Letters

Letters

Where is health care inquiry going?

Recently, the B.C. Minister of Health
announced the appointment of a Royal
Commission to “examine the structure,
organization and effectiveness of B.C.’s
health care system.”

The commission will “look at the utiliza-
tion, appropriateness and efficacy of health
care services and identify possible options to
improve both the cost-effectiveness and
quality of care.”

Those statements and others are con-
tained in the press release, and also included
are terms of reference for the commission
under the heading, British Columbia Royal
Commission on Health Care and Costs.
The terms of reference contain eight clauses
which include almost everything imaginable
related to health care in the province.

Such a broad mandate for study and
recommendation could alter everything we
have come to accept and perhaps take for
granted in health care. That in itself is per-
haps not a bad thing, but in light of what is
happening in relation to school costs and
the ways of meeting them, it could be alarm-
ing.

The situation in health care is full of prob-
lems, unsolved problems in every aspect of
the system. There is a chronic shortage of
nurses, a conflict with the medical profes-

Referring to the difficulties. confronting
the leadership in the Soviet Union, Vadim
Zagladin, a close advisor to President Mik-
hail Gorbachev made this comment in one
of his recent books: “All these shortcomings
were due not to the weaknesses of socialism
but to an inadequate use of socialism.” He
also conceded that developments in the
Soviet Union have created problems for its
friends in other countries.

In my opinion, certain articles which
appear in some Soviet periodicals also
create problems.

In Moscow News No. 3, 1990, there is an
article by Valery Chalidze, with the follow-
ing premise: “Many people are suspicious of
the concept of socio-economic rights and
don’t see them as fundamental human
rights or rights that the state should take
care of. I agree except that I distinguish
between societies with free enterprise and
societies with state monopolies.” Free
enterprise means countries like U.S. and
Canada and state monopolies mean the
Soviet Union, according to Chalidze.

To quote further: ‘In free enterprise
societies (mainly in Western Europe and
North America) the individual is free to take
care of himself. He can become an entre-
preneur or sell his labour to another at the
market price based on a contract. He can
rent housing or build for himself. Given
these conditions, all attempts to guarantee
socio-economic rights strike me as at cross
purposes with the actual social structure.”
A 300 per cent booster of the capitalist way
of life in Canada would be only too happy
to endorse that statement.

But what are those socio-economic rights
that Chalidze refers to? The International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultu-
ral Rights (a United Nations document)
includes the following basic rights under the
heading of Socio-Economic and Cultural
Rights: the right to a job, to health care, to

sion over their fee structure, a shortage of
beds and operating room facilities and staf-
fing and on top of it all, the rising cost of the
system and the pressures of an aging popu-
lation, coupled with the tendency of retired
people to move to B.C. in increasing
numbers.

In education, the other big item of
government expenditures, we have seen the
tendency toward limiting the financing to
core funding decided by the Ministry of
Education, with the alternative for the
boards to go to referendum of the local
taxpayers if they need more money.

There is need for a more rational system
of health care administration at the local
level. One of the ideas being considered has
been the election at large of a community
health board similar to the school boards. If
this is to be one of the recommendations of
the commission, it might be that such a
board would be given the responsibility to
negotiate fee schedules with the medical
profession. There are many possibilities
which require consideration and recom-
mendation from the local communities.

The financial difficulties in education
funding are a reflection of the concessions
made to industry and big business, which
removed more and more industrial proper-

security, to housing and to education.
However, according to Chalidze in the
Moscow News, if you live under capitalism
(he calls it free enterprise) you really
shouldn’t be demanding those socio-

economic rights. Instead, you should be :

providing for yourself!

However, it would be wrong to leave the
impression that Chalidze favours a society
in which the unemployed would be free to
starve and the homeless would be allowed
to sleep on the streets. No, he is much more
charitable, as you will see in the next quota-
tion: “If some segment of society is in need,
the state is compelled to make others, those
who provide for themselves, deny them-
selves certain things to in order to provide
for the poor. To a certain extent this exists
and is being encouraged, but it is public or
even state philanthropy. One should not
regard this philanthropy as a_ socio-
economic right.”

In short, those whom capitalism pushes
below the poverty line, those who are tossed
out on the street by a plant closure, are
entitled to some philanthropy, that is, to a
charity handout.

Like so many Soviet writers, Chalidze
seems to be fascinated by the American way
of life. ‘‘In the United States, for example,”
he writes, “a known percentage of the popu-
lation is either not skilled enough or not
motivated enough to find employment.
Those people receive government aid, help
in finding housing or health care.”

And there is more from Chalidze: “But if
that were made their right many of them
would probably like to use that right, and
many already using it would prefer to con-
tinue this disastrous but relatively comfor-
table position. They wouldn’t try to
reintegrate themselves into society.” How
many times have we rejected that kind of
talk from right wing, reactionary politicians
in Canada?

ties from the tax role and passed the tax load
over to the residential homeowners. That
was the only result of the so-called ‘‘Part-
nership for Progress” of former premier Bill
Bennett a few years ago.

In Port Alberni, the hospital board feels
that it cannot afford to sit this one out. Steps
are being taken to set up a local commission
to gather opinions and proposals related to
health service policy in all spheres covered
by the Royal Commission’s terms of refer-
ence as they would affect the community,
and to submit the results in the form of a
community brief to the Royal Commission
when the opportunity arises.

The board feels that such a commission is
an opportunity for local boards and health
care groups to put forward ideas and prop-
osals which would help to solve problems in
health care and improve the system by
addressing local problems as well as prob-
lems of wider significance.

In particular, funding for health care
cannot be allowed to become another
burden on the local residential home owner
by further concessions to big business and
industry.

George McKnight,
Chair WCGH Board of Trustees,
Port Alberni

Soviet writers ‘displaying lack of knowledge’

History tell us that the Soviet Union was
one of the first countries in the world to
guarantee health care for its people as a
right, with the costs underwritten by the
state. The United States, along among the
major capitalist powers, has yet to intro-
duce such a comprehensive plan.

It is rather ironic when a Soviet writer,
writing in a Soviet newspaper, praises the
American way as compared with the Soviet
way in this case. It makes me wonder: why
are so many Soviet writers who know so
little about the American way of life doing
so much to display their lack of knowledge?

Perhaps that question should be addres-

sed to their editors.
Jack Phillips,
Burnaby

Progress is
still slow
in building
electric car

If it was decided that electric cars
were essential to wage war, they
would be abundant. In the spirit of the
Globe 90 trade fair and conference
recently hosted in Vancouver, it is
interesting to speculate about the lack
of these cars.

In England, over 40 years ago, I
drove a most efficient battery-
operated delivery vehicle. Given the
advances in bafteries, tires, vehicle
aerodynamics and regenerative brak-
ing and drive systems, much city driv-
ing could be done with inexpensive
electric cars today to greatly reduce air
pollution.

Both the GM electric car shown
recently at the Vancouver Auto Show
and the solar-charged vehicle dis-
played in Japan, which we’re told will
be in production in five years, do not
inspire my confidence in the sincerity
of the auto industry. I’m convinced
that these cars are primarily public
relations devices to foster the illusion
of an industry seeking alternatives in
answer to growing environmental
concerns and the major role in pollu-
tion of auto emissions.

While it would be hard today to
find a politician who does not express
concerns about our degraded envir-
onment, I see little hope in this
area — particularly with gasoline
nudging $3 a gallon and in some cases
three levels of government taking
their cut as they kow-tow to the oil
industry that they have allowed to
become a power unto itself.

For those interested, I hope to be
going to Los Angeles to acquire a
Honda Civic electric conversion kit. I
will be happy to share information.
Meantime, I'll be doing a lot of
cycling — while doing shallow brea-

thing, of course.
Philip Hebbard,
Vancouver

Democracy isn't capitalism

The media message we’re hearing now is:
“Socialism is collapsing and only the entre-
preneurial spirit can save the world.” I
believe democracy is an evolving concept.
Once society seemed content to be ruled by
enlightened despots and absolute monar-
chies. Britain threw off the yoke of the
divine right of kings, but what emerged
wasn’t democracy. The American and
French revolutions broadened the concept
of democracy. :

It may be correct to say that the Russian
revolution has failed to deliver the goods,
but if democracy is merely the freedom to
acquire, no thank you.

Democracy is about the equal self-worth
of individuals. In Canada this could be
improved by adding proportional represen-
tation to our electoral mix so every vote
counts when seats are assigned. But is
democracy only the freedom to vote?

Is it not about economic equality, demo-
cracy in the workplace and equal treatment
of the sexes? If freedom is measured only in

economic terms, by what yardstick will our
children and grandchildren judge the
acquisitive culture we have devised at their
expense? Let’s see what’s needed to involve
all in the democratic process, rather than
leaving the initiative to those whose under-
standing extends only to profits and not
people.

Socialists should not despair that the
hydra-head of capitalism reappears in East-
ern Europe. If we’ve failed in the legislative
utopia, we need look no further than the
North American capitalism for incentive to
continue the struggle.

The environment is the issue of the 1990s
to mobilize society. If the pressures for
change are left to those who haven’t seen the
struggle in class terms, then we shall see
manifestos written on recycled paper only
to be swallowed by the jolly green face of

capitalism.

Brian James,
Cornwall, Ontario

Pacific Tribune, April 2, 1990 « 5