Letters, June 4

Answers hard to come by

Re: Judge health care by results, not whether it’s for profit (June 3)

When universal health care was first rolled out, doctors pushed back against it, thinking it would limit their ability to earn a living.

After it was implemented, the single-payer model meant they were no longer part-time doctors and part-time debt collectors. They didn’t have to turn away patients who couldn’t pay, so the number of patients they had increased. Ultimately, they made more money with fewer headaches. They were, as said in the article, private contractors who negotiated the rates for their services with the government — a practice that continues today.

The first question that must be asked these days when a service is offered by a private, for-profit entity is if those with the least means have equal access to the service as those with the most means. If the answer is yes, then it is not a privatized service but the use of a private provider under a universal health-care model.

The second question is, does the decision today put the long-term health of the system at risk? Will it slowly erode the public system that has a private counterpart by pulling resources and people from the public system over to the private, leaving the public system floundering and creating fodder for the proponents of private health care?

If that is a possible outcome, one could argue the decision today is contributing to a two-tier system and should be rethought.

Finally, and in the case of Dynacare, this is an important question, are your contracts creating a competitive market to help keep costs down? Or, are they contributing to a monopoly where we, as payers for the service, will eventually have no negotiating power and have to pay whatever they charge? Will these contracts be delivered in a way that fosters competition and keeps funds flowing to different providers to ensure the taxpayer can’t be held hostage to a company’s obligation to shareholders to gouge for as much profit as possible?

If there is a risk that we will end up over the barrel today or down the road, again, more thought needs to be given to the contracts being entered into.

The right answer when it comes to health care is getting harder and harder to come by. But that doesn’t mean we should stop trying to make sure we ask the right questions. At least then we may come up with the best answers possible for services we will all need at some point in our lives.

Brian Spencler

Winnipeg

Treading a slippery slope

Tom Brodbeck’s blithe and unsupported assertion that increasing private delivery of diagnostic testing will, of course, never push the bar towards further health-care privatization has more than a little whiff of “Don’t worry your silly little heads about this; nobody’s talking about two-tier health care!”

One has only to look to Alberta to see that universality of care is indeed under significant threat now. That “drug manufacturers … medical suppliers … and construction companies” make profits is not by any leap of logic itself a justification for decreasing (or failing to appropriately increase) public investment in health care overall, and making up the shortfall through for-profit means.

Sure — as a physician in the publicly funded system, I make money. What I don’t get to do is charge people extra because I answer to shareholders, not to patients. Try telling that to a corporation or an insurance company.

If increasing the private delivery of diagnostics is indeed such a good idea, then it should be subject to the same scrutiny and skepticism as when its proponents turn towards public investment in any social good.

Tariffs paid to physicians for publicly funded services are not hidden information. Why is the curtain firmly closed on the scrutiny of profits — How much? To whom? At what cost to the taxpayer? — in the private sector, while the supposed benefits of the private model are loudly touted?

What’s next, Mr. Brodbeck? Toll roads, especially for underserved rural areas? Your logic and your idea — not mine.

Dr. Sowyma Dakshinamurti

Winnipeg

North Winnipeg neglected

Re: Don’t let fear of change determine vote (Think Tank, June 2)

Erna Buffie’s article hit the nail on the head. Pools are being neglected and shut down, but in the south end they are building a $127.5 million rec centre. The Arlington Bridge will probably never be rebuilt. Why not spend a few tax dollars to support infrastructure in the poorer part of town?

I know where my vote is not going in October!

Marie Carrington

Winnipeg

The ills of privatization

After years of problematic service and underperformance, our housing co-op cancelled its internet service from Bell MTS. I then received a final bill with a $791.70 cancellation charge. This is an outrageous charge to do absolutely nothing, and a painful reminder of the true cost of privatization.

MTS used to be a publicly owned telecommunications company, and I was treated better and charged less when it was still publicly owned. If it misbehaved, I could talk to the government minister’s office, and that would ripple through to the company.

When MTS was publicly owned it gave people like me a non-market option for a telecom provider — offering a real choice. My lived experience is that the sheer existence of a publicly owned telecom forced the other private telecoms to be truly responsive for their service and prices. A public option kept the private companies in check.

This is true for many other sectors of our economy. A public oil company would still reap windfall profits from the wars in the Middle East — and would hand them over to our government. The public would benefit, instead of just becoming impoverished at the pump while excess oil profits flow to mostly foreign owners.

If public housing was 20 to 30 per cent of the current system, then it would offer true competition to the private market. This would dampen the excess profit taking by real estate investment trusts and a financialized housing sector. True competition against the market would temper outrageous, above-guideline rent increases, and offer people real choice in housing options.

It is frustrating to see the pitfalls of privatization being repeated. The federal government under Mark Carney is talking about privatizing airports. Much like the privatization of MTS, this will bring in a one-time payment to the government. It will also lead to increased fees and profit extraction from the Canadian public forever after. At a time of rising prices, the last thing we need is more private sector profit maximization.

Decades ago, the Progressive Conservative Party in Manitoba privatized MTS. Today I have 791.70 reasons to say enough with this out-of-control private sector. Bring back the public sector. It is past time for our government to invest in Crown corporations to deliver real services and offer the market some real competition. It is past time to make this failing market system actually compete. We will all win!

And to political parties that push privatization — you owe us some money!

Kerniel Aasland

Winnipeg