Why Health Care Sucks
Health care sucks in Canada because the operation of the health care system requires the involvement of multiple levels of government and unions. But this is not an argument for privatization. Private enterprise has a long history of following bad examples.
The more specific reason why this mix of government and unions is bad is that they are both fond of acting for the sake of acting as well as expediency. If it gets the problem off of tomorrow's front page, then it's a job well done.
Here's what typically happens. Generalized Hospital has too little equipment and too few beds. This, in itself, is inaccurate. It has equipment, just not the best equipment for dealing with the problems it has to deal with it. There are also lots of beds. Pretty much every hospital with a bed shortage actually has wards full of beds that they can't use because they don't have enough doctors and nurses. What happens when you don't have the best equipment? Things take longer. What happens when you don't have enough nurses and doctors? Those you have are forced to work too hard. This makes them unhappy. Most of them are well paid, some extremely well paid. But, no matter how much or little you make, nobody likes being overworked. The worker thinks to himself "I don't get paid enough to put up with this."
So, the contract comes up for renegotiation. Three things are mentioned as being needed: new equipment, more staff, higher pay. There's all sorts of flowery talk about values and dedication and responsibility and patients and carer and compassion. In the end, here's what happens. Government spends more money.
The problem? They always spend more money, yet nothing improves. But now it costs more. The reason for this is that the easiest way to solve the problem of people unhappy that there's too few of them and too much work for the pay they get is to simply pay them more money. You are still under-staffed, but the staff is happier. And quieter. Money has been spent, people are happy. No longer on the front page. Good.
Except...
The staff aren't happy for long, because there's still too few of them, and most of the new machines don't get used enough because nobody's been hired to run them. But you can no longer hire anyone because the budget increases got eaten up by the raises they gave to everyone. So, next time the contract comes up again, there's the same three problems. Again, they simply give raises and the complaints go away. Until they come back. Again and again. Things still haven't improved, but now they cost way more than when this all started.
Is there a possible solution? It's my theory that overworked people are never happy. So don't try to make them happy by paying them more. Make them happy by making them work less. How is this done? Instead of raises, hire more doctors and nurses. Everybody gets the same pay, but now with less pressure. With more staff, equipment gets used more efficiently, more beds are opened up, people get treated faster and the workers are happier because they're only expected to do the job of one person, not 1.5 or 2.
Sounds radical. Maybe someone should give it a shot anyway.
The more specific reason why this mix of government and unions is bad is that they are both fond of acting for the sake of acting as well as expediency. If it gets the problem off of tomorrow's front page, then it's a job well done.
Here's what typically happens. Generalized Hospital has too little equipment and too few beds. This, in itself, is inaccurate. It has equipment, just not the best equipment for dealing with the problems it has to deal with it. There are also lots of beds. Pretty much every hospital with a bed shortage actually has wards full of beds that they can't use because they don't have enough doctors and nurses. What happens when you don't have the best equipment? Things take longer. What happens when you don't have enough nurses and doctors? Those you have are forced to work too hard. This makes them unhappy. Most of them are well paid, some extremely well paid. But, no matter how much or little you make, nobody likes being overworked. The worker thinks to himself "I don't get paid enough to put up with this."
So, the contract comes up for renegotiation. Three things are mentioned as being needed: new equipment, more staff, higher pay. There's all sorts of flowery talk about values and dedication and responsibility and patients and carer and compassion. In the end, here's what happens. Government spends more money.
The problem? They always spend more money, yet nothing improves. But now it costs more. The reason for this is that the easiest way to solve the problem of people unhappy that there's too few of them and too much work for the pay they get is to simply pay them more money. You are still under-staffed, but the staff is happier. And quieter. Money has been spent, people are happy. No longer on the front page. Good.
Except...
The staff aren't happy for long, because there's still too few of them, and most of the new machines don't get used enough because nobody's been hired to run them. But you can no longer hire anyone because the budget increases got eaten up by the raises they gave to everyone. So, next time the contract comes up again, there's the same three problems. Again, they simply give raises and the complaints go away. Until they come back. Again and again. Things still haven't improved, but now they cost way more than when this all started.
Is there a possible solution? It's my theory that overworked people are never happy. So don't try to make them happy by paying them more. Make them happy by making them work less. How is this done? Instead of raises, hire more doctors and nurses. Everybody gets the same pay, but now with less pressure. With more staff, equipment gets used more efficiently, more beds are opened up, people get treated faster and the workers are happier because they're only expected to do the job of one person, not 1.5 or 2.
Sounds radical. Maybe someone should give it a shot anyway.
posted by MyMaidMary | 10:54 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home