Recently, Quebecers have heard several leaders of the privatization of the health network extolling the merits of this privatization to improve access to health care. Often, the union movement was singled out as being an actor of inaction who refuses to see the solution to make Finally our network more efficient.
Posted at 3:30 p.m.
Caroline Senneville President of the CSN
The CSN refutes this perspective. Blaming the unions means putting the burden of inaction on workers while all successive governments always have only one message to repeat: we need help from the private sector. The immobility is them.
Because the private sector is far from being a miracle solution to network congestion problems. Quebecers are well placed to know this, since the private sector has occupied an increasing place in their network for 40 years.
In fact, the first line is almost entirely private with the establishment of family medicine groups, GMFs, which are struggling to meet demand. At the same time, the government continues to transfer operations to private medical clinics. Yet, are we seeing waiting lists decrease significantly? No, and this transfer is expensive: IRIS revealed that surgical interventions cost up to 150% more when carried out privately. More efficient, you say?
Take the case of the Montreal Economic Institute (IEDM). He goes so far as to claim that the private sector could be a means of achieving the ideal of universality targeted by the health network. What universality are we talking about? From the private medical clinic that requires a subscription of $3,000 per year or $200 per visit? Can we really believe that the government, in the midst of re-introducing austerity measures in the network, including hiring freezes and job cuts, has the means to guarantee profit margins of up to 15% for private companies? Austerity and the use of for-profit companies paid for with taxes are more likely to lead us towards the reduction of services than towards universality.
It is even said that Sweden and France have let the private sector enter their respective networks for the benefit of the population.
What the statistics do not say is that these countries also have much greater proportions of doctors than in Quebec, which also has the lowest rate of doctors per person in OECD countries.
The public health network, free and universal, is more than a business model. It’s a social project. It is one of the most precious legacies of the Quiet Revolution. Basically, it is a model which, thanks in particular to CLSCs, makes it possible to prevent rather than cure. But providing care at great expense is much more profitable for health entrepreneurs.
We will try to make you believe that the private sector is more flexible, more competitive. Don’t fall for it. The private sector is a business model that aims to make a profit from the illness of others and that has no place in Quebec.
What do you think? Participate in the dialogue
**PAA Question 1:**
This article raises some compelling arguments against the privatization of Quebec’s health network.
Here are some open-ended questions, divided into thematic sections, to spark a discussion:
**The Problem:**
1. **Waiting Times and Efficiency:** The article claims that increasing privatization hasn’t led to shorter wait times and in fact costs more. Have your experiences with the healthcare system supported this? Do you think private intervention can actually improve efficiency?
**Alternatives & Solutions:**
2. **Beyond Privatization:** The CSN argues that the real problem is underfunding and austerity measures. What other solutions could be explored to address wait times and improve the quality of care without resorting to privatization?
3. **Role of the Government:** What responsibilities does the government have in ensuring the sustainability and accessibility of healthcare? Should they focus on strengthening the public system or are partnerships with the private sector inevitable?
**Philosophical Debate:**
4. **Universality vs. Profit:** The article highlights the tension between the principles of a free and universal healthcare system and the profit-driven nature of private companies. Is it possible to reconcile these two seemingly opposed goals? Can private companies truly operate within a framework that prioritizes patient well-being over profit margins?
5. **Social Responsibility:** The article suggests viewing healthcare as a social project rather than just a business. What responsibilities do citizens have in ensuring the success of a publicly funded system? Should there be limits on how much individuals can opt out of the public system and rely on private healthcare?
**International Comparisons:**
6. **Learning from Other Models:** The article briefly mentions healthcare models in Sweden and France. Could Quebec learn from the experiences of other countries, both successes and failures, in terms of balancing public and private involvement in healthcare?
**Engagement and Action:**
7. **Your Voice Matters:** How can citizens participate in the ongoing debate about the future of healthcare in Quebec? What actions can individuals or communities take to ensure their voices are heard and influence policy decisions?
Remember, the goal of these questions is not to arrive at definitive answers but to encourage critical thinking, thoughtful discussion, and a deeper understanding of the complex issues surrounding healthcare in Quebec.
