Showing posts with label #NationalCitizensCoalition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #NationalCitizensCoalition. Show all posts

Wednesday, 8 July 2020

Alberta Bill 30 - Introducing For-Profit Medicine in Alberta

(This will likely be the first of several posts examining the 3 controversial bills the UCP introduced yesterday)

With respect to Bill 30, which will increase approval of private, for-profit clinics in Alberta, some thoughts...
There is a cap on certain procedures, like hip and knee replacements, that creates a bottle-neck beyond the limitations of a finite number of surgical facilities. Why is this in place? Why could the government not just remove the cap?
Could it be that the cap will simply accelerate the development of a two-tiered system?
Think for a moment about the private eye clinics in Alberta. They do laser surgery and other "cosmetic" (i.e. not medically necessary) surgeries, but they also do some procedures covered through public health. The public health procedures make the clinic less profit than those for which the patient pays directly. Which types of procedures do you suppose get scheduling priority? It seems obvious that the more lucrative procedures will get the lion's share of the available OR time. The lower paid procedures will fill in gaps, because it's better to have the facilities in use and making some money than standing idle. That is the way for-profit businesses work.
So, for hip and knee replacements in a private clinic, those that are covered by Alberta Health will be less profitable than other procedures performed at a private clinic. They will not get scheduled as quickly as more lucrative procedures. People in pain, and possessing sufficient means, will start asking if they can get their surgery moved up if they pay for it themselves.
The UCP will, at some point down the road, lift the barriers to patients paying for their own surgeries which are covered under the Canada Health Act, saying that the public wants this. Then people with money to pay will get their surgeries sooner, but those who cannot pay will get pushed further back down the line. And this will go on as more people decide to pay, or seek out insurance that will pay.
This would undermine the essence of the Canada Health Act which guarantees all Canadians access to equal health care, regardless of ability to pay.
This is a prediction. The cap keeps a hold on the maximum number of these procedures that can be billed through Alberta Health and therefore keeps these procedures at low priority status in private for-profit clinics. This will incentivize people with the means to pay out of pocket to demand to be able to do so. And it will leave people without the means to pay, further and further behind. And insurance companies will begin advertising products that promise to help those people who couldn't pay for it themselves obtain better access, so long as they pay monthly premiums.
You may be wondering why the UCP would want to see two-tiered medicine in Alberta. Apart from the support the UCP may be receiving from the insurance industry and for-profit health care interests, there is an historical component that contributes to the anti-medicare ideology.
The National Citizens Coalition was founded in 1967 by an insurance agent named Colin Brown. Brown was extremely opposed to the Canada Health Act, which was very new at the time. Obviously, universal health care impinged upon his industry's profitability. People no longer had to buy insurance to pay for any medical care they needed.
The NCC also opposed the Candian Wheat Board, unions, the mandatory long-form census, Liberals, restrictions on third-party election spending, and a number of other things.
In 1997, Stephen Harper resigned as a Member of Parliament for the Reform Party to become Vice-President of the NCC. He became president the following year and remained in that role until 2002, when he took over leadership of the Canadian Alliance Party. These grievances of the NCC clearly aligned with, or helped shape, Harper's political direction.
As PM, Stephen Harper sold the Canadian Wheat Board, discontinued the mandatory long-form census, changed election financing laws, and allowed the provinces great latitude in how the Canada Health Act was administered. This resulted in increased access to for-profit entities in the systems across the country.
Yes, Jason Kenney is not Stephen Harper. But he was Harper's protege. He served Harper for the duration of the CPC government. He has now hired Harper to consult and guide the UCP government's management of the province.
As Prime Minister, Stephen Harper was not able to eliminate the Canada Health Act. Messing with Canadians' health care is political suicide, even in Alberta. So he ignored it, and turned a blind eye to Premiers who were so inclined, as they whittled away at the public system. But installing a system that would be lucrative to the insurance industry and to for-profit health care providers has always been the plan.
Now, behind the scenes, the wheels are in motion.
Governments in Canada have been under intense pressure from lobbyists representing the insurance industry, the for-profit health care industry, and the pharmaceutical industry, since the Canada Health Act came into being. The Canada Health Act is viewed as depriving them of the opportunity to profit from the Canadian market.
The philosophy of the Canada Health Act is that no one should profit from the suffering of others. So the two sides hold diametrically opposing views. It is only when there are governments in place which are sympathetic to the for-profit interests that changes occur in their favour. And these must be undertaken with stealth because Canadians are extremely attached to their health care.

We are seeing stealth moves by the UCP. They are framing it as helping people get surgeries they need faster. They are trying to present it as a benefit. In the long run, however, it is liable to be the wedge that breaks the Canadian Health Act.






Saturday, 2 May 2020

The Overton Window and the CPC

I mention the Overton Window in the title of this blog and it is important to understand this concept to follow what comes later. Here is an American explainer video. Remember that in US politics the colours are reversed. Red is conservative, blue is progressive. Here is an explanation from the Canadian perspective. 

On May 1, 2020, CPC MP Pierre Poilievre posted this, suggesting that the Liberal government's banning of military-style firearms in Canada is a far-left move.


To clarify, there is very little "far-left ideology" present in Canadian politics. The Communist Party of Canada (the original CPC) has elected exactly 1 MP, in 1945.

The CCF (later NDP) was/is? a party based on social democratic values which include universal healthcare, the right for workers to organise to have the power to enter into negotiations with employers to ensure a living wage and safe work conditions, equal opportunities for all children to receive a good education, universal suffrage (every adult gets a vote), and inclusiveness of all people, regardless of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. There is also a strong belief in a safe and well-governed society, which includes restrictions on activities which are not in the public good or which adversely affect public safety. Things like gun control, banning drunk driving, encouraging the use of seatbelts and car seats and motorcycle helmets, and banning substances like asbestos that make people gravely ill.

Social democratic principles are supported by many Canadians. However, there is a long-standing campaign from the right to equate the CCF/NDP with communism. They would have you believe that support for the NDP is support for bread lines and confiscation of personal property and multiple families forced to live together in drab grey Soviet-style apartment complexes. They maintain that the NDP support Maoist re-education camps and internment of political dissidents.

This is a load of codswallop.

Social democratic principles are about raising everyone in society to have a good standard of living. It is opposed to the accumulation of vast wealth and huge wealth inequalities. In other words, social democratic principles would see the rich taxed fairly and crack down on wealth-hiding, and make corporations pay their fair share.

It should already be clear why those on the right hate this way of thinking so much.

Social democratic principles are humanist principles. They put human beings before profit. This is a sharp contrast with the right, particularly those in the US who are outright declaring that they are ok with thousands of people dying from COVID-19 in order to get the stock market back up.

A Bit of History

In the past, there were more similarities than differences between the Conservatives and the Liberals. Both were very accommodating to big business. Both were fairly hard on the poor, people of colour, LGBTQ+ individuals, etc. The Conservatives were a bit right of centre, the Liberals were a bit left of centre.  This is why the old saw "Liberal, Tory, same old story" was very popular with people who did not like others encouraging people to vote. It minimised the differences between the parties.

Things began to change while Pierre Elliot Trudeau was Prime Minister. The elder Trudeau was more of a humanist, believing that government had "no place in the bedrooms of the nation" and repealing laws that discriminated against the LGBTQ2+ community.

The change really jumped into high gear when Stephen Harper and his Reform Party (led at the time by Preston Manning) came on the scene.

"The Reform Party called for the privatization of various government services that the party believed could be better provided by the private sector. These government services included a number of state-owned corporations including Canada Post, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and Petro Canada. The Reform Party suggested that Canada's government-funded universal health insurance system be replaced by a two-tier private and public health insurance system. Preston Manning asserted however that the Reform Party was committed to ensuring that all Canadians would be able to access health insurance and health services."The Reform Party called for major changes in the federal government's relations with Aboriginal peoples, which included dismantling the Department of Indian Affairs and transferring its responsibilities directly to Aboriginal governing bodies to lessen Aboriginal peoples' dependence on the federal government.(In other words, they wanted out of the treaties)
The Reform Party strongly opposed extending marriage rights to gays and lesbians. Many members of the Reform Party saw homosexuality as a moral wrong. Reform leader Preston Manning himself once publicly stated that "homosexuality is destructive to the individual, and in the long run, society".
The party was also known to have suggested a potential return to capital punishment, the only party in Canada to have done so.

The Reform Party advocated an immigration policy based solely on the economic needs of Canada.[28] Reform's early policy proposals for immigration were seen as highly controversial in Canada including a policy pamphlet called Blue Sheet that was issued in mid-1991 stating that Reformers opposed "any immigration based on race or creed or designed to radically or suddenly alter the ethnic makeup of Canada".[29] The statement was considered too controversial and subsequent Reform Party policy documents did not declare any similar concern for a radical alteration of the ethnic make-up of Canada.[30] However this controversy and others raised the question over whether Reform was intolerant to non-white people and whether the party harboured racist members.[30] Subsequent repeated accounts of xenophobic and racist statements by individual Reform party supporters and members spread this concern, though the party itself continuously denied that it supported such views.[25]
The Reform Party declared its opposition to existing government-funded and sponsored bilingualism and multiculturalism.[30] Reformers claimed that efforts to create a bilingual country had not worked and that language policy should be a provincial issue. Reformers criticized government-sponsored multiculturalism for creating a "hyphenated Canadian" identity, rather than a single Canadian identity.[31]

The Reform Party was founded as a western-based populist party to promote reform of democratic institutions. However, shortly after the 1987 founding convention, social and fiscal conservatives became dominant within the party, moving it to the right. Their political aims were a reduction in government spending on social programs, and reductions in taxation. Though largely a fringe party in 1987, by 1990 the party had made huge inroads in public support as support for Mulroney's PC party dropped due to the unpopular Goods and Services Tax (GST), high unemployment, and the failure of the Meech Lake Accord. In 1992, leader Preston Manning released a book called The New Canada explaining the origins of the new party and its policies, explaining his personal life and convictions, and defending some of the controversial elements of Reform's policies. (from Wikipedia)

Then they became the Canadian Alliance Party and went from a western-based party to a national party. In 2003 the Canadian Alliance Party and the Progressive Conservative Party merged, thanks to Peter MacKay (yes, the one who is now trying to lead the CPC). MacKay sold out the Progressive Conservative Party and allowed the Reform/Canadian Alliance Party to take over, driving out many "Red Tories".

Enter Stephen Joseph Harper. Harper was one of the founding members of the Reform Party. He went on to head the National Citizens Coalition, an entity created in 1967 for the express purpose of dismantling the then brand-new Canada Health Act which guaranteed health care to all Canadians regardless of ability to pay.  This is a core value Harper has brought with him from one organisation to another.

In 2003 he became the first leader of the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) which emerged from the merger of the Canadian Alliance and the PCs. As soon as Harper became Leader of the Official Opposition in Ottawa, Stephen Harper began to work to shift Canada to the right. He used language to try to change the way Canadians view the world. He and his party talked about "special interest groups" and "environmentalists" in a pejorative fashion. He vilified "Big Union Bosses" and "activist judges". He encouraged Canadians to think with their guts and ignore "academic elites", i.e. experts who have been highly educated and devoted their careers to learning all they can about a particular subject. He employed methodology laid out by Arthur Finkelstein, the communications guru who helped to get 3 US Republican Presidents elected as well as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The CPC have been in continual campaign mode and attack mode since their inception, lowering the bar on advertising and political dialogue to hateful and often misleading levels. Most importantly, Harper worked hard at making "Liberal" a dirty word.

Harper was PM for almost a decade. The dark ages as some of us like to call it. Here is something of a list of the things he did while PM, including destroying research libraries, eliminating the long form census, ignoring Canadians in trouble abroad if they were non-white, ignoring First Nations issues, and opening the door to provincial governments to bring in two-tiered health care.

Current Situation

The CPC has moved far to the right of the old PCs. People used to say that both parties want what is good for Canadians, they just have different ideas of how to get there. This is no longer true, but many people have not yet realised it. Indeed, Stephen Harper's disdain for Canada and Canadians is well documented. 

The CPC, now led by Andrew Scheer, continues to push to normalize things that would have been widely condemned as heartless, cruel and un-Canadian before 2003. He and his party support loosening, not tightening gun laws. They support making university funding contingent on allowing far right speakers at least an equal platform on university campuses. They are heavily funded and supported by anti-abortion groups and would, if in power, seek to ban abortions eventually. They would follow in Stephen Harper's footsteps and expand draconian sentencing that disproportionately harms vulnerable people and members of minorities, possibly with an eye to opening up Canada for American prison industrial complex business. The CPC are vigorously anti-union and anti-worker. The CPC support home schooling and private religious education while endorsing cuts to public education.

So, the CPC is further to the right than the old PC Party ever was. The Liberals, under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, are somewhat further to the left of previous Liberal parties, embracing a humanist approach that coincides with a general shift in Canadian society that has been going on since the 1960s. But the CPC, with the help of much of the Canadian media, has been pushing hard to make centre look left, and left of centre look extremist.

And yet, a vast majority of Canadians support the new gun ban. Despite all the hard work by the CPC to try to make us meaner and greedier and more self-centred, Canadians still care about others.

Source: Angus Reid

So, no, Mr. Poilievre, this is not far-left policy. This is in line with what most Canadians want. And it was part of the Liberal campaign platform in 2019, so it is not just a reactionary response to the Nova Scotia mass shooting.


Sunday, 20 October 2019

Healthcare and the Conservative Party of Canada

You may hear people saying the CPC will cut healthcare. You may hear CPC supporters say that's fear-mongering. But, is it, really? Let's take a look.
#cdnpoli #elxn43 #Vote #NeverScheer #healthcare #ChooseForward 
The National Citizen's Coalition was incorporated in 1975 by an insurance agent named Colin M. Brown. Mr. Brown had begun advertising back in 1967 against the Canada Health Act.
Our universal health care was the NCC's primary target, but over the 4 decades it has been in existence, it has also campaigned against;

- The Canadian Wheat Board

- the Canadian Labour Congress' strike protesting wage and price controls in 1975
- the admission of Vietnamese Boat People to Canada 1979-1980

- closed-shop unions

- "gold-plated" pensions for MPs

- the mandatory long-form census

- Quebec's Bill 101 protecting French language rights
In 1993, the NCC supported Harper's successful run to be elected a Reform Party MP. In 1997, Harper left politics to become Vice-President of the NCC. 
In 1998, Harper became President of the NCC, a post he held until 2002, when he resigned to take a run at the leadership of the Canadian Alliance Party (which grew out of the Reform party). 
The NCC continues to exist, by the way, and seems to potentially still wield some influence. They claim to have between 40,000 and 45,000 members and an operating budget of $2.8 Million. 
They are very secretive about membership, and many members have no voting rights or right to attend meetings. So, a lot of people pay dues to the NCC but have no input and may not even be informed of the organization's activities. 
Let's look at that list of things the NCC opposes. During his tenure, Harper gave the Canadian Wheat Board away to the Saudis, and he cancelled the long-form census. His government engaged in union-busting activities, legislating back to work on striking unions. 
And they did nothing when conservative provincial governments whittled away at public health care.
As recently as 2012 people were still asking about the relationship between the NCC and the CPC. NCC President Peter Coleman denied there was a link, and yet... 
cbc.ca/newsblogs/poli… 
Harper's policy ideas align with the NCC's, and he acted on them. It cannot be denied that the CPC is Harper's creation. And Scheer, Kenney, Poilievre, etc are all Harper's creatures. He molded them into what they are now. 
Indeed, it seems Harper is still very much involved behind the scenes. According to Montreal's l'Actualite: 
From the CPC's Policy Declaration document: 
What this says is a Scheer-led CPC government would allow the provinces to open the doors to private medicine (wider than they already have). This is two-tired medicine they are talking about. 
The conservative premiers are already hard at work dismantling public health care to make room for private, for-profit health care. 
Privatising health care is in the DNA of the CPC, in much the same way as social programs are in the DNA of the NDP. And if they re-open the Constitution and Charter, as they have suggested they will, they will remove those pesky assurances of health care for all. 
Always follow the money. Private health insurance companies, private health corporations, and pharmaceutical companies all have deep pockets and are prepared to show their appreciation for political allies. 
A party who would let these entities into Canada is not working for the public good. They are working for their own good. 
Vote tomorrow! Vote for health care. Vote for #GunControl. Vote for inclusivity. #ChooseForward VOTE!