Healthcare, $$$, Political Reality & Fortitude When "We want it all" -&- ex-Deputy Min.Swain: Resist Reform

PM and Team are throwing around $$$ for votes instead of putting that taxpayer money into what all Canadians need, access to decent health care. There is no point at this stage in throwing more money at intractable problems such as the native pathologies just to keep a lid on the situation so PM can remain at 24 Sussex. PM and Team are going to run an election on anti-Americanism, promoting pro-China and pro-France deals (See Societe buys into oilpatch Financial Post, Nov. 22, 05) and the economy--the giveaway series.

Payment down the road? But of course!

Christie Blatchford: wait-time calamities -- scary Nov. 21, 05, Globe and Mail

I had assumed our physician shortage problem was that our medical schools did not graduate enough physicians -- that, if available, our hospitals would hire them. I assumed a newly graduated physician could just about name where he/she wanted to locate and governments would hire based on our obvious need, within total budget constraints. Not so. Physician numbers allowed by government budget are not elastic enough to encompass need nor a private insurance option. This does not apply in certain provinces nor with certain people such as the PM who has a private clinic to which he may repair.

For most, the great unwashed, governments decide whether it is one, two, or more physicians of a particular specialty hired in an area. The money for the next and needed physician may go into something else, perhaps of a more politically useful nature. Think of the cry not to close hospital beds in a community so politicians sometimes cave in, to satisfy a local and vocal group or community willing to make enough noise.

Politicians may respond to what is unreasonable under pressure, but our politicians should be looking into and deciding based on the best solution overall and over all areas of a province-- or of a country--in the areas in which the federal government influences with tax dollars and other methods.

It takes a strong politician to withstand the protests which are always seized upon by an opposition to gain political points -- whether it makes good public policy to support the protestors or not. Doing right may mean losing at the ballot box the next election. An example would be demands from areas facing bed or hospital closures -- the reality for small towns.

Less populated areas are going to have to consolidate and co-operate but, when they threaten noisy public protest, politicians listen. Between the need for doctors and the political aspect for governments, the result is that doctors cannot locate where people want them nor where they want to go, nor can most politicians make good decisions when there is too much public protest, unless we as an electorate admit that we are partly to blame. We want it all and we can't have it.

Some form of private health service for which insurance would pay would lower the numbers on public health waiting lists -- though how a government would discourage doctors from opting out and earning more in a private clinic is beyond me, if that were an option. Our problem is that politicians are not even talking about how a workable combination of public and private health care could be accomplished, so verboten is the subject.

Up to this point, politicians see it as political suicide to admit the obvious, that our system is breaking down. The result? The wealthy always have access elsewhere and others, including some politicians, have access to private care here in Canada, but the latter lie publicly about not allowing private health care in Canada.

All the better to buy your vote, my dear. We can do without timely public--or private--care, as long as we believe the Big Bad Wolf and keep voting for lies.

And read Blatchford.


Another Perspective on Achieving Needed Change

Retired deputy minister urges civil service to resist reforms -- Former deputy minister Harry Swain is urging senior bureaucrats to fight back against reforms, says 238 new rules, plus legions of comptrollers and auditors won't prevent malfeasance. Mike De Souza, The Hill Times, November 21, 05

[. . . . ] Amidst the dire warnings about Canada's future and a stinging criticism of the Martin government, a former deputy minister is urging senior bureaucrats to fight back against reforms that were designed to make the state more accountable.

Former deputy minister Harry Swain suggested the changes to government administration, proposed in response to the sponsorship scandal, may increase bureaucracy, and cause a "breakdown," or "total constipation" of the system. But he said policies change from one administration to another, and it's always up to the senior managers in the civil service to convince politicians what is working, and what should be changed. [. . . . ]

As long as Parliament can make input. The hiring / firing / appointment process is so controlled by PM / PMO / governing party input with all the peripheral input--think ADSCAM--that there is no brake upon the present situation.

Canadians need a change of government regularly, so that they have a chance for the system to work as it seemed to before so much control moved to the PM/PMO. The system would not be so warped if governments were regularly turfed out but the Liberals have played the old Quebec separation card too long, along with the scary Harper, right wing Conservative mantras. Begone with you, you tired old dissemblers.

---