News   May 08, 2024
 1.2K     2 
News   May 08, 2024
 1.2K     2 
News   May 08, 2024
 3K     3 

Is Layton slowly seeing the light on health care?

B

blixa442

Guest
Layton would halt funding for private clinics
Canadian Press

VANCOUVER — NDP leader Jack Layton says his party will focus on stopping the flow of public money into private health care, not shutting down private clinics.

Campaigning in Vancouver's Chinatown Sunday, Layton said private clinics are a "fundamental aspect" of the health-care system founded by former Saskatchewan premier Tommy Douglas and not much can be done about them. Layton says he wants to stop tax dollars from boosting the bottom lines of big health-care corporations.

"Our focus is to keep public health-care dollars going to public and non-profit facilities," Layton told reporters. "What happens with people in the privacy of their own relationship financially, that's up to them."

When pressed on the issue, he said private clinics have been around from the beginning.

"There is nothing new about that," he said. "Our focus is on what happens to the public tax dollars that we all contribute to help take care of Canadians.

"We want them going to non-profit and public facilities and services."

The position seems to contradict what the party said all week about stopping the privatization of health care.


Party staff said the theory is that there would be no market for private care if a public health system was funded properly.

Layton was trying to take advantage of a slow day on the part of the other leaders to frame the debate around the health-care issue. But he ended up leaving reporters following his campaign stumped about his position.

In his speech to a rally of 300 supporters, he suggested that the election is only a two-party race on the topic because both the Liberals and Conservatives support what he calls the Americanization of health care.

He tried to drag Michael Kirby into the debate, saying the rival parties espouse the views of the Liberal senator, while the NDP fight for the values of their founding leader, Douglas.

Kirby has said publicly that he backs a public health system, but favours "getting as much competition into the delivery sector as you can."

Layton called Kirby the Wizard of Oz of health-care privatization.

"When you pull that curtain back, there Senator Kirby is prominent in the health policies of both the Conservative and the Liberal parties," Layton said.

Liberal Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh couldn't really clear up the issue of whether health clinics that operate solely on private funds could be stopped. Layton suggests they can't.

"The mode of delivery is determined by the provinces," Dosanjh told reporters in a conference call.

"Our preference is a public delivery, but that is determined by the provinces and if they determine that these clinics are to go on then they have to live within the confines of the (Canada Health) Act."

Instead, Dosanjh chose to attack Layton over his charge that the Liberals favour privatization.

"Mr. Layton says that he supports public delivery. We've been saying for a year and a half, ever since I have been a minister of health, our preference is public delivery," he said.
 
In his speech to a rally of 300 supporters, he suggested that the election is only a two-party race on the topic because both the Liberals and Conservatives support what he calls the Americanization of health care.

The "Americanisation of health care" boogeyman is one of my pet peeves. How about giving us some ideas, Jack, instead of fear-mongering?
 
Everyone does it, don't you know? Martin plays to fears on national unity, Harper's hidden agenda and "not having a great economy because only the I, I mean the Liberals know how to balance the books", Harper plays the scandal card, and trots out the law-and-order agenda (the classic fearmongering scheme), and the NDP trys to outplay the Liberals as both use the health card (not the credit card!).

I'm tired of the fearmongering too (hey, maybe I'm starting to understand why some people want to vote Green)
 
I think a lot of people want to vote Green because they assume they'll get screwed no matter who's in power, so we might as well get some real pro-environment legislations out of the deal.
 
Ironic considering that most private clinics are aborition clinics.
 
I think a lot of people want to vote Green because they assume they'll get screwed no matter who's in power, so we might as well get some real pro-environment legislations out of the deal.
Even though most environmental experts (ie. The David Suzuki Federation) endorse the NDP platform over the Greens?
 
Even though most environmental experts (ie. The David Suzuki Federation) endorse the NDP platform over the Greens?
NDP is proposing policing and enforcement (company X is allowed a quota of N for chemical Y) where Greens are proposing a change in the cost and taxation structure to make pollution less appealing (more expensive).

Over the long run I think a general solution like the Greens propose is going to have more impact than targeting specific problem areas after they become problems.

The biggest impact would probably be made if disposal/recycling/etc fees were included in the product price up front instead of being externalized to property taxes.
 
NDP has very little credibility when it comes to environment. How can a party supported by car unions be pro-environment?
 
That's just ignorant, particularly when most major environmental groups generally endorse the NDP's environment policies.

The CAW (which isn't quite supporting the NDP this time around) also represents thousands of transit workers - Grand River Transit, Translink, BC Transit and Oshawa Transit are several examples. They also represent Bombardier workers, who make trains, and Orion and New Flyer workers that make buses. The CAW might have "Auto" in their name, but it's very diverse in representation - and that's the only "car union" I know of, unless you want to throw in every possible direct or indirect supply industry.

And I can't think of one environmental policy that's been blamed for GM, Chrysler or Ford closures in Canada - they have been mostly because of market or free trade reasons.
 
spmarshall I am not sure I am getting your argument. It is true that the CAW organizes more than just auto workers (though it is sort of inherent in the name), but how does that make it more environmentally friendly? The point of the above argument is that Buzz's priority first and foremost is his members (and their jobs). Environmentalism is only relevant when it happens to overlap with their union goals - ie anti-globalism or left-wing solidarity.
 
Could Suzuki Foundation be endorsing the NDP because the Greens are not an official party (with the requisite 12 seats in the HoC)?

I like the Green party, they would actually be my 1st choice as a government. You have the use the market to make environmental goals coincide with economic goals. Trying to fight the market is ineffective and expensive. A lot of their policies could appeal to fiscal conservatives in that they support consumption as opposed to income taxes and support the fostering of a strong economy within the bounds of sustainable economics.

For instance, we hand-wring so much about how to implement Kyoto given how hopelessly behind we are in achieving our targets. If the federal government were to sell the right to emit formerly sequestered carbon dioxide and have this cost be paid as part of the refinery price of gasoline, natural gas, etc. on a futures exchange would work well. The federal government could gradually tighten the supply in order to keep prices somewhat in check. And the proceeds from the sale of the credits could go to reducing personal and corporate income taxes.

It would require some balls, but I think it's the thing for our government to do. Perhaps the biggest problem is jurisdictional. That could be construed as a natural resource, which would put it under provincial jurisdiction. If the provinces whine too much, point to the recently vacated income tax room.
 
That's just ignorant, particularly when most major environmental groups generally endorse the NDP's environment policies.

There's nothing ignorant about it, I'm just pointing out obvious facts. One half of the NDP is fiercely anti-suburbia & anti-car, yet the other half lobbies for corporate welfare to build cars in Canada.
 

Back
Top