Nocrap

Who rules and owns Canada then? Canadians. They may be a mix of Arab-Canadians, Indo-Canadians, Chinese-Canadians, French-Canadians, Euro-Canadians; etc.; but they will be Canadian. Unless we are aboriginal, we all descend from immigrants.

Rubbish. Martin (or if you prefer, Chretien) puls a stunt like this, you'd immediately hear the word "dictator" from the same parties currently nodding in aquiesence. Sure, just not here. Cuba, maybe.... What party issues? We're talking about government policy, not internal divisions. I really fail to see how a guy that runs a tight ship is a danger. I think a good leader always makes sure his people are on the same page with him. Considering a lot of the Harper government are inexperienced I think its smart to move forward as he does until he finds he can trust each of them. I think with experience his noose will loosen. Just think where Martin might be if he had done the same thing during his campaign? He might possibly still be our Prime Minister. It is smarter to think before you speak and vetting that with someone else often helps to make sure you get out the message you meant intend to get across. If Martin had done this with his people he might have been reelected despite AdScam. Public figures are always taking the media to court over invasion of privacy, but rarely win, because it is deemed that because they are a public figure, the public has a right to know what they are up to. How much more public are the MPs WE voted into office? If they are not allowed to even talk to us, we might as well have a dictatorship. One leader, one newspaper, one television station, one PR firm keeping us 'informed'. That is not a democracy. Shortly after he was elected, Stephen Harper spoke of his minority victory and the promises he could keep, by stating that it was not like he had 'absolute power'. I found the term odd, because in a democratic country nobody has 'absolute power', even with a majority. Well, he's certainly acting like he has 'absolute power'.

At the risk of more conspiracy theory accusations, I am going to pass on a bit of information that is not theory but fact. We all know about Mr. Harper's new gag order, which does not allow his MP's freedom of speech. If you watched Rick Mercer's 'Rant' this week, you get an idea of how the media feels about this, but as Canadian citizens we should also be concerned. New Gag Order With Hill & Knowlton firmly entrenched in Stephen Harper's inner circle, we will be fed information that has been edited and spun to best suit Hill & Knowlton clients. David Emerson's advisor Dale Flood, represents MDS through H & K- Gordon O'connor was a lobbyist for H & K - Brian Mulroney is director at H & K - and the list goes on and on. With their track record, Canadians should be very concerned about getting our government press releases from this PR firm. Who are Hill & Knowlton Incubator Baby Hoax This is not about Conservatives vs Liberals and you don't even have to follow these links to confirm the reputation of the company; it's longtime task of selling war to the American people; and their questionable tactics in achieving this. Use the keywords Hill & Knowlton Kuwait, or Hill & Knowlton Bush and there are lots of sources. My concern is the fact that our elected officials are not allowed to speak freely on important issues, despite the fact that we elected them do so; but insead have left the job of keeping us informed to a paid PR firm.

Imagine if we were still governed by the Martinites. We would be farting around forever on the issue. I like Harper's approach to foreign affairs. Decisive. Just because us lefties have opinions that run contra to our government's position, does not mean that we love or support terrorists. The West is running rampid over the Middle East with cries of democracy, but as soon as a democratic election results in a victory they don't like, they cry boycott or sanction and threaten to cut aid. This only validates claims from the rebels that the West wants to control their lives, and adds fuel to the fire of terror. Remember, they believe that the Bush Administration are terrorists, and have the body count to prove it. How can we PROMOTE democracy (not force, since that is the exact opposite), if we are unprepared to accept it's outcome. We need to extend an olive branch if we really want peace, and not punish the Palestinians for voting in the party they feel will best address their needs.

Are we even equipped to detect radio-active materials? Sadly, we are so caught up in suspecting anyone from the Arab world, that a group of white guys could probably bring in just about anything. We forget that not all terrorists look like Bin Laden - many look like Tim McVeigh.

Dudes, we already have 2 tiered health care. Here, and the US private clinics. The only question lef is - do we want those private clinics here in Canada, providing for services for Canadians and tax dollars for Canadians, or do we want them stateside? The rest is optics. I was really just trying to weigh the pros and cons of each man, and for people like Geoffrey and others, I simply stated that both Harper and Brison are leaning toward more private services; so both would appeal to others who also support this move. The healthcare thing would not be on the table since they are both on the same page. As for the gay thing, Scott Brison says that he is "not a gay politician but a politician who happens to be gay". We can't label him. When I was researching the man I found that the Young Liberals are supporting his bid, so I guess he has already appealed to the younger crowd. He could also be seen as a champion of human rights, since he has not only come out of the closet, but plans to enter into a same-sex marriage. This would no doubt make national and international headlines and I could see marches worldwide. He could continue to argue that he is simply a politician who happens to be gay, while the media painted him as a humble hero. This would not necessarily be a slam dunk for Harper. That being said, the fact that he is gay would not affect my decision at all. The income trust thing could.

well this is not just about Canada, I have mentioned U.S stats and agencies in my posts... I guess I can weigh in from a different perspective. I was a teenager in the late 60's and early 70's and saw many people suffer as the result of drug abuse. I also lived with an alcoholic father (five years sober before he died) and saw what alcohol abuse did to our family. I support the legalization of marijuana for different reasons. People have already spoken of the fact, that it would produce revenue through taxation, and I believe that some of that revenue could be used to educate young people on the risks of drug and alcohol abuse. If it were legalized, it would have to be inspected, so would not contain any of the sludge (hopefully) that some of the black market drug does, and cash strapped farmers could grow it legally. It would remove the criminal element. If your son or daughter is going to smoke pot, wouldn't you rather they could obtain it the same way they do alcohol, and not from a low life on the corner? Most domestic abuse stems from alcohol abuse. A man who drinks heavily may go home and beat up his wife. If he has smoked pot instead, he will probably just want to go home and dance with his wife. Silly is better than violent. The big thing here is USE, not ABUSE; and for anyone who becomes an addict, it is simply a drug of choice. As for me, I have smoked one joint in my life, back when I was in highschool. I didn't like it, and I rarely drink alcohol. Educate not Legislate Inspect and tax rather than waste tax dollars Remove the criminal element

People who read my posts when I used to post alot realize I am one of those lefty unionists that everyone here these days seems to despise. I'm a lefty too, I guess, and agree with your insight. I've read Preston Manning's bio and am currently reading Stephen Harper's. I think the initial concept of the Reform Party was very good, but the new CPC is nothing like the original Reform party; nor is it anything like the old Tory party. It actually reminds me of George Orwell's Animal Farm. Wait till you have control of the house then hit the feather bed. I've read some of Garth's blog, and he is very funny. I respect his position and perhaps some of his colleagues may now have the courage to speak out. Just because they are backbenchers, doesn't mean they have to just be cheerleaders for the selected few. Their responsibility is to the people who put them in office, not the Prime Minister.

I really didn't know too much about him. Just what I read recently. Actually, I was surprized that he was a front runner, because I believe there are better options. But you're right about the Income Trust. It certainly does sound fishy, and if the Liberals really want to make a clean, fresh start, they will have to choose someone without even a hint of formal scandals.

I'm not sure if Harper has any saving graces for me and I did feel sorry for Paul Martin. He took the fall for the sponsorship scandal, but the fact that the CPC just kept harping on it last election, could be one reason why they dropped in the polls and were only able to secure a minority. I realize that there are Conservative posters here, and when I bring up the issue of private healthcare, they immediately come to the PM's defense - not in the fact that he intends to uphold the Canada Health Act - but being loyal supporters, know that he is on their side of the issue; which is the move to private. However, he can't be on both sides. What I've seen with Mr. Harper so far, is that while he preaches ethics and accountability, his track record is anything but beyond reproach. Canadians wanted and deserved better. If this is a political forum, than all views should be welcome. If it is strictly a Stephen Harper fan club, then you're right. I have nothing to contribute.

In light of the fact that we could be facing another election in the next year or so, I have been carefully studying hopefuls for the Liberal leadership race. I read in a poll today that the favourite was Scott Brison. Some of the strengths he shares with Stephen Harper, from a right-wing perspective are: "Employment Insurance reform, more private involvment in healthcare and integrated defense strategy with the US" (from his bio) These three things have long been on Mr. Harper's "to do" list since he first entered politics, and from his long time involvement in the National Citizens' Coalition. Because of my passionate desire to uphold public healthcare, I could not vote for Mr. Brison, so would probably go NDP, or heaven forbid, CPC, depending on how they perform in the House. If Stephen Harper is not just posturing over defending the Canada Health Act, he will lose his followers who have given him their support because he promised to take the federal government out of the Healthcare business; and may look to Brison as their new hopeful. Scott Brison is younger than Stephen Harper; but has more to offer the left-wing voters. He is a defender of the Charter of Rights, and a bilingual and multicultural Canada. He supports the Liberal child care plan and has a good track record on environmental issues. It will be interesting to see how he fairs as Environmental Critic against Rona Ambrose, who has been dubbed "Queen of the Tar Sands". Environmental Policy He will not only be a champion for gay rights, but is himself gay (in his own words: "not a gay politician, but a politician who happens to be gay.") He will not only back same-sex marriage but himself plans on marrying his life partner, Maxime Saint-Pierre. He did cross the floor after supporting the Alliance/Conservative merger, but only when he felt that the Alliance platform would control the new party, and after Alliance MP Larry Spencer told a reporter that "homosexuality should be outlawed" and ..."that gays created a conspiracy to infiltrate media and politics to advance their cause." Full Floor Crossing Story Here On the negative side, I found his policy on limiting new government employees to visible minorities, a little over the top, though he may have seen it as the only way to balance the scales There was also some rumbling about his involvement in the Income Trust leak, though it was pretty weak. Income Trust Story It would be an interesting race and so far I think they'd be neck and neck. Harper may live to regret his cabinet postings, which only put him on a level playing field with the Liberals. However, as in the past, please remember that I am not a Liberal supporter - voted for them once in my 30 odd years of casting ballots - and believe that everyone involved in the sponsorship scandal should go to jail. (Scott Brison was not even a Liberal then) I'm just speculating on future (perhaps not so distant future) opponents of Stephen Harper and what we can look for in the next election.

I think the public see a distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq and I don't think our involvement there can be called "marching along in the Bush parade". As for B&B they are both old meat and their lack of popularity goes beyond what looks more and more like an ill-advised invasion. As for me, let's see how Steve does when he meets the HofC starting next week and tries to steer his program through to legislation. Yes, there is a distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq, but when Mr. Harper's speech to the troops was revealed as just rehashed Bush rhetoric, he showed who he had been listening to. Also, for most of us strongly opposed to the War in Iraq, we remember how adamant Stephen Harper and his Reform/Alliance Party were that we should be there.

There is new evidence linking Tony Blair personally to the £14 million "loans for peerages" scandal, making his unpopular government since Iraq, even less popular. Telegraph Article Here Recent polls show that 73 per cent of voters, in the light of the scandal, no longer have faith in his ability to govern. At least 1/3 of Americans still have faith in Bush. Again, this was not a good time for Stephen Harper to be marching along in the Bush parade, because they are dropping like flies.

Newsmax edited it down to 45 seconds? They must have picked off just the parts where Hannity got good licks in. The whole thing is actually over 10 minutes. Listen here: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/27.html#a7685 I posted the first 30 seconds or so. It took me about 1:15 to read it the whole exchange. Although they both went overboard, Baldwin threw the first cheap shot. And when he is going to make good on his promise to move to Canada when Bush won? Btw, thanks for the link. I listened to the whole thing. Baldwin made a fool out of himself. Even the host was wondering why he wouldn't go on one of the highest rated radio shows. He's chicken to go on Hannity's radio show. Hmmmm...sounds like a battle of wits where both sides are unarmed. Never been a big Alec Baldwin fan, but he speaks for many Americans frustrated with Bush/Cheney. He's just perhaps not the best person to challenge their leadership on air. (Do you really think his IQ would be in the double digits?....I'm guessing 9)

I've been to MDS labs many times, since they do most of the bloodwork for Ontario, and they have always been polite and quick. I'm usually in and out within ten minutes. However, they messed up some test results and I had to go back three times before they got it right. My doctor was furious and his nurse said that they'd had a lot of problems with the lab. One of their maternity patients was told she had prostate problems, so figure that out. Human errors can happen anywhere. I have also spent a great deal of time at both our local public hospitals, and they have always been efficient; I have never been treated badly and have the utmost respect for their service. It's not perfect, and they are often short staffed, but this only began when Tony Clement (Ontarians know him as Two-Tier Tony) and the rest of Mike Harris' 'Whiz Kids' (including ironically two other Harper cabinet ministers: Flaherty and Baird), started their slash and burn closing down of hospitals and reduction of nursing staff. I still believe that public is the best and also believe that it is fixable. I Just don't believe that Harper intends to fix it. His financial backers would never allow it.

Nocrap, if a cure or better treatment for your grandson's condition was available, but not covered by the public healthcare system, would you pay to cure or treat him? He is actually getting very good care now and is exceeding beyond expectations. My husband and I spend a great deal of time on the net, looking for alternative treatments. If a proven cure was available anywhere in the world, we would sell our house if we had to, if it meant he could live a relatively normal life. This doesn't mean he's on the outside looking in. He goes to nursery school, play groups, swimming; anything he can do with his limited mobility. He is also one of the happiest little boys I've ever seen and his broad smile is infectous. He can't hear or speak, but squeals with delight at the simplest things. I don't blame anyone, not even God, because I'm reminded everyday, not to take things for granted. From personal experience, I can say that the medical profession has stepped up to the plate, and have done everything possible to enhance his quality of life. We spend approx. three days per week at the hospital or doctor's office, and we have never been treated badly. Everyone is polite and kind and my grandson's eyes light up when he sees the regulars. They have made his hospital experiences like play groups, and he now only gives a pre-emptive frown at the sight of the needle.

Britain did find the abuse of Black soldiers by their American counterparts troubling, but in a word: APARTHEID. A little pot calling the kettle black (sorry - no pun intended). Their treatment of the blacks in South Africa was and is, no better or worse than the way the Americans treat their non-white population.

I agree with Chuckman. George Bush has become the poster boy for terrorist recruiting, and Mr. Harper is panting after him like a love sick schoolboy. We hear of a 'culture of entitlement' when it comes to the Liberals and the sponsorship scandal, but for some reason, many Westerners believe that they are entitled to the natural resources of any country, simply because they are either white, Christian, or from the Western world. I'm all three, but it doesn't make me better. They use words like 'freedom' and 'democracy', like somehow they are a tangible entity. Freedom can mean different things to different people, and freedom to preserve a tradition that has gone on for thousands of years, for them is a right worth fighting for. Doesn't forcing democracy on people, run contra to the idea of freedom of choice? Democracy (sometimes) works for us, but if we were being told that we would have to accept a monarchy or dictatorship, we would fight; so can we can't expect any less in the Middle East. I find it rather interesting that everything seems to boil down to a "right" and "left" thing. Perhaps I've been around longer than many people here, but I have not heard the term "Leftie", since the Cold War and Archie Bunker. I've said it before. So long as the Americans keep knocking things down, Canada through the UN and NATO, will be needed to build them back up again. I just don't want us to stand 'shoulder to shoulder' with the wrecking crew.

It's hubby with the moolah. Harper says the lower income person can claim it so my daughter pockets it tax free. The Harper Handout is as inequitable as it gets. It's just the old family allowance spiffied up. Please explain how every parent getting the same is inequitable? It seems to me that is the most equitable way to do things. If someone came up with a system that would be a blend of public and private investment and it offered affordable child care to everyone, I might change my opinion on whether a national childcare system or a child care allowance was the best way to go. But until that happens, I'll hold my nose and take advantage of Harper's plan as at least I'll get some much needed help. Is it equitable to give the same amount of money to someone in poverty as to someone who is a millionaire? This is supposed to be a child care program. Lets direct the money to those who need it (the single parent bringing up a child) not to someone who already has the financial resources to send their children to day care. When my daughters were young we used to get a monthly "family allownce" from the feds. I always wished my money had gone to someone who needed it more than we did. The $1200.00 per year makes absolutely no sense. The Child Tax Credit and GST rebates already provide money to those who need it, and replaced the old family allowance. Besides, it's just a lot of smoke and mirrors. The average Canadian will net about $ 653.00 per year after taxes, and even if the lower income earner gets to claim it as income, it still affects their combined incomes which is used to calculate tax credits. A good daycare plan is a benefit to all Canadians who believe that Canada's youth are Canada's future leaders, and we all have a stake in that. I don't think Harper will let his government fall over the issue. He may have won (?) over the Emerson deal but still has to be accountable for his campaign manager now heading public works aka government contracts; not to mention the fact that his Minister of Defense is a former lobbyist for military contracts at a time when he has promised ten more years in Afghanistan. Canadians wanted change and all we got was more of the same. The NDP are looking better all the time.

"to buy more rock salt, approve school budgets, and impeach the president" I love that. Many politicians on both sides were once afraid to oppose the president's actions for fear of being branded unpatriotic. However, now that polls show that 2/3 of Americans no longer have any faith in his ability to govern, we can see a lot more of Bush in the hotseat. I would love to not only see him impeached but also be forced to stand trial for war crimes. Ahhh...a girl can dream.

I'm really out of touch because I didn't even know what a VLT was. Guess I'm part of the 'nanny' crowd. The story was troubling and you wonder what made the man so desperate. Financial problems perhaps, although it said that he was known to police, so maybe he just has a few screws loose. I agree with Geoffrey that putting them in bars is just asking for trouble, because it's no longer a rational decision. We may make the 'choice' to gamble (though at the time not view it as a way to pay taxes), but if alcohol becomes a factor, it's like driving drunk. We've lost our perspective.

Sorry. Wasn't trying to break the rules. I did however, find it in acrobat form on the net last night, along with a message that it was OK to share, so I guess I could have just provided a link. It would have saved me a lot of scanning, then cutting and pasting from my 'notepad'. If the moderator wants to remove it, that's fine too. I just thought it gave an alternate viewpoint since I had read so many posts that suggested more private healthcare was a good thing. I picked it up at the hospital a while back and spent a great deal of time researching the info provided. Many of the links were given in my original 'Ducks in a Row' thread. I am just as passionate about preserving public healthcare, as many of you are in veering toward private. My grandson has a rare genetic disorder (we are raising him because our adopted daughter shares the ailment) and we spend a great deal of time at hospitals and doctors' offices. I don't know what we would do if we had to start paying to get him the care he needs. It would surely bankrupt us. Read it, don't read it. It really doesn't matter. However, it is there if you want to do a little further research. So is there a prize for the longest thread ever? Probably not.

Here is the rest of the pamphlet which I scanned, including the remainder of Mr. Clarke's forwarding message and the study done by Darren Puscas How for-profit health corporations are planning to cash-in on the privatization of Medicare in Canada. The Private Sector Moves in on Canadian Healthcare[/u] Meanwhile,the private sector has been rapidly moving in to take over the slack. For example, every time a medical service is taken off the list covered by our public healthcare system, for-profit health companies are quick to add the service to their private insurance plans. Indeed, the for-profit healthcare industry sees Canada’s publicly funded system of Medicare as a lucrative 90 billion dollar annual market. Opening up the publicly funded system to privately delivered services provides for-profit healthcare corporations the opportunity to cash-in. So, just who are these corporations seeking to profit from the privatization of healthcare in Canada? Well, the for-profit healthcare industry that exists today has been largely built up in the U.S.over the past few decades. In 1996, for example, the U.S.investment consulting firm, Lehman Brothers, actually documented how the U.S. healthcare system was taken over by strategic maneuvers on the part of private insurance, hospital, pharmaceutical and medical product companies. During the 1970s and 1980s, reported Lehman Brothers, for-profit healthcare corporations gradually became “the gatekeepers of the health care dollar, … dictating the direction of healthcare spending” in the U.S. Today, the private healthcare industry is alive and well in the U.S. There, corporations provide the bulk of healthcare services — from insurance plans and pharmaceutical drugs to the operation of hospitals, homecare and long term care — on a for-profit basis (a for-profit model that has left 40 million without health insurance). What’s more, the leading corporations in each of the major healthcare sectors are now expanding their operations, eager to open up markets in other countries. Canada has been identified as a prime target for this corporate expansion. With the aid of several private Canadian companies, the U.S. corporate takeover of healthcare services is already underway in this country. But, again, who are these corporate players? To date, few of these corporations have been specifically named and exposed during the current public debate about the future of Canada’s healthcare system. The time has come to identify these corporate players but to also expose their track records in delivering healthcare services. This is the main purpose of this publication. Most of this is already covered in 'My Ducks in a Row Thread' How for-profit health corporations are planning to cash-in on the privatization of Medicare in Canada. by Darren Puscas Medicare’s Trojan Horse Have you ever wondered how, in a country where we are supposed to have a public healthcare system, we find ourselves having to pay for more and more for medical goods and services? Well, part of the answer has to do with the fact that private Canadian companies like MDS, with extensive business ties to the U.S., are allowed to sell healthcare goods and services on a for-profit basis in this country. MDS is already a leading player in Canada’s emerging private healthcare industry. Specializing in the marketing of medical goods and services, MDS has steadily expanded its operations over the past 30 years. Currently, MDS provides services to 17,000 physicians and institutions through 380 locations in seven provinces throughout Canada. Through joint ventures with U.S. healthcare corporations, MDS has played a pivotal role in the piece-by-piece erosion of Canada’s public healthcare system. Here’s how: Privatized Medical Services: MDS operates Canada’s largest network of clinical laboratories and physician services. MDS now controls 55 percent of the distribution of medical supplies in Canada plus 30 percent of the Canadian laboratory market. MDS and three other companies control 90 percent of the Ontario lab industry. In 1997, 40 percent of MDS revenues came from the public purse, mainly through public-private partnerships and direct payments for laboratory work. Private Healthcare Investments: [/u] At the same time, MDS operates the MDS Capital Corporation which combines seven capital funds for strategic investments in more than 120 for-profit healthcare companies. MDS also manages the Canadian Medical Discoveries Fund, disbursing government funds to numerous companies,including MDS subsidiaries. Through these strategic investments, MDS has secured a stranglehold on much of Canada’s health sector and its future direction Political Power & Influence:MDS’s political connections and lobbying have had a direct influence in shaping healthcare policy making in Canada. In Alberta,for example, MDS owns 37 percent of the Health Resources Group, the major pusher for private hospitals in that province, while MDS board member, John Evans, is actively involved in the Alberta Premier’s Advisory Council on Health. MDS vice president of corporate affairs and government relations, Brian Harling, is the chair of the federal government’s advisory group on healthcare and international trade. In the 2000 federal election, MDS contributed $12,537 to the Liberal party, $11,950 to the Canadian Alliance, and another $11,700 to the Alberta Conservative Party [1994-99]. These widely distributed contributions expose the extent to which Canadian politicians are tied to healthcare corporation interests and help explain why politicians and governments are increasingly accepting the idea of a further privatized healthcare system. U.S. Joint Healthcare Ventures: In addition, MDS has developed an extensive network of joint ventures with hospital and laboratory companies in the U.S. For instance, MDS has a partnership with the world’s largest for-profit hospital chain, Columbia/HCA, to install their auto lab system in U.S. hospitals. In partnership with Duke University, MDS manages the clinical laboratories in the university hospital and health system. Says MDS vice president, Robert Brecken: “…working within the United States provides us with the experience and knowledge of new directions we can carry into Canada.” Drinking Water Scare. It was MDS who was at the heart of the June 2002 drinking water scare where 67 South Western Ontario communities were left with untested water because, in the words of the assistant deputy minister of the environment, “[MDS Laboratories had failed to tell communities] when indications of adverse water quality were observed.” To add to the outrage, it has recently been reported that Paul Rhodes, who was once a communications director to Mike Harris, was paid $240,000 to provide public relations advice on how to best handle the Walkerton water disaster. He was also on contract with MDS at the time. Is this the type of company we want involved in our health system? HCA - Private Hospitals in Canada? Have you ever wondered what our healthcare system would be like in Canada if our hospitals were run on a for-profit basis by corporations based in the U.S.? A May 2002 report from the Canadian Medical Association Journal concluded that you are “more likely to die in a private hospital”and that establishing private, for-profit hospitals in Canada would be a “mistake that would lead to thousands of deaths.” Yet, despite this damning conclusion, the push for private hospitals continues. By taking a closer look at HCA, a corporation specialized in privatizing hospitals all over the U.S., we can get a better picture of what could happen in Canada. HCA is the largest for-profit hospital chain in the world. In its former incarnation as Columbia/HCA, this corporation owned and operated 348 hospitals. After being found guilty of numerous fraud charges in the U.S., the company was restructured. To raise the cash required to pay for the settlement of its multi-million dollar lawsuits, the largest health related lawsuits in U.S. history, HCA sold off chunks of its operations, including its non-hospital businesses. As of 2002, HCA owns and operates 200 hospitals and other healthcare facilities in 24 U.S. states, plus Britain and Switzerland, and employs 168,000 people. To expand their operations globally, HCA has developed joint ventures in other countries, such as with MDS here in Canada. A corporation of this size and clout, with the potential to enter the Canadian hospital market, bears closer scrutiny: Health Fraud Scandal: In what has been called the largest health fraud case in U.S. history, HCA was the subject of a massive investigation by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice in 1997. The company was charged for making unallowable or inflated claims in their annual Medicare cost reports and for giving kickbacks of money and perks to physicians if they referred their patients to Columbia/HCA hospitals. During the period under investigation, HCA was the largest biller to Medicare in the U.S., making up to 36 percent of their profits from government healthcare funds. Through the settlement, HCA was required to pay nearly $800 million. Political Power Plays: HCA has effectively used its close business and political connections to advance business friendly healthcare policies. In 1995, soon after meeting with Columbia/HCA President Richard Scott, Governor (at the time) George W. Bush vetoed a Texas patient protection bill which the company had been actively opposing. The patient’s bill would have expanded the number of children and adults covered by the state’s health insurance program for the poor. In the 2000 election cycle, HCA’s political party contributions topped $124,000 US, more than two-thirds going to the Republican Party. Buy & Close Hospitals: HCA has a history of taking over hospitals and then closing them in order eliminate competition and maximize its profit margin. For example, in 1995, when Columbia/HCA took over HealthTrust Corporation, it promptly closed a 34-bed medical center facility in Gilmer, Texas. Similarly, for profit hospitals are not inclined to serve poor communities. In 1998, when the Alexian Brothers Hospital [which provided $10 million worth of free care in 1997] was transferred to Columbia/HCA, the company refused to make a statement of commitment to provide a community health fund and ensure continuing service to the poor. Slash & Burn Practices: To fuel its expansion and profit targets, HCA also has a track record of slashing jobs. As former HCA executive and whistleblower Mark Gardiner said about HCA’s management philosophy: “Employees are the largest operating expense. Cut that to the bone. Cut nursing to the bone. I mean cut it to as low as your conscience will allow.” The 7th largest employer in the U.S., HCA was reputed to be one of the most difficult companies to work for in the late 1990s, according to the Corporate Crime Reporter. Cigna & Other HMOs: Healthcare Misery Just imagine what it would be like if a range of healthcare services in Canada, from routine check ups to hospital stays, were managed on a for-profit basis by corporations that were headquartered in the U.S. Well, there are a variety of U.S. based health maintenance companies in the U.S. like Cigna, which are likely to target Canada for expanding their operations and markets. The U.S. healthcare system is largely managed by the HMO industry, which is short for Health Maintenance Organization. This industry is run by a network of big corporations which includes Aetna, Cigna Corp., Humana Inc., UnitedHealth Group Inc., and Health Net Inc. These corporations sell private healthcare plans for people to access the services of physicians, hospitals, homecare and long term care. Selling access to healthcare is a big business. Take, for example, Cigna, which has established HMOs in most U.S. states and is the third largest HMO corporation in the world. Cigna’s assets total more than $91 billion and, in 2001 alone, it brought in more than $19 billion in revenue. Cigna is eager to become even bigger. As the major representative of the for-profit health industry on the U.S. Coalition of Service Industries, Cigna has been in a pivotal position to shape the new global rules on cross-border trade in services [known as the GATS] currently being negotiated at the World Trade Organization. What’s more, Canada is seen as one of Cigna’s major potential growth markets. Canadians should beware of Cigna and its privately managed healthcare schemes. Here’s why: Civil Racketeering Charges: In a large class action suit currently before the courts in the U.S., Cigna along with other major HMO corporations is being charged with violating federal racketeering laws by using financial incentives for physicians to deny treatment and cut costs. Consider the case of Cigna insurance holder Thomas Concannon, who was diagnosed with a rare cancer, multiple myeloma, requiring a bone marrow transplant in order to survive. Cigna refused to pay for the transplant operation, effectively handing Concannon a death sentence. Only after heavy pressure and media coverage, did Cigna finally agree to pay for Concannon’s transplant. Poor Payment Practices: Physicians and medical associations in several U.S. states have filed class action suits against Cigna and other HMO corporations for failure to pay for medical work and treatment prescribed for patients. In Texas, Cigna is charged with failures to properly pay doctors, including failing to provide a fee schedule to the physicians and arbitrarily changing the steps that doctors must take to be paid. Shortly after signing a contract with Cigna, one oncologist said he was told the contracted fees were no longer valid and he’d have to accept a new, lower reimbursement. Overbilling U.S. Medicare: Cigna has also been charged with fraudulently overbilling U.S. taxpayers. A Cigna employee blew the whistle on a Cigna subsidiary, Connecticut General Life Insurance, charging they overbilled U.S. Medicare’s Health Care Financing Administration for nearly 10 years. Cigna settled, agreeing to pay the U.S. Federal Government nearly $9 million. Global Reach: Cigna is presently opening up HMO markets in Brazil, Guatemala, Chile, Spain, India, the Philippines and the United Kingdom. Says Jonathan Lewis, president of the Academy for International Health Sciences, “multinational corporations … are interested in finding alternatives to public health” for their workers. Or,says an HMO consultant Nalinee Sangrujee, “The force of globalization and U.S.companies going international is true for most companies... and there is no reason why managed care companies can’t do the same.” Given the demographics of the workforce, both Mexico and Canada may prove to be better markets for Cigna to export its HMO model. Interhealth Canada: Canadian Health for Export" It is not well known, but Canada is an active exporter of healthcare services - to those who can afford it. A Canadian company, Interhealth Canada, performs abroad for its Canadian shareholders (including the Ontario and B.C.governments) what is illegal within Canada – the establishment of private Medicare, including building and running hospitals and clinics. As a 100% health export company, Interhealth sets up major projects in the health field overseas. Interhealth has operations in United Arab Emirates,China, and Thailand. Interhealth serves only the affluent and sells hospital and other services on a for-profit basis in these countries, and is looking to expand. Interhealth’s exporting of healthcare with the investment support of provincial governments violates the essence of the Canada Health Act’s provisions for universal, accessible, and affordable public health. Provincial Government Funding: Governments in Canada are partial owners in Interhealth through the purchase of shares. Government shareholders in Interhealth include: the British Columbia Health Industry Development Office; the Ontario Ministry of Health; and the Ontario Development Corporation (Other key shareholders include: The University of Ottawa Heart Institute; York County Hospital; Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation; McMaster University; MDS Inc.) Exporting Canadian Nurses and Doctors: Interhealth’s ability to export health services is made possible by recruiting Canadian health professionals, utilizing public and private capital to sell healthcare services. This siphoning of healthcare resources drains the public tank. Interhealth is busy signing up nurses and doctors for its operations abroad, something that has raised serious concerns, especially in British Columbia. When asked about this, Steve Kenny,then executive director of the B.C. Health Industry Development Office, and who was very much behind the B.C. government’s investments in Interhealth, couldn’t help but admit the contradiction: “I don’t think we want to be losing scarce resources like physicians, and especially nurses, to jobs overseas. When Interhealth came calling on me asking for assistance, I declined since I don’t want to be a party to sending our scarce resources elsewhere. On the other hand, I can’t stop them from approaching health professionals.” Federal Government Handouts: Export Development Canada (EDC). EDC is the Canadian Government’s export credit agency,offering loans and credit to corporations eager to expand internationally. Interhealth has been backed by EDC in its overseas projects and in the the words of Chief Executive Skip Schwartz, “[interhealth] will certainly be looking to [EDC] to be partners in any future projects.” EDC’s backing of Interhealth is a clear example of the Canadian government’s push for the export of private healthcare, including hospitals - private ventures which would be illegal in Canada. EDC even featured Interhealth in an issue of their magazine Export Wise where they touted Interhealth as being at “the forefront of a growing trend which some experts believe is Canada’s next gold mine, exporting services.” Possible Trade Challenges: Beyond the ethical questions raised by Canadian for-profit export of healthcare, export companies like Interhealth risk helping promote the opening up of the Canadian health system to foreign corporate control. Canadian health exports create pressure for reciprocation through trade agreement guarantees of foreign access to various Canadian healthcare markets, including hospitals. A March 2000 letter from MDS Vice President Brian Harling to International Trade Minister Pierre Pettigrew makes this abundantly clear, stating that members of a key government health sector advisory body on international trade are “supportive of any opportunities for Canadians to increase their ability to offer their services internationally. [However]members cautioned that there would be a price to pay, i.e., granting similar opportunities to foreigners.” Extendicare: Long Term Care or private Neglect? A September 2001 study in the American Journal of Public Health revealed that investor owned nursing homes provide worse care and less nursing care than non-profit and public homes”, yet private long-term care companies, whether it be nursing homes or retirement homes, are growing in number by receiving an increasing percentage of the bed licenses given out by provincial governments. In some cases, the corporations even receive large government subsidies as incentive for building long-term care homes. Illustrating the continued sellout of Canadian Medicare to corporate interests, these government handouts are reflective of government’s increasing inclination towards promoting the private health industry, even though inferior care is often the result. A quick look at the nursing home corporation Extendicare indicates that private long term care is not in Canadian’s long-term interests. Here’s how: Gross Negligence: Extendicare was convicted in the largest abuse and neglect verdict in Florida’s history (worth $20 million, with an appeal that was settled for an undisclosed amount). The case centred on an Alzheimer’s patient at a Nursing home in Pinellas County who was not given medication, may have been unfed for up to a month, received no treatment for a bed sore that turned gangrenous, and later died. Extendicare withdrewall its operations in Florida as well as Texas where other lawsuits had been put forth, and began to concentrate elsewhere, including Canada. Shutting out Public Care: The building of eight new Extendicare centres beginning in 2001 is heavily subsidized ($10.35/day per resident for 900 beds, totaling $700 million over 20 years) by the Ontario Conservative Government. This is typical of the Conservative government policy of massive investment in private sector long-term care, which has consistently shut out many public facilities. This includes Hamilton’s St. Peter’s Hospital, touted as a “world renowned centre of excellence in geriatric care”, which was left out when in 1998 the government awarded five licenses in the Hamilton region, mostly to the private sector. [b]Buying bed licenses: Extendicare gave $37,000 to the Ontario Tories between 1995 and 1999, and was awarded the $700 million contract detailed above. Critics insist that there’s “a link between those contributions and the awarding of nursing home licenses”, as those who gave the most, Extendicare and CPL REIT, received the most beds. Canadian Conflicts of interest: Senator Michael Kirby plays two conflicting roles within Canadian healthcare. He is the head of a Senate Commission reviewing the future of healthcare in Canada (The committee, chaired by Senator Michael Kirby, has been reviewing major health care issues since December 1999. Regular participants in the study include the Deputy Chair, Senator Marjory LeBreton, now a member of Harper’s cabinet) where he is to serve the public interest. Kirby is also a board member for Extendicare, where his role is to serve the interests of the company. Extendicare is eager to see the further privatization of Canadian healthcare, and with Kirby at the head of this Senate a major conflict of interest seems obvious. Not surprisingly, the Kirby commission’s second report, argues for further privatization of Canadian Medicare. Paying Poor Wages: In Athabasca, Alberta, Extendicare wouldn’t provide fair wages for front line workers providing care for elderly residents. Extendicare wanted to pay these workers less than $10 per hour and pocket the profits. This caused a difficult 56 day strike in which workers ultimately won a raise, their first in four years. Among other places, serious labour disputes over poor pay and working conditions have also occurred in Extendicare operations in Lethbridge, Alberta and Regina, Saskatchewan. Managing hospital units: Extendicare also manages some hospital wards, such as the McCall Centre for Continuing Care in Toronto based in the Queensway General Hospital. These privately managed hospitals raise serious fears of a slippery slope leading to U.S. style hospitals which provide more expensive, often poorer quality care. Tellingly, an outspoken commissioner of the government mandated 1996-2000 Ontario Health Services Restructuring Commission, which pushed to cut public hospitals, was Extendicare Vice President Shelley Jamieson Comcare: Homecare for Profit Homecare in Canada does not fall within the Canada Health Act, exposing it to privatization. Homecare privatization has accelerated rapidly, especially in Ontario where 1999 laws opening up homecare to privatization led to a major change in the private homecare landscape. Governments have permitted the growth of for-profit homecare operations despite the fact that studies in the US show that private homecare providers cost the public more money than public or non-profit homecare providers.The increased costs are largelydue to largeexecutive salaries and high levels of profits. Why then would our governments be so willing to sell off homecare? Comcare is based in London, Ontario and is owned by the large laboratories and diagnostics company Gamma-Dynacare, which is owned by the Latner’s, a family deeply connected to, and financially supportive of, the Ontario Tories. Comcare is the largest home care corporation in Canada. Operating in most provinces, they provide home care and home support to those who can afford to pay, or who are subsidized by government programs. Comcare is notorious for providing low wages, poor benefits and overtime, in addition to keeping nurses and support workers as casual labour as a means to save money and have nurses on call at their command. Comcare, like other major home care corporations, bids low in newly privatized areas (like Ontario) and uses its market power to destroysmaller, often not-for-profit competitors and then uses this monopoly power to drop wages and raise rates. Here are some examples: Kingston: Cheap, Casual Labour In late 1998, eighty Comcare nurses in Kingston went on strike to fight for a first contract demanding full and part-time permanent jobs. Comcare refused because they wanted all their nurses to be casual labour, on call daily for last minute assignments. Some nurses were working 48 hour weeks - which is obviously not casual labour. After 5 long months, the nurses won the case in binding arbitration and were offered a contract, with the arbitration board ruling that Comcare had been unreasonable and uncompromising. Windsor: Undercutting Community Care In 1999, 226 Windsor area non-profit Victorian Order of Nurses (VON) community nurses lost their jobs as contracts were awarded to Comcare and Olsten. The Canadian Union of Public Employees stated that Comcare and Olsten gained the contracts in large part because they wereable to undercut other bids due to poor working conditions and inferior care they provided. A major rally was held at the legislature in Toronto to fight against this destruction of non-profit community care, but it fell on the deaf ears of the provincial government. Newfoundland: Slashing Workers Wages In the mid 1990s, Comcare cut hourly wages of support workers from a minimal $7.00 per hour to the unliveable level of $5.25 per hour. After two years of contract talks which got nowhere, a strike for fair wages was called by 140 women workers of the United Food and Commercial Workers. What did Comcare do in response? They ended the strike byclosing all of their operations in Newfoundland! Public Homecare providers: Corporate providers like Comcare, We Care, Bayshore and others see staff and operations as expendable and insignificant when compared to their profit margins. Corporate homecare providers also create serious doubts about public accessibility and affordability. For these reasons, as recommended in a 1997 National Forum on Health Report, what weneed is publicly run homecare providing high quality, accessible, and reliable long-term homecare, with a ‘patients and employees first’ attitude. It is time to stop the creeping corporatization of homecare and make a fully funded national program a reality. GATS & FTAA: Free Trade’s Newest Threats to Healthcare Healthcare corporations push whenever they can for privatized healthcare, including support for international trade agreements that promote, expand and ‘lock in’ the privatization of services. The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) Services negotiations and the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) [along with the already existing North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which continues to pose the most direct threat to the Canadian Healthcare system] are key trade agreements that endanger public healthcare and hold enormous potential profit for corporate interests. A look at the GATS sheds light that at these various services negotiations, absolutely nothing, including health care, is off the bargaining table for potential privatization. For starters, a 1999 report from the Canadian government stated that GATS consultations would proceed even in “areas of particular sensitivity, such as health, education, and transport.” The Canadian healthcare market is seen as one of the largest “unopened oysters” in the world, and the GATS is one of the tools to pry it open. Despite this, Canadian government officials say that public services like healthcare are currently exempt from the GATS, but in reality this is only for sectors completely financed by governments and run on a fully non-profit basis. As we have seen throughout this booklet, the Canadian healthcare sector is filled with for-profit companies such as MDS and Extendicare, ending any exemption for Canada’s healthcare sector under strictly interpreted GATS rules. Since there is no exemption, Canadians have reason to worry about a GATS attack on Canadian Medicare: Three examples of where the GATS could have a significant and detrimental affect on Canada’s ability to preserve and renew Medicare (Adapted from the summary of Reckless Abandon: Canada, the GATS, and the Future of Healthcare) 1. Canadian Health Insurance: Unbelievably, the Canadian government already officially exposed Health Insurance to GATS rules, which constrains our ability to expand Medicare coverage to encompass health services already covered by private health insurance, for example home care and pharmacare. This means that if the Canadians decide in the future that home care should be publicly insured (as it should), government legislation to do so could be subject to GATS challenges and possible economic sanctions against Canada. 2. Hospital Support Services: When hospitals try to bring services like food, laundry, or maintenance back under public control in cases where private contracts prove too costly or are poorlyrun, new GATS rules could be used to challenge this ”contracting in” as a so-called “unfair barrier” to foreign owned service corporations. 3. Medical Services in Hospitals: Though medical services in hospitals are currently protected from GATS rules, this protection may be undermined by other legislation which allows public funding of private for-profit hospitals. It is conceivable that a healthcare corporation like HCA could use Alberta’s controversial Bill 11 and NAFTA to access public health funding from the Canadian government, and GATS rules could potentially extend these rights (including access to government subsidies) to all other foreign-owned corporations, eventually inundating health care with for-profit corporations and undermining -or worse, destroying- Medicare. GATS & FTAA: Free Trade’s Newest Threats to Healthcare Health Corporations and their Corporate Lobby Groups Where do the corporations fit into all this? Well, there are several powerful big business lobbygroups, including the US Coalition of Service Industries (USCSI) and the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters (CME), both of which are powerful advocates within the GATS and FTAA negotiations to ensure their needs are being met. They have direct access to top politicians in key departments, and often contribute directly to politicians’ formulation of trade agreement policy. Corporations profiled in this booklet are either members of these lobby groups, (like CIGNA, which sits on the USCSI) or gain indirectly from policies that are implemented due the lobbying of these groups. Canadian Government and the GATS Because of the potentially disastrous effects that the GATS could have on the Canadian healthcare system, Ottawa must reverse its policy on GATS and make clear that it is in strict opposition to extending coverage of healthcare services in the GATS. It must clearly state that safeguarding Canada’s healthcare system will never be compromised by the push to secure market access for Canadian health exports, such as those promoted by Interhealth Canada. While we cannot accept the legitimacy of the whole GATS negotiations process itself because it is undemocratic and harmful, this is especially true for a vital public service like healthcare A little food for thought on a saturday morning. And again - for those here who support Private Healthcare - congrats - you are now closer than you've ever been. But those who support Public Healthcare - remember - Mr. Harper says that he has a MANDATE, but he does not. He has a MINORITY ...NOT THE SAME THING. So forget the posturing - put your MP's number on speed dial and fight like heck.

I came across a pamphlet put out by the Polaris Institute that brings up some very good points in the arguments against private healthcare. Polaris Institute Website I tried to find it online but was unsuccessful, so instead I'm scanning it. Always a sceptic, I did a little more research into the claims, so will interject my sources whenever possible. Bold lettering represents the actual wording from the pamphlet, entitled: Exposing the Private Healthcare Industry By: Tony Clarke, Director, Polaris Institute Mr. Clarke and his partner Maude Barlow have written extensively on the subject. A few additional websites: http://www.rightlivelihood.org/recip/2005/...-and-clarke.htm http://www.writersunion.ca/b/barlow.htm The Canadian public Medicare system is at serious risk. Many governments and corporations are pushing for a more and more privatized system, while others, including much of the public, want Medicare to remain a publicly funded and administered right for all Canadians. The great Canadian Healthcare debate is now well underway. All across the country, the advocates for a public system of universal healthcare are dueling it out with those calling for greater privatization leading to a two-tiered healthcare system. The federal government’s commission on healthcare, chaired by former Saskatchewan Premier Roy Romanow, appears to have become the rallying point for the first camp while the Senate commission on healthcare, chaired by Senator Michael Kirby, has been the galvanizing center for much of the second camp. My original 'Ducks in a Row' thread, mentions some of the corporations, but the above paragraph from the pamphlet adds another duck to the Harper cabinet. In his report, Roy Romanow states : "After carefully reviewing the available evidence- hard facts, not unproven assumptions- I also make the case in my report that Medicare is sustainable if we want it to be, that historically, single-payer health systems have proven to be significantly more cost-efficient than alternative approaches, and that despite the sometimes over-heated rhetoric, Canada's health outcomes remain among world's best." Romanow's Defense of Public Healthcare Michael Kirby's Report. What I find interesting in what Mr. Clarke refers to as the 'second camp' can be found in the heading. 'Chair: The Honourable Michael J.L. Kirby Deputy Chair: The Honourable Marjory LeBreton. The Deputy Chair from this second camp is none other than a Harper cabinet minister - Marjory Lebreton. And hmmm....Ms. LeBreton is in charge of what, again? Oh yeah....The Senate. Just a coincidence, I'm sure. Back to the pamphlet: Yet, the federal government appears to have already abandoned the goal of a publicly delivered, universal healthcare system. Over the past quarter century, the 50/50 funding formula between the federal and provincial governments has been steadily eroding. The federal share dropped to 42 percent under the Trudeau government, then to 33 percent under the Mulroney government, and down to 23.5 percent under the Chrétien government, reaching as low as 10.5 percent at one point. This validates what I have already said - governments prior to Mr. Harper's have brought us to the edge of the cliff and the PM is now about to push us off. Again, I have to go back to the Reform Party of Canada and the National Citizens' Coalition: Mr. Harper was one of the founding members of the Reform Party (read his bio) - wrote policy for the party which he says: “the agenda of the NCC was a guide to me,” - and former NCC president, David Somerville says that Harper: “cribbed probably two-thirds of our policy book.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Citizens_Coalition Over its almost four decades of existence, the NCC has funded campaigns against: the Canada Health Act So if Mr. Harper has not only been a long time member, but it's former president, and they have funded many campaigns against the Canada Helath Act, why would he now do an about face, and start to defend it. The NCC has not even bothered to replace him when he left to join the Canadian Alliance (a metamorphosis of the Reform Party), and why would they? Their lord and master is now the Prime Minister of Canada and in a perfect position to realize the NCC's dream. And now for his posturing: From the Edmonton Journal "Klein said he believes he and Harper are on the same wavelength...While Stephen Harper did mention the whole issue of the Canada Health Act (previously), he also mentioned something else and I think it is significant - the authority of the provinces to exercise their constitutional rights," Klein said. Another thought: From Parkland Institute "And now, in addition to his empty promises on parallel systems, Stephen Harper is trying to reassure voters by promising to uphold the Canada Health Act. This is not going to make me rest easier at night. Partly because for the entirety of his political career, Stephen Harper and the parties he has been associated with have opposed the Canada Health Act and lobbied for the federal government to get out of health care.....Harper's relationship with Klein also calls into question his commitment to upholding the Canada Health Act. "

This is why I will never vote Liberal: http://www.liberalvalues.ca/ So the question is - which party will bring back the morals & values I grew up in? For future generations... Thank you Gord. I'm now an orphan, politically speaking, since there is no longer a Tory party in Canada, and am shopping around. In some ways it's good, because it gives me a chance to look deeper into what each have to offer, without simply following party line. The Liberals have far too much baggage in the scandal department, and unless they can pull a leader out of their hat that sincerely wants to clean up their party, I'm afraid they are on a downward spiral. The CPC, since taking office, have only shown just how 'Liberal' they can be, and so long as Jack Layton keeps referring to himself as the 'third' choice, and not the 'best' choice; I'm not ready to take that leap either. For now I'm content to watch Mr. Harper like a hawk, and hope that next election Canada will be offered better choices in the ethics and accountability department.