Election News

Well, what's new with the election? Paul Martin urging union members to vote Liberal in ridings where the NDP is not expected to win. This was endorsed by Buzz Hargrove, head of Canadian Auto Workers. This would mean that instead of the traditional stand of supporting the NDP, the union is supporting "anybody but the Conservatives". Jack Layton fired back telling Saskatchean voters that a vote for the Liberals ended up being like a vote for the Tories. Again, the NDP are trying to woo Liberal voters under an "anybody but a Tory" banner. Why don't Martin and Layton finally realize that they're in love, and merge? In the CAW article, it is mentioned that whether a Liberal or New Democrat is elected it means the same power in a coalition against the Tories. If they plan on forming a coalition as it is, why not run together?
Again the Green Party, which received over a half million votes last election, is being excluded from the televised debate. I think that this is bullshit. I mean in '93 the Bloq got to be in the debate, and they neither had an elected MP, nor were they running candidates across the nation, and they got to be in the debate. The Green Party has shown itself to be an up and coming party that deserves to be included in the televised debate.
Stephen Harper unveiled his plan for healthcare. It includes guaranteed wait times for medical procedures and that "there will be no private, parallel system". Harper's plan includes sending people who can't be treated in the acceptable timeframe to go to another province for the medical procedure.
First off let me explain to everybody out there that we do not live in a public health care system. All health care in Canada is publically funded; but run by independant organizations, in Saskatchewan, Health Regions, or privately. Everytime you see a physician, whether a generalist or a specialist, you are getting private health care, but paid by a single payer public insurance. That is why we say that physicians are in private practice. People need to understand that the Medicare debate is not a public vs. private health care, but rather two-fold. Public single payer insurance vs. private insurance, and for-profit vs. not-for-profit. Countless research has shown that:
1)The American style, private insurance coupled with for-profit health care leads to:
-decreased patient satisfaction
-decreased staff satisfaction leading to greater turnover which is shown to negatively impact health outcomes
-decreased funding for health promotion activities that lead to greater long-term health of the population as a whole
-higher rates of mortality (deaths) and morbidity (sicknesses, such as hospital acquired pneumonia, etc).
-decreased quality of life
-increased differential between the quality of care available to the rich and the middle-class and both working and non-working poor.
2)The Canadian style of public single payer insurance and not-for-profit health care ensures the converse.
3)The Canadian system needs more than an influx of cash to fix the well-known issues, what is needed is:
-More health-care providers, physicians, nurses, radiology techs, phlebotomists, everyone.
-More public health and population health promotion initiatives: these cost money now, and don't get results until later, and aren't very 'sexy', but in the long run will save billions of dollars. Think about seatbelts. Seatbelt usage was legislated years ago, and still there are people that won't wear them, but give it a few more years, and everyone will just wear them because that is what you do. Imagine the health dollars that are saved by injuries being prevented by seatbelts.
-Greater health education, both for lay people, and to educate new health professionals.
-Reorganization of services to ensure that people get what they need, when they need it, but avoids misuse of services (like not going to the ER for a sliver, it happens all the time).
-I could go on for hours.
What I am wondering about Harper's plan is that if he plans on sending Saskatchewanians (for we do have huge wait times for surgeries) to other provinces like Alberta or Manitoba to get procedures done, who will do the surgery? Then Saskatchewanians will tie up Alberta and Manitoba, leaving their wait times huge, meaning they will be coming to Saskatchewan for their procedures and so on and so forth. there is not one place in Canada that has enough surgeons, nurses, radiologists, etc.
Also this will skyrocket the cost of health-care. Say I need my hip replaced, and the wait list is too long, so I get sent to...say...Vancouver. I can't afford to go to Vancouver, so that means that either
1)The government pays for transportation.
or
2)I can't go, and someone who can afford to get themselves to Vancouver gets to go. This would mean that health care would not be universally accessible, and my province would be in violation of the Canada Health Act, and not recieve any federal funding for health.
So Harper's plan heaps financial burdens on the provinces, which may fly in Alberta, fly like Ralph Klein's solid gold rocket car, but I don't think it'll fly anywhere else. I don't know, as a health-care provider I think Harper's goals are laudible, but his means is not possible.