That Didn't Take Long

Just in case you thought the 'typical' pro-privatization arguments I was trying to refute in my last few posts were straw men or not representative of what people argue, Lysiane Gagnon has a column in the Globe (subscriber only but you're not missing much, you can probably find it using google news if you must see it) today which, while misleading the public, serves nicely to illustrate what I've been talking about in the last few health care posts.

The article is sort of about how Alberta's plan for no holds barred two tier care is better than Quebec's plan for some holds barred two-tier care, but mainly it's just a recitation of pro-privatization talking points.

First off, the ritual invocation of Europe:

"Throughout Western Europe -- including social-democratic countries such as France and Sweden -- physicians can work for both the public and the private sectors as long as they respect certain quotas that ensure priority is given to the public sector."

No mention, of course, of how European countries which have a parallel private system do so in the context of an overall health system which covers a higher percentage of health costs publicly than ours does, but to be fair, if the point is only that it is possible for a social democratic country to have two tier care, then I guess it is fair enough, as far as cherry-picking goes.

"Quebec will pay for patients to have surgery in private clinics (in the province or anywhere else in North America) if the public system cannot accommodate their needs within six to nine months after a specialist's diagnosis. This will hugely increase the taxpayers' burden.

Alberta, on the contrary, considers the present system financially unsustainable (a sound analysis if one looks at the numbers), and wants more private money to be injected in the system. It will encourage patients who can afford it to buy private insurance to have cataract surgery and knee and hip replacements in the private sector."

You see, if the province pays for it, it is a 'huge increase in the taxpayers burden', but if people pay the same amount (or more) themselves, this is 'an injection of private money into the system'.

Let me say it one last time: it doesn't matter what shell it is under or whose hands it passes through, money spent on health care is money spent on health care.

Also, note the bold assertion that if 'one looks at the numbers', the system is 'financially unsustainable'. Well I've looked at the numbers, I've even put a few of them in colourful chart form, and it doesn't look unsustainable to me. True, I don't analyze numbers for a living (wait, never mind) - true, I'm not a health care expert but I just don't see how spending an extra percent of GDP on health every decade or so is so unsustainable.

I guess it's true that the cost of the system might be unsustainable if provinces refuse to raise taxes, but this is akin to saying that a private system would be unsustainable if people refused to pay any money for private medical procedures. We will never be able to provide infinite health care, of course, so there will always be rationing based on some criteria, just as there is for every other product or service we consume, but that's just the way it is - it's not a reason to make the system more public or more private.

There's lots more silliness in the article, but I don't have all day, and I just wanted to highlight the parts which directly illustrate my point from the last few posts. Maybe a legitimate case can be made for a two-tier system, but I haven't seen it yet. Scaremongering about 'unsustainable costs' just brings to mind the recent battles over Social Security in the United States. And if you want to convince me of anything, I don't recommend working from the George Bush persuasion tactics playbook.