Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Public / Private Health Care



Instead of podcasting my speech, I put it on YouTube with pics from the event for visual interest.

I was invited as a rep from the Green Party to the political panel of the forum on public health care on Sept. 18, 2011. None of the other invited parties attended, so the panel was cancelled. This topic, however, is one of my specialties, and the Greens are committed to an increase in democracy and public participation, so I spent my Sunday afternoon helping out anyway. I even worked the PowerPoint presentation of the keynote speaker, Diana Gibson, Research Director from the Parkland Institute.

Private health care already exists and always has in Canada. We are talking about two different public processes here, and the governments, both federal and provincial, deliberately obfuscate the two whenever they are trying to cut more funding in pursuit of their agenda and "free market" fantasies. 1) One is the creation, equipping, staffing, maintenance, and funding of public facilities like most hospitals, some clinics and even fewer research areas. 2) The other is the direct paying of taxpayer bills for medical care: i.e. public insurance. Everything else is privately owned. Everything. So whenever the Right starts talking about two tier or private health care, pretending we should have that conversation, it's only to decrease public and increase private further. There are therefore two ways they can do that, and usually do. One is to decrease the funding of the public facilities, like closing hospitals, public clinics, reducing staff and increasing hours, like any employer who wants to cut costs, and decreasing maintenance, letting equipment get older before replacing it for example. The other is to "de-list" services that are covered by the province's public insurance.

Ralph Klein, Premier of Alberta, did both. He closed and actually blew up hospitals, turned brand new hospitals into "extended care clinics", cut staff across the board, increased hours, and shut down nearly every mental health facility in the province. So naturally, those professionals fled to seek employment elsewhere if they could. Some went to other provinces, some switched to private practice, and some went to the States. As for public insurance, every so often, a new list came out that took away more and more services that used to be covered under public health insurance. We used to be able to get an eye exam every year, then every two, and now it's not covered at all. Same with certain surgeries, then even ambulance trips. If you don't want to have to pay for those out of your own pocket, now you have to pay separately for private insurance to cover those expenses, on top of the premiums he forced us all to pay for public insurance, despite the fact that it's illegal under the Canada Health Act, since it affects universal accessibility and portability. But people still need those services, and to pay for them. So many more private clinics opened up all over the province. Soon they were getting permission to do procedures they never were allowed to do before and which were originally under the purveyance of the government public facilities, but we have such long waiting lists in those places, doncha know, and this will help open up beds for those who really need it. So now these clinics are doing day surgery for knees and hip replacements. Or cataracts. I mean, it's crazy. And the public insurance of the province pays for it, since it medically necessary and they can't get it done in a timely manner in the public hospitals, so the private company pockets the money. And it costs twice as much! According the Parkland Institute, Albertans already pay the highest out of pocket cost for health care services in the country! So the province and its citizens are still paying, and paying more than anyone else, but the illusion is created that government can't afford to maintain the public facilities, and that private can do it better, offering "choice". Like we're shopping for a new heart like we need a new pair of shoes.

Private ownership and profit has always been a part of health care in this country, operating in conjunction with the public facilities the government maintains, the public insurance owned by the provinces, and private insurance. Family doctors, dentists, orthodontists, cosmetic specialists... They are all private companies, usually owned by the doctors themselves or in partnership. The labs used to be government owned in Alberta until Klein privatized them, too. So when you go to your family doctor, if you can find one, or a clinic or need lab work, the province pays for the visit to the private company, unless that visit is no longer covered for some reason. Then your private insurer pays. Unless you don't have one. Then you pay out of pocket.

Current practice is that the public health insurance plan pays for any procedure that is medically necessary and can't be done in a reasonably accessible public hospital or clinic. If you can't get the heart surgery you need in your province, the government will pay to ship you somewhere else in the country and then pay for the procedure. So the more cuts to public health care, the more private takes over. So instead they get the government money for the procedures. With increased procedures in private, it helps make the argument for more cuts to public, since we don't want duplication of services or anything... And the wheel goes on. That's how it's worked in all the countries that have toyed with a public/private system, and most are switching back to a more public balance.

With the long waiting lists and public facilities shutting down all over the country, to get treatment in a timely manner, some patients are going to where they can get their treatment, paying the bills, and asking to be reimbursed later. That sometimes doesn't happen, if the government don't agree that you needed to go *there* to get *that*. These aren't the rich, either. Just people who hold BBQ's or put up their houses for collateral so they or their families can get treatment. It's already happening here. Creating an even greater system where this can degrade further is the tide we have to stem. Renewing our commitment to care, facilities, staff, equipment, and patients means giving back the funding to public health care, removing the muscling in of private in those areas, and the balance will again shift to an efficient, sustainable, equitable system across the entire country, and that used to be the envy of the world.

The rich will always head to Mexico to get their valves massaged or whatever. It's a status symbol. They always have. But before the cuts to public health care, all the treatments they actually needed were available in a timely manner, by professional, caring, healthy staff, in the finest of facilities with the best of equipment. So they were seen as a bit of nutters and weren't recompensed. They certainly didn't have to fly to the States for basic heart surgery...

The States have already tried for-profit health care. Not only is it an abomination and a complete failure, they have some of the highest costs and worst care per capita in the developed world. 60% of all bankruptcies in the States are directly related to medical bills.

Investors, not doctors, suddenly make the calls about patient care, equipment, staff, and facilities. The brightest and the best of medical practitioners leave for private practice because they can get better pay. We saw that happen in Alberta with the Klein Kuts. Hundreds of practitioners fled, leaving only the most dedicated or those who had difficulty getting jobs elsewhere staying here in the public system, with pay cuts and huge hour increases. Expensive diagnostic machines cease to be lifesavers and become moneymakers. After all, ya gotta pay for 'em... So they are used on those who can afford them, whether they need the procedure or not, and those who need it but can't afford it can wait for the charity of a public system. This isn't "House", you know, where he doesn't seem to care who pays... You think increasing private care will help take the strain off the public system? Not a chance. Since there are so many new clinics making money off people's pain and desperation and suffering, it's just all the more reason to cut it further, leaving public health care a desiccated husk that even rats won't gnaw on.

None of this has anything to do with "standards", of course. Those are different regulations that all facilities, public or private, have to follow according to the law, both federal and provincial. There's alot of leeway, though, and many things aren't covered that should be. The doctors and other professionals are licensed by the provincial government, but on the advice of the independent College of Physicians and Surgeons or other professional groups whose job they have taken it upon themselves to decree what is required for their profession. Usually those are in conjunction, and the government doesn't deviate from those recommendations unless it has an agenda it wants to follow. It certainly didn't hear a thing when it de-listed from public insurance many of the services that the College considered "vital", like ambulance rides, and it ignored pleas for the children's hospital, which took more than 20 years to build and is now a charity hospital linked to a University hospital that's gets much of its funding through raffles.

We have always had a public/private system. We always will have one. There have been fat farms and other clinics operating outside the public system. It's a matter of degree. Allowing more private, even regulated and having a "base standard of care", means a degradation of those same services in the public system. In this new myth of "private can do better", or "private costs us less", the new private clinics and services suck the talent and patients away from the crumbling public system, leaving a dangerous, intolerable mess that can only be cured by, you guessed it, more private health care.

Injecting money back into the public system means less staff attrition, more recruitment, better facilities, and less tax revenues flowing to States. There is no possible way a facility that is required to make a profit can provide services as cheaply as a government. They can't buy in the same bulk, they can't actually outbid a government on wages if that government actually cares to pay their people enough, it can't get the same deals on equipment, and a government isn't even required to break even, much less make a profit. In a government system, services can be provided at a much greater efficiency, with greater safety, and with only patient care and workplace security in mind. In for-profits, just imagine the mishmash of insurance providers, coverage, and the hundreds of staff required just for processing all that paperwork. In the public system, mistakes or problems that happen in one centre can quickly be dealt with and new regulations and procedures passed on all across the country in days, rather than going unnoticed in an avalanche of private facilities. It all comes down to who is going to get paid, and who is doing the paying. Someone is going to provide the drugs, the procedures, the facilities, and the staff. It's all a matter of who do you want to get the money. Private for-profit companies, who are designed to make money specifically off of their patient's suffering, not necessarily relieving it, or diverting that money directly back into the public purse and a government who at least theoretically is more concerned with getting the citizenry productive again?

It's gone beyond an obscene and flagrant disregard for the Canada Health Act, universality and public health care. We've always had a two tier system, and now they are just getting out the bone cutter to start hacking the corpse of public health care to more easily transportable bits. Easier to smoke on the BBQ, doncha know...

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

What really happened with the Poly motion at the Green Party convention.

(Detailed informational links below)

I sent this blow-by-blow to a Green member list to give you some idea what happened from my own perspective. The Greens are fiercely democratic and any small group can put together a motion for us all to vote on and discuss. If you really want to make a difference in Canada, become a card-carrying Green! I can say that with upmost confidence...

And just for the record, the media really DO hear what they want to hear, and it's usually sensational. I said "I'm a member of the poly community" and "my husband will be most put out that I didn't consult him before I made these speeches." What I meant of course was I hadn't had time to give him a heads-up that I was exposing some of our private views in a public forum. What some bored and nasty reporters heard was a confession to having an affair! In a convention, no less! When a story isn't good enough, just make it up, I suppose... That's what can happen when you aren't using the same playbook... Definitions

This was entirely an internal democracy issue, and does not in any way reflect the Party's position on any other policy. Rather mundane, all things considered... The resolution was submitted by a small group of well-meaning students from York University who had heard of the criminalization of poly and wanted to do something about this obvious discrimination. They were not acting on anyone's behalf, they did not consult with the poly community ahead of time, nor they did not clarify the language in their motion. Though their hearts in the right place, they were in essence completely clueless to the implications of their motion to the community they wished to protect and the Party itself. http://greenparty.ca/blogs/15909/2010-08-22/polygamy-point-clarification

I have been a polyactivist long before I was a Green Party candidate, and therefore felt it was my duty to attend the workshop for this motion, since I was one of the few people who could speak reasonably to the problems at hand. One other Green polyactivist had come from even further away than I had to speak on the motion since it was so vital for him to address it. However, the resolution was so badly worded that the original motion was "decriminalize polysexual", which is something else entirely. I was able to help clarify the language somewhat, but in an hour and half, the learning curve was just too great to iron out all the flaws in the wording. I did my very best to ensure that the sponsors of the motion had some grasp of the issues involved, as well as the implications for the Party. They went with "Decriminalizing polyamoury", which is still correct, but not what they really intended. Polyamoury is only illegal if it's in a committed relationship, and usually living together. The more committed, the more illegal. If you're just sleeping around, that's just fine, but don't make families out of it. I'm pretty confident that the intent of the motion was to protect poly families, so the wording rather failed in that... We were able to make some progress with the motion which was then voted on and it was adequately reworked enough to survive a vote and present to the party, while doing damage control with the ham-fisted language and implications. It still did not cover what the sponsors originally wanted, but they didn't know enough to know that...

A few reporters arrived during the lively, if small, debate of about 20 people and we voted on whether they should be there. I saw nothing unusual in that, but this was my first BGM, and didn't know that it was not common. There was no "highjacking" by a small wing-nut group, nor was it a "closed session". The drama queens that started that rumour and convinced a reporter of that wild accusation should all know better. The Sun reporter asked me for an interview after the session, and I took the hit, since I was one of the most experienced members on this issue. I thought if she were going to get someone's thoughts on it, I'd do one of the best jobs. The story was very fair but exposed my private life far more than I had intended for national media, and the reporter in question has since apologized to me and retracted a bit of the story. She admitted later that even she didn't realize the implications of what the criminalization of this lifestyle can do to families and was hardily sorry for causing me such distress. I didn't even get a chance to consult with my husband on this great impact on his life, and I'm very grateful he's still talking to me, since none of our extended family knew anything about this before now.

When this motion was presented for plenary, obviously, now that my head was in the noose, it behooved me to speak. In for a penny and all... When it was my turn, I don't even remember which of the facts that I usually use in my improvised speech. I had had almost no time to prepare but I have so many points that I often discuss. I only had two minutes. I don't remember if I pointed out that nearly all Native cultures were almost entirely poly in some form or another before the imposition of Christianity and it's enforced monogamy. I know I was passionate about the impact on children who are taken from their homes or where custody is altered due to a parent's poly lifestyle, but I don't think I brought up other legal issues like family health insurance, estates, or who gets to visit in hospitals; the very same issues that the LBGT community had up until a very few years ago. I mentioned the monotheistic monogamy, as opposed to the polytheistic polyamoury, as well as the global and historic precedent for poly in nearly all traditional cultures. The human rights aspect of this cannot be understated, as it relates to religion, culture, language, and family groups, as well as so many legalities, I argued, but the problems of the wording of the motion could not be ignored. Though I very much supported the spirit, the language was inaccurate, incomplete, and did not reflect consultation with the community it was intended to protect.

Since we had voted down many motions that weekend already whose language were not adequate to the intent of the resolution, I knew that this one would also in all probability suffer the same fate, and I was not mistaken. The point may soon be moot, however, as the Charter challenge has been undertaken by the poly community in the newly formed Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association. By the time it makes it to the Supreme Court of Canada, it should nicely co-incide with the next BGM and hopefully we won't be left behind in the dust of other parties shouting their support for poly and human rights. http://polyadvocacy.ca/

I also had the very great privilege of having the trust of many, many Greens coming out as poly to me after the resolution, but most will not take the step of identifying as such, since some are very highly placed in the Party. I think there are more polys in the Greens than most, what with our commitment to justice and all... Though rarely has anyone been charged, poly is still criminalized with draconian heavy-handed wording, so it is therefore considered immoral and none of them as yet will take the risk of coming out of the closet. Polys hide like rats as it is right now, and it's hard to get out of the habit, especially when your job, kids, extended family, and home are at risk. I also took on the task of answering the many questions on the motion posed to me by other Greens not in the community who wished to learn more and spent much of my time on that humble duty.

The dialog will not be stopped now and I am deeply honoured to have played my small part in these events by helping to move forward the conversation of poly rights in Canada. It has been a great strain on my family and our relationships but my work with the Greens has always been the most rewarding and effective work I have ever done.

If you wish further reading on the topic, I provide more links on poly cultures below. And please remember, that when any family from the many poly cultures around the world immigrates to Canada, they must give up more than those from monogamous cultures. They have to pick one spouse and their children, leaving the rest behind forever. More than two adults are unlawful, after all... I can't imagine how that *wouldn't* be a human rights issue, quite frankly...

http://www.anthrobase.com/Dic/eng/def/polygamy.htm

Today, most Americans think of monogamy as the "normal" form of marriage. But as it turns out, strictly monogamous practices are in the minority. In fact, cultures that practice some form of polygamy outnumber monogamous cultures by the hundreds [ref]. http://people.howstuffworks.com/polygamy.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry

http://blog.happypolywives.com/2008/05/01/globally-polygamy-is-commonplace.aspx

http://www.african-tribes.org/


Poly orgs and groups in North America:

www.ourlittlequad.com


http://www.xeromag.com/fvpoly.html

http://www.lovemore.com/

http://www.polyamorysociety.org/

http://www.polyamory.org/

http://www.bee.net/cardigan/PAARC/


Poly blog:


http://polytripod.blogspot.com/