Raise the Hammer

Dr. Ted's suspicions are supported by the HHS mantra that Hamilton citizens must choose between proximate care and quality care, a public relations technique designed to limit policy options to existing administrators' level of competence. Call me weird, but what I want, when I keel over shovelling the snow or sever an artery with a home power tool, is the best care close at hand.

It appears that as city council shifts toward developing a municipality of diverse communities, HHS still sees emergency vehicles racing across town on inner-city expressways. How will ambulances get from central Dundas to General or St. Joe's emergency wards when Main St. and Victoria or James St. have LRT tracks running up and down their middles?

City boards of education, which spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars annually and whose decisions effect the shape and development of the city and its communities, are publicly elected. Isn't it time that the boards of local health services be selected the same way?

As I see it, the unelected LHIN is of no present concern. What they decide to do is much more important.

They have 3 choices:

1. Rubber stamp the HHS plan. I can't see this happening, the public will say they are in bed with HHS, unelected etc, and crucify them.

2. Call for further public input. This is what I expect, but if it is not heavily covered by the media most people will take a pass, and it will degenerate into bureaucratic uselessness and just delay the plan's implementation.

3. Set up publicized debate to delve further into the rationale and evidence for this proposal. This is the ideal, when people start to see it for what it is, and the easier and cheaper options to accomplish the same thing without such disruptions, the whole thing will go back to the drawing board, as it should. And again, like in B.C., Mr. Martin will be looking for a new job.

So it seems we are going to get door #1. Requests by our councillors to try for door # 2 have been rebuffed, leaving the paying public to "howl at the moon" as the only option.It seems a public rally is being organized for Sept 25th from 6-8pm at the Dalewood rec center.
A recent letter to the editor about this process in the Hamilton spec paints this as a "done deal".
What kind of a decision making process is this anyway??

I have opened a website, which has a facebook group as well.

Lots going on stay tuned.

www.accesstoall.ca

Many thanks

Chris Ecklund

www.chrisecklund.com

Anything the government provides for free will ALWAYS be in short supply.

Therefore, the only way to reduce health care shortages, is to make people purchase their own care.

Governments have tried to outsmart
the law of supply and demand, but its time to give up the fight, admit defeat and allow the market to do what nothing else can, namely to provide a wide range of services for all income levels.

By allowing for inequality of care, you would actually increase the quality of care for all.

All you have to do is compare food lines in the former USSR, with the food available to the poorest in North America at the same time. While it was true that the rich could afford to eat better then the poor, it was also true that the poor in North America ate better than the middle class in the USSR.

By allowing firms to make money by providing care, you create a huge incentive for businesses to build new facilities. Just look at the number of firms that offer laser eye surgery. This free market competition for consumer dollars would force health care providers to provide greater care, at lower costs.

Currently, the health care providers in Canada have ZERO incentive to become more productive in providing their care. Since their numbers are restricted by government funding, they basically dictate to the patient how they will be treated.

Allow the market to work, because otherwise, we will still be discussing health care shortages fifty years from now.

You are full of Crap, Smith. You literally have no idea what you're talking about. Countries that have public health care have THE MOST PRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS in the world, dollar for dollar. They spend the least amount of money but provide the most full, most effective coverage to everyone. They are the most well supported by their publics. We all get it, you live in this masturbatory free market fantasy world where everything the government does is wrong and everything private capital does is sunshine and frolicking bunnies so this must be really hard for you to understand but the numbers just don't lie. If you want to see what happens when you have private health care for profit, just look at the ONE COUNTRY in the OECD that has private health care for profit, the USA, where 50 million people are too poor to get coverage but not poor enough to get it for free. Look at all the people getting turned down for coverage because they had cancer once, or have high blood pressure, or had a freaking yeast infection. It doesn't matter how much momey they have, they can't get coverage because it's just not worth it for the private companies to ensure them at any price. Sorry, but you are an idiot, an educated idiot to be sure but an idiot none the less. I'm sure you'll come back whining that you're being picked on, but if you can't be bothered to do the most BASIC RESEARCH WHAT SO EVER on something as braindead as public health care you don't deserve to be treated with much respect.

Dr.Downtown, your intelligent arguments have swayed me, we should let the government run everything.

That way, we can all get lean when we develop shortages in food, gas, and every other good thing produced in surplus quantities by the free market.

Furthermore, in most countries that offer public health care, they also have competing private sector care, unlike Canada.

Therefore, if you want to be consistent, the private sector should be allowed full access to offer all medical services to the Canadian public.

Haha, you're pretty funny, Smith. I pointed out that public healthcare is cheaper and better than private health care so OBVIOUSLY I think "we should let the government run everything" and turn into the USSR. Haha, you fail at arguing.

Dr.Downtown, the only areas of the economy where there are shortages is where government has a monopoly.

My point, is that if you want to get rid of shortages, you need to increase supply and decrease demand. The only way to do that is to let the market work.

Compare toll roads to public highways and you will see this effect clearly. Toll roads run smoothly with little to no traffic congestion, whereas public highways always have traffic congestion.

Your example of the USA as an argument against private health care is confusing, especially since the American government spends the same amount as a percentage of GDP ( approx 7% of GDP) as does Canada. The only reason why their overall figure is higher is because they don't limit private expenditures.

The great thing about living in the USA, however, is that if you want an MRI for your child, you don't have to wait weeks while time is a precious commodity.

Consumers are allowed to decide what they will spend their money on, not the government.

As to your point that there are fifty million people living in the USA without health insurance, this obviously isn't affecting them too adversely, because life expectancy in the USA is about the same as in Canada (78.06 USA vs 80.2 CAN)

As a point of comparison, Germany spends more on public health care and more overall than Canada, and yet has a shorter life expectancy than Canada.

The main point I was trying to make was that shortages are the result of government price controls (which is what free health care is) and that only way to get rid of shortages is to price according to the true cost of the service being consumed.

If you dispute this argument, stop resorting to calling people "idiots" and start using some numbers to back up your assertions. If you can't do this, then you'll be ignored.

PLease keep subsequent posts related to the ABC topic.

As for A Smith, you're the Sarah Palin of trolls, all anyone needs to do is give you a rope.

It is interesting to compare life expectancy of countries. One of the highest is Cuba, at 77.3 years, despite a GDP in the $3000 range. This figure outperforms every country in central and south america and eastern europe. Most of those countries have a much higher GDP. You tell me what the difference is, the great secret that gives Cuba this huge edge.

Teddy, I love it when your only counter argument is censorship and name calling.

It highlights the shallowness of your thinking and is a sure sign of frustration.

Rather than embarrass yourself in this manner, why not try to rebut the specific points I make, unless you are unable to.

As to your statistic regarding Cuba's excellent life expectancy, I have no idea why this is. However, it supports the notion that less funds need to be spent by government in order to secure a healthy population.

In the future, maybe you can write an article promoting less government spending on health care. If Cuba can spend very little, then its obvious our tax dollars are not being spent wisely.

A Smith, there is nothing in error with your points on market forces and government spending, intellectually I agree with them.

The problem is, they indicate an antisocial personality disorder.

If you let the market work in health care, this is great unless you can't afford the most basic coverage. Any serious illness, like cancer, MS, type 1 diabetes, i.e. unavoidable diseases of bad luck; in a market system treating them would mean losing your shirt, your car, your house, your savings, and perhaps those of your family as well.

Letting the market work in those situations equates to crimes against humanity.

But the economic sustainability of health care is a critically important issue (reminder: not related to the topic of this column) and I'm sure the editor would welcome a submission from you. It would certainly be more constructive than reams of cynical, narrowly focused posts extolling the virtues of the market and the many failures of lefties which are so obvious when using this scoped freemarket model of reality.

Ted, do you believe that most Canadians are generous people?

If you do, then there should be no concern whether or not society can deliver care to those with limited means.

If you don't think people are generous, then you are condoning theft in order to satisfy your conscience.

The second scenario also leaves the door open for anyone to steal anything, as long as they have a good enough reason in their own mind.

By moving back to a society in which people give from their hearts, rather than from fear of prosecution, we regain what it means to help others in need.

The bitterness that comes along with "having" to pay our taxes, is replaced with feelings of pride and joy in being able to share our wealth with others.

I have faith that most people want to do the right thing, so that is why I believe the free market will help us get there faster.

Americans have lots of faith too, but so far it hasn't translated to donating to people too poor to get basic heath care.

Unlike the generous A Smith, they evidently don't want to do the right thing.

That's why Cuba, with socialized health care, and a GDP less than the average American spends on heath care alone ($4000/yr)has a life expectancy that is within one year of the US.

That's why Canada has a L.E. 2 years greater than the US despite spending 1/3 less on health care but covering everyone.

Socialized medicine works, because the free market is nowhere near complex enough to capture all the realities of the human predicament. Yes, it means that a lot of waste occurs, but nowhere near the amount of waste in the American system. By waste I mean administrative costs, profit, and unnecessary testing.

Any doc south of the border could give you more details on those inefficiencies, and it's why many Canadian docs who have left for those greener pastures eventually move back here.

Ted, rather than get bogged down in issues like US medicaid, emergency room treatment for the poor, etc, I am going to propose something radical, more taxes.

If Canadians WANT more health care and we are not allowed to buy it on the open market, governments should do what is responsible and double or triple the health care premium Ontario now has.

By doing this, they will be able to provide more health care services, while spreading the cost equitably to all who use the system. People will bitch and moan about the taxes, but nothing comes for free, including health care.

I prefer the pay per use of the free market, but if the only alternative is to jack up taxes, then just do it until we have so much health care investment, we'll all have our own MRI.

Either way, lets just get it over with and stop whining about shortages all the time.