The recent Speech from the Throne was interesting for many reasons, but the particular aspect which caught my attention was, as it so often is with politics, the part which made no logical sense and threatened the foundations of our country.

Ain’t that always the way?

Here in Canada, we’ve enjoyed one of the very best medical systems in the world. Over the decades, the quality has been eroded by both the increasing service demands of the aging population and the sheer avarice and short-sightedness of the politicians, who advocate huge grants and guarantees for construction, but who insist on labour cutbacks, even in the face of crisis and economic self-sufficiency, leaving us with vast, costly, and empty buildings named after politicians, but no staff to run them. I’ll take this moment to point out that the increased usage by an aging population was forseen and adequately set aside for, but the funds were raided by…guess who? Politicians, that’s right. Go to the head of the class! By consistently hamstringing the medical infrastructure of Canada and particularly BC, the government has driven us to the current not-quite-crisis-yet-but-wait-for-it.

My friends from the UK may be surprised to hear the current NHS setup lauded as a paragon of probity, virtue, and market-driven good old-fashioned sense. Because it is a clusterfuck. The only reason anyone could get away with pretending otherwise is that they know that is in England and they don’t think anyone in Canada can read English papers, outside of the British Properties.

English? Why would I learn English? I’m never going to England! Homer Simpson

In any case, we here in Canuckistan have the Canada Health Act, which guarantees universal, accessible, comprehensive, portable, and publicly administered health care. Pretty unambiguous, eh?

Ah, but our BC government apparently has some difficulty with it, and seeks to define the terms. When a group seeks to define the terms after inheriting a signed and binding agreement, you can be pretty sure you’re dealing with a bunch of lawyers. Thus:

After four decades of public health care, supported by over $1.5 trillion dollars in public expenditures, those five principles remain largely undefined.

But of course, if you’d studied English rather than law, you’d know exactly what they meant.

What does the principle of “universality” mean when some citizens have special access to services and surgical options that others do not have, for lack of extended or private insurance? Or when only a handful of provinces even offer catastrophic drug coverage?

It means, of course, that the provincial governments are not living up to the terms of the Canada Health Act, which guarantees these rights. As for people who cannot be treated effectively because they lack private or extended (ie private) insurance, this is why we built the system of socialized medicine in the first place. We cannot rely on a market system to maintain the health of citizens when it is so much cheaper to let most of them die. I refer you to the “Death Futures” market in the United States for examples.

What does the principle of “accessibility” really mean, in light of existing access to primary care, surgical care, or extended care across Canada?

Again, I refer you to the English language and the responsibility incumbent upon government to act on behalf of its people.

What does “comprehensive” and “portable” mean to Canadians, given the wide discrepancy in insurable services across our country?

Sweetie, do we really need to go over this again?

How should we define concepts like “reasonable access” to “medically necessary” services, so that the courts are not left to interpret them for us?

At this point, I’m thinking it’s better to put my faith in a judge who, at least in BC, may not be a lawyer. I certainly and at all times avoid putting my faith in a bunch of people who overuse “quotation” marks.

Does it really matter to patients where or how they obtain their surgical treatment if it is paid for with public funds?

Uh, yes. I refer you to both the specific terms of the Canada Health Act, which guarantees publicly administered health care, and to the disastrous provincial money-saving, efficiency-boosting Public-Private-Partnership (P3) experiment in closing community hospitals; life expectancy went down by, I believe, nearly a year in rural areas, and we do live, after all, in Canada; have you seen it? Quite a lot of rurality out there.

Why are we so afraid to look at mixed health care delivery models, when other states in Europe and around the world have used them to produce better results for patients at a lower cost to taxpayers?

Because, in fact, these have been disastrous, as anyone with Internet access could tell you. Even Aftenpoten publishes in English.

Why are we so quick to condemn any consideration of other systems as a slippery slope to an American-style system that none of us wants?

Because of course, they are. The American system is inferior, because it is linked to higher mortality and lower life expectancy and quality of life, and because it is by far the most expensive and wasteful system in the world, both in dollar terms and in human cost. It consists of the caregivers on one side, the patients on the other, and a huge, avaricious bureaucracy standing in the middle, demanding its cut; for what? Pushing paper and running systems to push paper. If it worked that well, would they really be sneaking across the border and buying their drugs from us?

And now, for a parting shot from *gasp* Americans! Thanks to Robert Anton Wilson and the GUNS AND DOPE PARTY!