians actually earn less sometimes, prove gender affirming care, so definitely no financial incentive at all in those circumstances.

I don't think those of you who haven't worked in healthcare in places like Canada or Germany realize that there is no need to find new patient groups. It's hard enough providing appropriate care to existing patients. There is no nice to find new patients at all. I realize the U.S. with its perverse health care system, is very different. But that's just not the case in most high income countries. People are actually providing gender affirming care at a loss to their income, because it can take more time and effort. You could see three sore throats in the time it might take you to provide gender affirming care. So you get paid 1/3 what you could have made if you just saw those sore throats. Wow, getting paid less is such a huge incentive!

The descriptions are nothing more than price discrimination -- if there are not enough sore throats at $1, I am better off with three gender affirmations at $0.33. It's like "financial aid"!

Political clout to get more through the government is what's at issue in Bevanian and Bismarckian systems. Many work in public bureaucracies [private one's are not immune]. Is there anyone on this discussion board who is against an expansion of higher education?

Unless we suddenly have a new baby boom, I see no need for an expansion in higher education, at least in Canada. Programs are being closed in some Canadian universities, as there is low enrolment in those programs, and while that is sad, it is reality. In Canada, at least, I think we need universities to focus on their strengths, and invest in those. Ontario has many universities, do all of them need to offer all programs? We already specialize with programs like medicine, optometry, dietetics, education, veterinary medicine, with only one to a few universities in Ontario offering those programs. Why not do that with programs like engineering, sociology, psychology, business, computer science, etc. Let universities focus on their areas of strength and the synergies that go with those strengths.

The difficulty is with the departments that provide service to lots of others. Math, for instance, is required by lots of other disciplines, so what "credit" should that give them in retaining their own major even if the enrollment is low?

That's why I said synergies. Engineering programs obviously require math, as do plenty of other disciplines, from dietetics to psychology to business and others. So if enough programs require math, keep the math department. But is it really worth hiring a math advisor (not faculty at any Canadian university I've attended) or keeping all the math-major specific courses if you only have two math majors enrolling each year? Same with things like chemistry. Obviously many programs need chemistry up to even third year. But if there are only 3 chem majors, is it viable to offer the specialized fourth year chem courses that are only open to chem majors? I'm not in charge, obviously, but I don't think every single program needs to be offered at every single university. Like I said, we already have that with professional programs, but not so much with the generic BAs, BScs, etc. I'm just looking at what has happened recently. I'd rather all Canadian universities offer many different programs, but given funding, program closures, etc., I think specialization may help more than hurt. But I'm definitely no expert.

[Parasaurolophus]

Per the discussion in the suggestion forum, I'm going to start trying to split threads that get too long on a regular basis (i.e. I'm cancelling this thread!), to see if that makes them a little more accessible to new members and lurkers. The new thread is here.