The Debate
Escalating health costs hasn't been a matter brought up as a concern by any of the leaders of Canada's political parties during this 2011 general election, but on the other hand, Canada's health care system hasn't been entirely ignored. The NDP leader, Jack Layton, has been flaying the issue; not the costs involved with ensuring the continued feasibility of universal care, but laments about its perceived inadequacies.
It's one of those hot-button issues none of the party leaders really want to delve into in great detail, because in the details there are looming problems. Governments at every level have been throwing in increasing financial support to desperately attempt to shorten wait times. Drug costs, once identified as the single most costly item in health care, have latterly assumed somewhat less of a burden with pharmaceuticals' lapsed patents.
But as the country ages and the population becomes more weighted with its elderly demographic, the health care system will be put to an increasingly difficult test. It's a grim scenario no one really wants to tackle; it's in the league of items too serious to reflect upon during the course of an election campaign when quick and easy items can be addressed for maximum effect.
Now David Dodge, formerly governor of the Bank of Canada has forecasted some of the problems inherent in the groaning health care public non-debate in a report titled Chronic Healthcare Spending Disease. Universal health care is expensive, and costs are steadily rising. They could continue rising, according to Mr. Doge, to represent 19% of the national economy in two decades.
The current levels of available universality can only be maintained in the future with the imposition of new taxes, or the curtailing of services; neither being appealing solutions. Other options include a form of co-payment by individuals for services received; de-listing services to be paid for by consumers or private insurance suppliers; development of privately funded systems for those able and willing to pay.
Goodbye universality.
Even Mr. Dodge balks at those 'options'. "The Canadian public will not live with denial of service. We cannot do that again." Cutbacks in spending and services would be suicide for any political party that might suggest it, and worse for any party in government that would initiate them. Even at a time of restraint, even at a time of a huge national deficit and debt.
We value our health and the services attendant on them far too greatly.
The issue is one that a resounding 40% of Canadians place ahead of the economy and jobs as issues of importance to them. And, because it is such a vital issue, it may be one of the items taken seriously and addressed one-by-one by the leaders during their nationally televised debate. Because whoever assumes the Prime Ministership will be anticipating the 2014 federal-provincial accord renewal.
So with these concerns in mind, it really boggles that same mind to read that Gerald Savoie, former chief executive of the Montfort Hospital in Ottawa - actually a minor-league hospital in comparison with The Ottawa Hospital and its campuses - retired since 2009, last year received in his retirement $557,622, and is 'entitled' to the same for the current year. The hospital board agreed to these payouts as part of his contract.
Now isn't that rather rich? Under the agreement between Mr. Savoie and the hospital board, although the man will not have actively worked for the hospital for the past two years, he is considered to have 'earned' the handsome sum of $1.15-million as an entitled payout. In contrast, Ottawa Hospital chief executive Dr. Jack Kitts earned $642,071 in 2010, for actively executing the administration of the much larger hospital complex.
Dr. Rob Roberts as president of the University of Ottawa Heart Institute earned $612,037. These rich salaries represent the absolute top end of the highest-earning provincial civil servants in the National Capital. How can the Montfort's board of directors possibly justify glad-handing $1.15-million to a former chief executive?
Might this represent an anomaly or a symptom of the expense-malaise that afflicts the entire system?
It's one of those hot-button issues none of the party leaders really want to delve into in great detail, because in the details there are looming problems. Governments at every level have been throwing in increasing financial support to desperately attempt to shorten wait times. Drug costs, once identified as the single most costly item in health care, have latterly assumed somewhat less of a burden with pharmaceuticals' lapsed patents.
But as the country ages and the population becomes more weighted with its elderly demographic, the health care system will be put to an increasingly difficult test. It's a grim scenario no one really wants to tackle; it's in the league of items too serious to reflect upon during the course of an election campaign when quick and easy items can be addressed for maximum effect.
Now David Dodge, formerly governor of the Bank of Canada has forecasted some of the problems inherent in the groaning health care public non-debate in a report titled Chronic Healthcare Spending Disease. Universal health care is expensive, and costs are steadily rising. They could continue rising, according to Mr. Doge, to represent 19% of the national economy in two decades.
The current levels of available universality can only be maintained in the future with the imposition of new taxes, or the curtailing of services; neither being appealing solutions. Other options include a form of co-payment by individuals for services received; de-listing services to be paid for by consumers or private insurance suppliers; development of privately funded systems for those able and willing to pay.
Goodbye universality.
Even Mr. Dodge balks at those 'options'. "The Canadian public will not live with denial of service. We cannot do that again." Cutbacks in spending and services would be suicide for any political party that might suggest it, and worse for any party in government that would initiate them. Even at a time of restraint, even at a time of a huge national deficit and debt.
We value our health and the services attendant on them far too greatly.
The issue is one that a resounding 40% of Canadians place ahead of the economy and jobs as issues of importance to them. And, because it is such a vital issue, it may be one of the items taken seriously and addressed one-by-one by the leaders during their nationally televised debate. Because whoever assumes the Prime Ministership will be anticipating the 2014 federal-provincial accord renewal.
So with these concerns in mind, it really boggles that same mind to read that Gerald Savoie, former chief executive of the Montfort Hospital in Ottawa - actually a minor-league hospital in comparison with The Ottawa Hospital and its campuses - retired since 2009, last year received in his retirement $557,622, and is 'entitled' to the same for the current year. The hospital board agreed to these payouts as part of his contract.
Now isn't that rather rich? Under the agreement between Mr. Savoie and the hospital board, although the man will not have actively worked for the hospital for the past two years, he is considered to have 'earned' the handsome sum of $1.15-million as an entitled payout. In contrast, Ottawa Hospital chief executive Dr. Jack Kitts earned $642,071 in 2010, for actively executing the administration of the much larger hospital complex.
Dr. Rob Roberts as president of the University of Ottawa Heart Institute earned $612,037. These rich salaries represent the absolute top end of the highest-earning provincial civil servants in the National Capital. How can the Montfort's board of directors possibly justify glad-handing $1.15-million to a former chief executive?
Might this represent an anomaly or a symptom of the expense-malaise that afflicts the entire system?
Labels: Government of Canada, Health, Ontario, Ottawa, Politics of Convenience
posted by Pieface | 6:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home