Bureaucracies

[Cartman]

Nothing bothers me more than fiscal waste. While I believe that $$ are often needed to solve problems, I also believe that there is way too much waste in government and that this is a problem for every political party. Even in Alberta where my better half works in gov't, they seem to spend endless hours talking about work (called meetings) and a few actually doing work. They constantly go on vacations paid by the taxpayer (called conferences) and stay at lavish hotels and resorts. The waste is significant, but if they do not spend the money they get, then they do not get the money to spend ever again.

Though cheaper, privatizing things often doesn't work because programs often become too streamlined and there is still little value for the tax dollar (i.e. our student loan "service"). After all, waste is spending too much $$ for too little value. IMO, I consider it more wasteful to spend any $$ on useless services than to pay too much for useful ones though, for good reasons, I am sure many will disagree with this sentiment.

So, the million $ question is how do we ensure that dollars are spent wisely? I don't think the waste is due to wages, because you need to treat competent workers fairly. It seems to me that we need more audits/reviews throughout gov't institutions to ensure that bureaucrats are not just spending $$ in order to appear underfunded.

[Guest eureka]

Government seems so like private business. It has been estimated that, in white collar work at least, some 25% of time is spent on "office politics:" time that could have been used productively to be reflected in the price of the product or service. The larger the corporation, the more that seems to apply.

In business as well, budgets are made to be spent. A manager who went much under budget would be seen to not properly doing his job. There are all kinds of perks at the executive levels that would make a government bureaucrat green with envy.

That said, I agree with you about waste. To control it a start could be made by doing away with all MBA programmes. Staff and management staff, particularly, should be trained and brought up by the employer. The theory of management traing in academia has little relation to real people and situations.

[JWayne625]

I too feel that MBA Programs produce people that both private and government hire as supposed experts, when in fact their only business experiences come from textbooks written my PHD's in that field. In most cases these people have little or no experience in a real business environment, but yet they bring these textbook theories into the business world and attempt to make them work. When they don't work they simply hire more like themselves to push through their ideals, not to be contrued with ideas since these people never had an original idea in their lives, they simply follow the teachings of their guru's.

By example, the healthcare system is full of these people, and the scary part is that when these MBA's initiate one of their plan's in healthcare, the very people (doctors and other healthcare professionals), who are supposed to deliver that plan are not even consulted. These MBA's don't want to be corrupted by minor inconveniences like patient's and patient care, because it interferes with their idea of a perfect world, and often shows the flaws of attempting to make healthcare fit into this nice little financial box. Politicians like them because they tout the ability to make programs fit into that nice neat box. Too often they succeed, but the outcome is anything but desirable, since patient care is not the goal, fiscal management is.

The Government of New Brunswick has even gone so far as to make it illegal for healthcare professionals to sit as Board Member's on our Regional Healthcare Corporations. Instead they load these board's with political hacks, and business types, resulting in healthcare without a thought as to how patient's health is impacted by plans drawn up by MBA's.

In fact I heard a Professor of Criminology speak of the problems created in the hiring of MBA's to run programs, services and institutions. He spoke about the fact that these people are being hired to run these entities and they have no clue as to what the institution or program is supposed to be doing, nor do they care. Their function is to simply make the entity fit within certain financial contraints. If that means they run prisons without guards, or hospitals without adequate nures and other healthcare professinlas, than that is acceptable as long as the program stays within that little financial box. Someday soon the whole thing is going to blow up in their faces, and when it does, I don't want to be part of the collateral damage caused by allowing these MBA's to blindly slash and burn our social safety net.

[August1991]

It has been estimated that, in white collar work at least, some 25% of time is spent on "office politics:" time that could have been used productively to be reflected in the price of the product or service.

Office politics are an essential part of any organization. It's all about people communicating. I see no harm.

I too feel that MBA Programs produce people that both private and government hire as supposed experts, when in fact their only business experiences come from textbooks written my PHD's in that field.  In most cases these people have little or no experience in a real business environment, but yet they bring these textbook theories into the business world and attempt to make them work.

And sometimes the ideas do work. Nothing ventured; nothing gained. What's wrong with trying to understand systematically how an organization operates?

By example, the healthcare system is full of these people, and the scary part is that when these MBA's initiate one of their plan's in healthcare, the very people (doctors and other healthcare professionals), who are supposed to deliver that plan are not even consulted.

The truly scary part is that any person or group of persons would have control over a province's entire health system. That is putting all your eggs in one basket. Very dangerous. The Soviet Union is evidence of what happens when people approach a problem dogmatically and not pragmatically.

Canadians are dogmatic about the health system.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Canadians are dogmatic about the health system.

I agree, and believe a two-tiered system, with a small user fee, would provide universal coverage with the option of paying more to get more.

[caesar]

We do not want or need a two tiered system; especially one with a SMALL user fee. If a two tiered system was in place; make them pay the full cost to avoid the line-up. I would prefer the single system; they both use the same doctors in 2 tier so it does nothing to speed up the line up. I could accept a user fee for non urgent or unnecessary doctor / emergency room visits. It is time we modernized our health care system and allow more testing to be done by the patient at home and sent by internet to the doctor. It would save time for the doctor and the patient; especially those less mobile with a long term ailment that requires frequent testing to evaluate the effectiveness of medications etc.

Family doctors should be allowed to order MRIs; it seems ridiculous to wait 6 months to see a specialist who simply orders the MRI (another 6 months down the line unless you are willing to pay the shot) Why waste the precious time of our overbooked specialist; patients should arrive with the needed information for the specialist. Stop wasting his time and the patients.

What we need to do is streamline the healthcare system; not just pay more. There is no incentive for the Provincial governments to do so when it is their best tool to use to pry more transfer payments from the federal government.