[pebbles]

Originally Posted by DarrenWright

The cost of living has nothing to do with this discussion. If we were living in a socialized system, the cost of living and real estate would be the same in California, but nurses would be paid LESS!

You are correct, there are mediocre doctors and nurses in the US, too, but the point of the article is that these kinds of providers are championed in the socialized system. Providers with higher expectations of themselves can excel in a free market system instead of being rewarded to the same lower incentive as the mediocre providers.

I work in a public health system. Mediocrity is NOT championed, and I think this article is wrong. I think the authors started with a viewpoint and just selected things to say that supported their viewpoint. It's plain ignorant to say that the best automatically flock to the private system, and that we are left with the dregs. It's ignorant of the realities of the system. The author provides NO evidence whatsoever that "mediocrity" is rampant in canada's health care.

And I think if you talk about wages, you have to talk about cost of living. If you don't want to talk about economic realities, don't mention wages. I don't think nurses would be paid less in a public system. The nurses in canadian provinces that have higher cost of living - do get paid more. Their unions negotiate more BECAUSE of the cost of living. So maybe you need to be aware of that fact.

This article makes a huge mistake. It talks about the quality of health care in terms of only one thing - money. Not actual measures of health and quality of the medical care provided. Spending more money to fix the problem is deemed "failure" - but what if it provides overall better success rates in terms of treatments, research, infection rates, etc....? The author does not seem to care about HEALTH care. I would suggest she go write about a factory or something.

[DarrenWright]

Originally Posted by Noryn

How do these volunteer fire departments get the majority of their funding?

Has our public school system always done poorly or is it a more recent trend especially among the schools in poor neighborhoods?

In my opinion we already are close to living in anarchy in that money wields near unlimited power.

So since "police protection" is so inadequate here in the states, you think that these departments should be resolved?

When it comes to volunteer fire departments, it's not just about funding. It's about the fact that BILLIONS are saved because noone has to pay for the wages of 70% of the nation's firefighters! Additionally, the majority of their funding comes from private donation, subscription fees, billing (private owners and their insurance for fire suppression activites), bingo, raffles (some fire departments make fantastic amounts of money on car/gun/money raffles), and business revenue, such as social hall rental or running an ambulance service. Few of these departments were started with a dime of tax dollars.

I never said police protection was inadequate; I simply pointed out that the current system of police protection wasn't so 'socialized' as was previously implied, but was instead a public system that was heavily subsidized by private police protection.

[DarrenWright]

Originally Posted by pebbles

I work in a public health system. Mediocrity is NOT championed, and I think this article is wrong. I think the authors started with a viewpoint and just selected things to say that supported their viewpoint. It's plain ignorant to say that the best automatically flock to the private system, and that we are left with the dregs. It's ignorant of the realities of the system. The author provides NO evidence whatsoever that "mediocrity" is rampant in canada's health care.
...
And I think if you talk about wages, you have to talk about cost of living. If you don't want to talk about economic realities, don't mention wages. I don't think nurses would be paid less in a public system. The nurses in canadian provinces that have higher cost of living - do get paid more. Their unions negotiate more BECAUSE of the cost of living. So maybe you need to be aware of that fact.

It's not ignorant to say that the best flock to the private system; Brain Drain is a very real problem in Canada, and Canada is one of the top suppliers of RN's to the United States.

You can't use cost-of-living as a distractor, and you have to keep it in perspective; someone pointed out top-shelf wages as being the same as Canada, and I showed a reference indicating that US wages were in fact much higher.

If you decide to inject cost-of-living, you have to be intellectually honest, meaning, if you claim that Canadian RN's living in areas with a higher cost of living make more than Canadian RN's living in an area with a lower cost of living, then when you compare those wages internationally, you have to use comparative regions. For example, the average wage for an RN in Toronto (one of Canada's costliest cities), is about $29.55 according to the Canadian Labor Market Information website. http://www.labourmarketinformation.ca/

I would post the entire link, but it's huge and keeps distorting the post (any assistance would be appreciated).

In contract, the average hourly wage for the entire US is $28.71 according to the BLS. That means that on average, any nurse in the US is making only .84 cents less than the nurse living in the most expensive city in Canada. I would like to show the comparative nurse wage for a city with a similar cost of living, i.e. White Plains, NY but I can't find that info, but maybe one of our NYC region nurses can share what the average wage is for that area.

It's tedious to take the discussion this far, but I'm only attempting to include consideration of the items that have been added to the discussion.

[pebbles]

Originally Posted by DarrenWright

It's not ignorant to say that the best flock to the private system; Brain Drain is a very real problem in Canada, and Canada is one of the top suppliers of RN's to the United States.

"Brian Drain" is a media sensationalist term.
Provide some real evidence that the actual health care provided in canada's system is mediocre, especially mediocre compared to what is provided to the population in the US.

[pickledpepperRN]

The volunteer firefighters are part time. I am in awe of people who do that for their small communities!
But the career firefighters are full time. They protect those of in in cities and larger communities.

Firefighters
Career firefighters include full-time (career) uniformed firefighters regardless of assignments, e.g., suppression, prevention/inspection, administrative. Career firefighters included here work for a public municipal fire department; they do not include career firefighters who work for state or federal government or in private fire brigades.
Volunteer firefighters include any active part-time (call or volunteer) firefighters. Active volunteers are defined as being involved in firefighting.
* Estimated number of firefighters in 2005: 1,136,650 (career: 313,300, volunteer: 823,350)
* Firefighters by age group: 16-19 (3.6%), 20-29 (21.6%), 30-39 (29.1%), 40-49 (26.1%), 50-59 (14.7%) 60 and over (4.8%)
* Seventy-six percent of career firefighters are in communities that protect a population of 25,000 or more.
* Ninety-five percent of the volunteers are in departments that protect a population of less than 25,000 and more than 50% are located in small, rural departments that protect a population of less than 2,500.

Source: National Fire Protection Association, U.S. Fire Department Profile Through 2005

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/f...ers/index.shtm

[PMFB-RN]

Pointing at one or two particular countries health care system and saying "See! I told you it wouldn't work!" Is like pointing at a Yugo and saying cars are junk.
My whole family have been patients in a socialized health care system in one particular country. I actually had pretty major surgery in one. We experienced fantastic care and would go back in a second. I very much would like to see a similar system here in the USA.

[pickledpepperRN]

Sorry to get distracted.
There is one place where I know a bit about the fire departments.
The city Fire department has full time professional firefighters who are paid:
http://www.enid.org/fire/

They coordinate and assist the nearby (14+ miles out of the city limits) volunteer departments.
All my male cousins and one female are volunteer firefighters:
http://www.firefightersonline.com/en...department.asp

My cousin who lives in California is listed as a volunteer because when he goes 'home' he takes call duty.
Anothers sons are away at college out of state and on the roster.
My cousin was listed when he was killed in Viet Nam.
My uncle was listed when he died a couple years ago at nearly 90 years old.
He actually could help because he still could drive and organize his former boy scouts, most of them Eagle.

I other words some of these volunteer firefighters are only available two weeks a year.
I'm certain others are available much more often because they work in the are and have an arrangement with their employer to respond if a fire occurs while at work.

I was in Breckinridge two years ago. There are still no stores. There are homes and farms, five churches, one school, dirt roads except for the highway, and really wonderful people.

[fergus51]

Originally Posted by DarrenWright

You can't use cost-of-living as a distractor, and you have to keep it in perspective; someone pointed out top-shelf wages as being the same as Canada, and I showed a reference indicating that US wages were in fact much higher.

You showed the wages for ONE area, just like I did. That isn't a country by country comparison and in order for it to be meaningful you have to consider cost of living. Nurses in California make a lot more than nurses in Mississippi, but that doesn't necessarily mean we live better on it. Like I pointed out, I'll never be able to buy a home with my salary here. My 25 year old colleague from Mississippi was able to buy one within weeks of starting her job out there. Which one of us is richer?

Anyways, I don't know why this topic always comes up. The US already has a semi-socialized-semi-private system and that's how it will stay because that's what the people want. Most Canadians I know have no desire to replicate the US system up there.

[fergus51]

Originally Posted by DarrenWright

If you decide to inject cost-of-living, you have to be intellectually honest, meaning, if you claim that Canadian RN's living in areas with a higher cost of living make more than Canadian RN's living in an area with a lower cost of living, then when you compare those wages internationally, you have to use comparative regions. For example, the average wage for an RN in Toronto (one of Canada's costliest cities), is about $29.55 according to the Canadian Labor Market Information website. [url].

You realize that nurses living in the entire province make that same wage though don't you? It does suck for the nurses in Toronto (I was one of them for a while), but it's great for nurses who live in Peterborough, Brandon, Thunderbay, etc. It's the same in my home province. The nursing wage won't make you rich in Vancouver, but it's pretty damn good in Kamloops, Kelowna or Prince George.

[ayla2004]

canada sounds similar to uk all nurses in the same grade and paid the same rate, however there is a extra for those in greatar london area, this goes across the board for all public workers in that area.