What's Wrong with Canada? 

What's Wrong with Canada?

For various reasons, I find myself protesting again: I really don't agree with the National Post that Canada sucks.

But today's topic is: the relentless hypocritical campaign against anyone actually making a profit while offering health-care services.

Hypocritical because there are obviously services that have never been covered by Canadian Medicare: prescription drugs other than those administered in hospital; many long-term rehabilitation services; home-care; long-term care. Companies make profits in these areas of the system every day.

But: a mobile unit from the U.S. that provides certain MRI scans for cash in Ontario has to be shut down.

I can understand the argument that the same doctor can't have a mixture of OHIP or medicare patients and "cash" or private insurance patients. That's what used to happen in the 50s, and the "public" or "welfare" patients were treated like second-class citizens. (There may be a way, nevertheless, of combining two kinds of patients--I believe that's what other countries do).

In any case, that's not what this van was doing. It was cash only; it provided a service quickly that Canadian Medicare only provides after months of waiting. It helps patients identify what further services they need, so they can talk to their own doctor intelligently. What is the problem?

The bigger, almost collossally boring topic, is the new health care "deal" between Ottawa and the provinces. The only suspense for most people seems to have been: would the feds, whose fiscal situation is better, come up with enough cash to impress the provinces, or not? Apparently they did.

There is some debate which is at least somewhat interesting. Did the feds give up too much policy control over health to the provinces? Has Martin betrayed his predecessors Chretien and Trudeau by not sticking up for the federal presence? (More here). Is he in fact, as we are all beginning to think, a weakling who is in over his head, who was told all his life he was the Dauphin, he was entitled to be PM, etc.?

Was too much conceded to Quebec, in particular? (An old story). Is Martin actually a Joe Clark/Bob Stanfield Tory? (See Chantal Hebert in the Toronto Star here).

Getting back to the beginning of this post: why is there no real debate about reforming the system, rather than simply pumping in more cash? (See Rick Anderson, formerly of the Reform Party, writing in the Star here).

Should Canadians be concerned that these multi-billion dollar deals are cut among a dozen or so people in secret, rather than in a parliamentary debate? Another old story.

(Tom Walkom's attack from the left, also in the Star, here).

During the six years I didn't live in Canada, Mulroney came close to securing a constitutional deal called Meech Lake. He needed the agreement of premiers, who in turn could presumably deliver the votes of their respective provincial legislatures. Late in the day, with the deal in flames, Mulroney persuaded the premiers to come to Ottawa just for a few hours. Many of them took this literally, and didn't pack for overnight. He then somehow persuaded them to stay longer ("the future of Canada," and all that). Staffers were sent foraging around downtown Ottawa for shirts, toothbrushes, pajamas and underwear.

Then they had one of the legendary First Ministers meetings in the legendary Conference Centre (a former train station). These things had been televised before, especially under Trudeau, and people were kind of used to them. This Mulroney session got the highest ratings of any comparable session. Only....the premiers insisted on meeting in secret. Wall to wall reporters, many trying to think of something to say live in TV land--with nothing to cover. Whenever premiers went for a pee or a coke, they would be scrummed desperately. "What's going on?" "I'm not at liberty to say."

Honestly, Monty Python wouldn't have the guts to air this stuff--it's too implausible. Only it actually happened.