Who Are We?
What We've Written
Links
- Interesting Reading
- Martha and her Monthly
- Alberta -- The Details
- Freddie's Diary
- Bill Barley
- Vive le Canada
- Blogs Canada
- Alberta Blogs
- Seniors
- Healthcare
- Education
- Insurance
- Provincial Parties
- The Premier's Page
- The Liberal Opposition
- The Alberta New Democrats
- Alberta Social Credit Party
- Alberta Alliance
- Alberta Greens
- Find and E-mail Your MLA
- Consumer Information
Archives
- July 2003
- August 2003
- September 2003
- October 2003
- November 2003
- December 2003
- January 2004
- February 2004
- March 2004
- April 2004
- May 2004
- June 2004
- July 2004
- August 2004
- September 2004
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- January 2007
Check out previous postings
By Topic - Click Here
By Date - See Below
What's Your Political Stripe
- Are you more like George Bush or Nelson Mandella? Pope Jean Paul II or the Dalai Lama? Take a 5 minute test and find out where you fit. Email me your results if you want along with which Alberta Party you support today; PC, Liberal or NDP. I'll compile the results and post them here; anonymously of course.
- Take the test at:The Political Compass.
Send us mail
- Let us know if you have any comments to contribute. If you find any interesting sites we would be glad to add them to the list. We'll post your comments with or without your name if we think they are appropriate. If you want your name used, please say so in your e-mail or it won't be used. We will never post your e-mail address. Hope to hear from you and hope you enjoy Ralph's World.
Ralph Klein has gone and it is time to retire Ralph's World. Thanks to all of you who have supported this venture by contributing material and through your comments. It has been fun.
Should we get another blog underway? Let me know your thoughts by e-mailing me at johnnyslow@gmail.com.
John Slow
January 1, 2007
Sunday, May 30, 2004
Three Choices for the Future of Medicare
A colleague who has worked many years in the health field said to me the other day.
"If you want to get a clear understanding of how our provincial and federal governments are determining the future of medicare for us, read this paper. It's not very long, it's very readable, and it was written by someone who has attended most of the first minister's discussions on healthcare. He's a sort of fly on the wall with brains."
The fly on the wall is Gregory P. Marchildon. The title of his paper is Three Choices for the Future of Medicare and you can get it by clicking here. (You will need the Adobe Acrobat Reader.) He is a professor of public administration at the University of Regina and was Executive Director of the Romanow Commission.
Here are some quotes from his paper which may tweak your interest.
"Deep down, they [Canadians] know that unless their governments arrive at a workable consensus for change, the Canadian brand of medicare is not likely to survive for long."
"From this position, I observed how health care eventually became hostage to a crass struggle over money and power and, at critical points, a much more profound clash between contending visions of the country."
"The solution to the ‘sustainability problem’offered by the opponents of medicare - that of shifting costs from the public purse to private pockets is simple but illusory from an economic policy standpoint [Evans 2004]. It is also highly inequitable from a social policy standpoint. And it is neither bold nor innovative – ‘out of the box’ – thinking since it generally involves old nostrums such as user fees , co-payments and health premiums (occasionally dressed up in modern garb such as medical saving accounts) that were the norm prior to the introduction of universal medicare."
and finally . . .
"Medicare is too important to continue to be held ransom by both orders of government in an increasingly sterile debate over fiscal transfers. For most Canadians, medicare is an integral part of their citizenship and identity. They want their First Ministers to quit playing the blame game and instead to work at improving medicare on the ground, including reducing waiting times and improving the quality of care. At the same time, they want both orders of government to come up with a common game plan that will address growing costs and ensure the sustainability of medicare for the future. Most want the principle of ‘access based on need’ preserved.
For a vocal minority, however, nothing less than greater privatization and decentralization, attractively dressed up as patient choice, is required to fix medicare in Canada. Though well financed, visible and powerful, we should always remember that this view is a minority view, and should not be allowed to dictate what the majority of Canadians actually want for themselves and future generations."
This paper is all about politics, money, power, and idealogy. Sorry, no sex.
Have a read.
"If you want to get a clear understanding of how our provincial and federal governments are determining the future of medicare for us, read this paper. It's not very long, it's very readable, and it was written by someone who has attended most of the first minister's discussions on healthcare. He's a sort of fly on the wall with brains."
The fly on the wall is Gregory P. Marchildon. The title of his paper is Three Choices for the Future of Medicare and you can get it by clicking here. (You will need the Adobe Acrobat Reader.) He is a professor of public administration at the University of Regina and was Executive Director of the Romanow Commission.
Here are some quotes from his paper which may tweak your interest.
"Deep down, they [Canadians] know that unless their governments arrive at a workable consensus for change, the Canadian brand of medicare is not likely to survive for long."
"From this position, I observed how health care eventually became hostage to a crass struggle over money and power and, at critical points, a much more profound clash between contending visions of the country."
"The solution to the ‘sustainability problem’offered by the opponents of medicare - that of shifting costs from the public purse to private pockets is simple but illusory from an economic policy standpoint [Evans 2004]. It is also highly inequitable from a social policy standpoint. And it is neither bold nor innovative – ‘out of the box’ – thinking since it generally involves old nostrums such as user fees , co-payments and health premiums (occasionally dressed up in modern garb such as medical saving accounts) that were the norm prior to the introduction of universal medicare."
and finally . . .
"Medicare is too important to continue to be held ransom by both orders of government in an increasingly sterile debate over fiscal transfers. For most Canadians, medicare is an integral part of their citizenship and identity. They want their First Ministers to quit playing the blame game and instead to work at improving medicare on the ground, including reducing waiting times and improving the quality of care. At the same time, they want both orders of government to come up with a common game plan that will address growing costs and ensure the sustainability of medicare for the future. Most want the principle of ‘access based on need’ preserved.
For a vocal minority, however, nothing less than greater privatization and decentralization, attractively dressed up as patient choice, is required to fix medicare in Canada. Though well financed, visible and powerful, we should always remember that this view is a minority view, and should not be allowed to dictate what the majority of Canadians actually want for themselves and future generations."
This paper is all about politics, money, power, and idealogy. Sorry, no sex.
Have a read.
