Part Two: Exposing the Private Healthcare Industry

[Nocrap]

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.

[August1991]

Nocrap,

I have reported your post above to the moderator. It is against forum rules to post entire copyrighted documents. Your post above is cut-and-paste of the worst kind. We have no context or link to understand the document.

If I understand properly, you believe it is wrong for "corporations" to provide health services. Why? Corporations are just a group of people working together. Are hospitals not "corporations"?

"Corporations" provide the food you eat and the clothes you wear. Do you believe that's wrong too? What's different between "health services" and "food"?

[margrace]

August I lived at a time when we could not afford a doctor and had no hospitals in our towns. We worked hard and paid our taxes to get this care. Now when we are in our old age you people want to take away something that was so important and safe for us.

Turn around a couple of times August and see how fast you age and will need the very care you are cutting.

[margrace]

Nocrap,

I have reported your post above to the moderator. It is against forum rules to post entire copyrighted documents. Your post above is cut-and-paste of the worst kind. We have no context or link to understand the document.

If I understand properly, you believe it is wrong for "corporations" to provide health services. Why? Corporations are just a group of people working together. Are hospitals not "corporations"?

"Corporations" provide the food you eat and the clothes you wear. Do you believe that's wrong too? What's different between "health services" and "food"?

[Renegade]

We worked hard and paid our taxes to get this care. Now when we are in our old age you people want to take away something that was so important and safe for us.

margrace, somehow many retired people have the impression that they have "earned" free healthcare based upon the taxes they previously paid. This is a fallacy. Any taxes previously paid, went to fund healthcare and other social programs which were provided at the time the taxes were paid. Further for most of the retired population, the bulk of the taxes were paid between the 70s to 90s. During that period, the taxes collected DID NOT even cover the cost of the social programs provided. The govenment irresponsibly took on horrendous debt to make up the difference. This is a legacy which we who are still working are still paying for.

So when the retired generation thinks it is owed something it makes me cringe. If anything it is the retired generation which owes the current working population something to compensate it for the debt it left us to pay off.

Now I recognize that as people age they have a greater need for healthcare, so I don't dispute the need. However, I very much dispute the justification is valid.

[scribblet]

August I lived at a time when we could not afford a doctor and had no hospitals in our towns. We worked hard and paid our taxes to get this care. Now when we are in our old age you people want to take away something that was so important and safe for us.

Turn around a couple of times August and see how fast you age and will need the very care you are cutting.

No they do not want to take it away from you, when are you going to understand that all most of want is a choice, alongside the public health care. NO ONE including Harper is going to take away, he has said so, and no amount of misinformation or fear mongering is going to alter that.

[JerrySeinfeld]

HOLY SHIT!

That's the longest post ever, for sure.

Anyway I think the gist of your post is "private health care: bad, public health care: good"

There are way too many nuances to discuss. But generally I think anyone who assumes that private is bad and public is good is oversimplifying.

Even all of our Euro-socialist brethren countries, including SWEDEN, have all incorporated some degree of private provision and insurance to take on the burden of care on an ever aging boomer population.

[scribblet]

HOLY SHIT!

That's the longest post ever, for sure.

Anyway I think the gist of your post is "private health care: bad, public health care: good"

There are way too many nuances to discuss. But generally I think anyone who assumes that private is bad and public is good is oversimplifying.

Even all of our Euro-socialist brethren countries, including SWEDEN, have all incorporated some degree of private provision and insurance to take on the burden of care on an ever aging boomer population.

Took me forever to scroll by, any more of those and my scroll button will wear out.

[Hicksey]

We worked hard and paid our taxes to get this care. Now when we are in our old age you people want to take away something that was so important and safe for us.

margrace, somehow many retired people have the impression that they have "earned" free healthcare based upon the taxes they previously paid. This is a fallacy. Any taxes previously paid, went to fund healthcare and other social programs which were provided at the time the taxes were paid. Further for most of the retired population, the bulk of the taxes were paid between the 70s to 90s. During that period, the taxes collected DID NOT even cover the cost of the social programs provided. The govenment irresponsibly took on horrendous debt to make up the difference. This is a legacy which we who are still working are still paying for.

So when the retired generation thinks it is owed something it makes me cringe. If anything it is the retired generation which owes the current working population something to compensate it for the debt it left us to pay off.

Now I recognize that as people age they have a greater need for healthcare, so I don't dispute the need. However, I very much dispute the justification is valid.

Amen, I couldn't say it any better myself.

[lost&outofcontrol]

"Corporations" provide the food you eat and the clothes you wear. Do you believe that's wrong too? What's different between "health services" and "food"?

Corporations do NOT provide the food and clothing you wear, labour does. You and me.

[scribblet]

"Corporations" provide the food you eat and the clothes you wear. Do you believe that's wrong too? What's different between "health services" and "food"?

Corporations do NOT provide the food and clothing you wear, labour does. You and me.

True, but without corporations or individuals in small business, neither you nor I would have a job.

[JerrySeinfeld]

"Corporations" provide the food you eat and the clothes you wear. Do you believe that's wrong too? What's different between "health services" and "food"?

Corporations do NOT provide the food and clothing you wear, labour does. You and me.

Corporations are groups of people - organizations containing people and owned by people.

That's a big lefty lie - that a "corporation" is some evil entity out there and is separate from you and me and your neighbours. Corporations are owned by and comprised of YOU ME and our NEIGHBOURS.

[kharne]

What's with lefties and their animosity towards profit? It seems that they are more concerned about dragging people down to their own level than they are concerned with bettering themselves. If someone can do something more efficiently and cheaper, by all means let them cash in on it. The last time I checked, most people aren't in too much of a hurry to do something for free...

[scribblet]

What's with lefties and their animosity towards profit? It seems that they are more concerned about dragging people down to their own level than they are concerned with bettering themselves. If someone can do something more efficiently and cheaper, by all means let them cash in on it. The last time I checked, most people aren't in too much of a hurry to do something for free...

It is not only animosity towards making a profit, it is the animosity towards people who might have a better standard of living than themselves. IMHO that it part of the reason some people don't want others to have a choice in health care, its sour grapes because some else might have a better pension than they do, or a few more bucks in the bank. Heaven help they should be able to buy better care for their loved one - better they should let the die waiting in line.

[margrace]

We worked hard and paid our taxes to get this care. Now when we are in our old age you people want to take away something that was so important and safe for us.

margrace, somehow many retired people have the impression that they have "earned" free healthcare based upon the taxes they previously paid. This is a fallacy. Any taxes previously paid, went to fund healthcare and other social programs which were provided at the time the taxes were paid. Further for most of the retired population, the bulk of the taxes were paid between the 70s to 90s. During that period, the taxes collected DID NOT even cover the cost of the social programs provided. The govenment irresponsibly took on horrendous debt to make up the difference. This is a legacy which we who are still working are still paying for.

So when the retired generation thinks it is owed something it makes me cringe. If anything it is the retired generation which owes the current working population something to compensate it for the debt it left us to pay off.

Now I recognize that as people age they have a greater need for healthcare, so I don't dispute the need. However, I very much dispute the justification is valid.

Do you have a good education? Who paid for that? Do you have fire protection? Who paid for that? There was no fire protection in our area in 1974, there were no ambulances. Where do you think they came from?

[margrace]

What's with lefties and their animosity towards profit? It seems that they are more concerned about dragging people down to their own level than they are concerned with bettering themselves. If someone can do something more efficiently and cheaper, by all means let them cash in on it. The last time I checked, most people aren't in too much of a hurry to do something for free...

It is not only animosity towards making a profit, it is the animosity towards people who might have a better standard of living than themselves. IMHO that it part of the reason some people don't want others to have a choice in health care, its sour grapes because some else might have a better pension than they do, or a few more bucks in the bank. Heaven help they should be able to buy better care for their loved one - better they should let the die waiting in line.

What a self centred way of looking at things, all I hear is the need for some to be able to put others down, its called poor self esteem

[Renegade]

Do you have a good education? Who paid for that? Do you have fire protection? Who paid for that? There was no fire protection in our area in 1974, there were no ambulances. Where do you think they came from?

Yes, I have a good education. And yes, my education was subsidized by the taxpayer, however, my parents contributed more than enough in taxes to cover my education cost.

Yes I have fire protection. And I more than pay for it each year via my real estate taxes.

If you didn't have fire protection or abmulances in 1974 and you paid for them via your taxes, that's great, but you did it to benefit yourselves and your community at the time, not for my benefit.

[Nocrap]

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.

[margrace]

Do you have a good education? Who paid for that? Do you have fire protection? Who paid for that? There was no fire protection in our area in 1974, there were no ambulances. Where do you think they came from?

Yes, I have a good education. And yes, my education was subsidized by the taxpayer, however, my parents contributed more than enough in taxes to cover my education cost.

Yes I have fire protection. And I more than pay for it each year via my real estate taxes.

If you didn't have fire protection or abmulances in 1974 and you paid for them via your taxes, that's great, but you did it to benefit yourselves and your community at the time, not for my benefit.

We had no fire protection in 1974, you just stood back and watched it burn. There were no ambulances, you might be able to get a herse.

[scribblet]

What's with lefties and their animosity towards profit? It seems that they are more concerned about dragging people down to their own level than they are concerned with bettering themselves. If someone can do something more efficiently and cheaper, by all means let them cash in on it. The last time I checked, most people aren't in too much of a hurry to do something for free...

It is not only animosity towards making a profit, it is the animosity towards people who might have a better standard of living than themselves. IMHO that it part of the reason some people don't want others to have a choice in health care, its sour grapes because some else might have a better pension than they do, or a few more bucks in the bank. Heaven help they should be able to buy better care for their loved one - better they should let the die waiting in line.

What a self centred way of looking at things, all I hear is the need for some to be able to put others down, its called poor self esteem

If careing about my family and getting them health care when they need it, is self centred, so be it. Bitching and whining about others and what they have is low self esteem, denying others the right to spend their hard earned dollars for their families is self centred.

As far as I'm concerned, those being self centred and having poor self esteem are those who constantly carp about others having a bit more then them, those who continually whine about wanting continual gov't 'freebies' - freebies which are courtesy of other taxpayers.

Again, no one wants to take away the public health care or deny you your 'freebies', we just want a choice alongside public healthcare and the right to spend our hard earned dollars as we see fit.

[Renegade]

We had no fire protection in 1974, you just stood back and watched it burn. There were no ambulances, you might be able to get a herse.

margrace, perhaps I'm missing your point. What exactly is it? That fire protection and ambulances are necessary? I concede that they are. They point we are debating is who provides them, who pays for them, and the sense of entitlement some people feel for "free" services.

If there was a $100 charge each time you called the fire department, would that stop you from calling them if you needed them? Is $100 a reasonable cost for the use of those services?

[Renegade]

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.

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?

[scribblet]

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.

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?

That is a question I would like to see answered by those who oppose it. I am assuming that they would prefer to let their loved ones or theselves suffer or die rather than pay for it in a private facility.

We would scrape what we could together and send our kids to the States if necessary

[geoffrey]

My family did that for my sister when our system refused to treat her, because they 'couldn't figure out what was wrong'. For two years. Two weeks in the States and she's fine.

[Nocrap]

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.

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.