Essentially the term grassroots is used freely and broadly without a plan to implement the so-called grass roots approach! Quite often I hear someone utter the term without knowing exactly what it means: it is a tag-line, a coined phrase, but with no meaning. Grass roots means one thing to me it means reaching out and connecting with the individuals who will build the party from the ground up which is often a problem for political parties who would prefer to design the party from the top down.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Health care - the ongoing debate
"Canada's health system was ranked 30th overall by the World Health Organization, while the US ranked 37th. Countries like Austria, Holland, France, Switzerland and Germany rank in the top six, and deliver cost effective care to all without wait litst. Current BC legislation prevents us from adopting European models.
According to the Supreme Court of Canada, such laws are in violation of the Charter of Rights. Since this is playoff time, I will pose the question. "If we were the 30th-ranked hockey team, would we continually compare ourselves to the 37th ranked team? That seems to be the approach of the NDP in BC." Dr. Brian Day, an orthopedic surgeon, founder of the Cambie Surgery Centre.
Health care is a topic and everyone is a critic: the problems are clear and hotly debated but what are the solutions? We want and need health care. The current system available to us is compromised: we are told to wait despite the fact that we don't have options. Well I guess we do if we want to pay for it. But if that is the case then I want the option to opt-out. If the system cannot provide me with the care I think is necessary then I want to opt-out and I will pay for my own health insurance.
The problem is not the doctors or the nurses instead part of the problem is founded in the revenue wasted on administrators. Over the weekend I visited my brother who is a physician in Merritt. Several months ago, bureaucrats (4 or them) visited the hospital to test a computer program that would allow patients to enter information into a data base prior to admittance into the Emergency Room. It is a pilot project. While the four government administrators looked at the screen with pride the doctor on call and the nurse were hustling to meet the demands of the hospital. The administrators asked Dr. Simon to look at the 'new' system: a system they believed would reduce workload. Dr. Simon's comment, "Often, given this is an emergency room, it is not possible for a patient to fill out a form nor do we have the time to complete the form when there is a medical emergency. We quickly take down the patient's information and proceed with treatment." The comments did not deter the administrators. Dr. Simon returned to the group and stated, "Look around you. What do you see? One doctor and one nurse running around dealing with emergencies and the four of you sitting are in front of a screen telling us we can help you do your job. This system will not administer medicine or determine the prognosis and this is clearly the problem with our system. I would rather have another nurse on staff than an administrator who clearly has no idea what is needed to ensure this country has a viable health care system." This is the problem with our system.
Back to Dr. Day's point: legislation prevents us from adopting European models. What legislation? I don't think I could state this any clearer: we are paying for the system: taxpayers! This system exists because we pay for so if the system isn't working then we need to ensure that we have the proper individuals in place who will modify the system so that it works. If not I am opting-out! I am tired of hearing about the costs because it is irrelevant based on our contributions. We pay taxes in return for services: it cannot get any simpler than that yet our taxes go up and the services get cut.
According to the Supreme Court of Canada, such laws are in violation of the Charter of Rights. Since this is playoff time, I will pose the question. "If we were the 30th-ranked hockey team, would we continually compare ourselves to the 37th ranked team? That seems to be the approach of the NDP in BC." Dr. Brian Day, an orthopedic surgeon, founder of the Cambie Surgery Centre.
Health care is a topic and everyone is a critic: the problems are clear and hotly debated but what are the solutions? We want and need health care. The current system available to us is compromised: we are told to wait despite the fact that we don't have options. Well I guess we do if we want to pay for it. But if that is the case then I want the option to opt-out. If the system cannot provide me with the care I think is necessary then I want to opt-out and I will pay for my own health insurance.
The problem is not the doctors or the nurses instead part of the problem is founded in the revenue wasted on administrators. Over the weekend I visited my brother who is a physician in Merritt. Several months ago, bureaucrats (4 or them) visited the hospital to test a computer program that would allow patients to enter information into a data base prior to admittance into the Emergency Room. It is a pilot project. While the four government administrators looked at the screen with pride the doctor on call and the nurse were hustling to meet the demands of the hospital. The administrators asked Dr. Simon to look at the 'new' system: a system they believed would reduce workload. Dr. Simon's comment, "Often, given this is an emergency room, it is not possible for a patient to fill out a form nor do we have the time to complete the form when there is a medical emergency. We quickly take down the patient's information and proceed with treatment." The comments did not deter the administrators. Dr. Simon returned to the group and stated, "Look around you. What do you see? One doctor and one nurse running around dealing with emergencies and the four of you sitting are in front of a screen telling us we can help you do your job. This system will not administer medicine or determine the prognosis and this is clearly the problem with our system. I would rather have another nurse on staff than an administrator who clearly has no idea what is needed to ensure this country has a viable health care system." This is the problem with our system.
Back to Dr. Day's point: legislation prevents us from adopting European models. What legislation? I don't think I could state this any clearer: we are paying for the system: taxpayers! This system exists because we pay for so if the system isn't working then we need to ensure that we have the proper individuals in place who will modify the system so that it works. If not I am opting-out! I am tired of hearing about the costs because it is irrelevant based on our contributions. We pay taxes in return for services: it cannot get any simpler than that yet our taxes go up and the services get cut.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Equity
How far must we go before equality becomes inequality? Is it fair to assume that everyone must work and everyone must contribute? Or is it an option not to work? Does the individual have the right to choose not to work and expect to be taken care of by the taxpayer? Or is it fair to assume that everyone must work thereby creating a productive society reliant on the productivity of its citizens.
We've come along way from hunting and gathering. Our evolution of sorts has created a shift from survival to dependence. I believe that it is instinct to survive despite the obstacles we encounter. The creation of the modern state, organized societies and the safety nets designed to keep citizens from falling through the cracks has impacted our ability to be a highly productive society because incentives are lost because as we know: "we cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." Before I continue it must be stated that I believe it is essential to care and protect those who are incapable of caring for themselves whether it is the young, the old, the vulnerable or the sick. This essay is intended to address the matter of those who choose not to work despite the fact that they are able bodied individuals. Quite often I hear the expression: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer or the rich don't share their wealth. First, everyone shares in this country if they pay taxes. That's right. We share through taxation because the more we earn the more we pay. So much so that there is a point in which it becomes questionable as to how much is an acceptable level of taxation. Those who are 'less' fortunate receive subsidies and tax credits and so on and so forth but if you are in the 'fortunate' category subsidies and credit do not exist instead it is mandatory to give almost 50% of your earnings. But when do we reach the point of: enough! A prevailing negative attitude is directed at those who have more yet without those who have more there wouldn't be any money to give to those who have less. There is a taxation psychological benchmark; there is a point of saturation. This is a time for a reality check: we do not live in a communist country where everyone lives in the same house, receives the same education, drives the same car, wears the same clothes, achieves similar successes and failures, lives to be 84, receives a gold medal for effort, constantly gets a pat on the back for a 'job well done', has 2.2 children, is artistic, athletic and a gifted musician or a highly-skilled craftsmen instead we live in a country of individuals who excel in different areas and at different rates or sometimes not at all because the harsh reality is that we are not all the same. We are entitled to justice and individual rights and freedoms but at the end of the day it comes back to the individual. Our role as a society is to provide individuals with opportunities to education and training as well as other social safety nets to meet the basic needs of life but it comes down to the individual. Guarantees for a successful life are not promised or wagered.
We've come along way from hunting and gathering. Our evolution of sorts has created a shift from survival to dependence. I believe that it is instinct to survive despite the obstacles we encounter. The creation of the modern state, organized societies and the safety nets designed to keep citizens from falling through the cracks has impacted our ability to be a highly productive society because incentives are lost because as we know: "we cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." Before I continue it must be stated that I believe it is essential to care and protect those who are incapable of caring for themselves whether it is the young, the old, the vulnerable or the sick. This essay is intended to address the matter of those who choose not to work despite the fact that they are able bodied individuals. Quite often I hear the expression: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer or the rich don't share their wealth. First, everyone shares in this country if they pay taxes. That's right. We share through taxation because the more we earn the more we pay. So much so that there is a point in which it becomes questionable as to how much is an acceptable level of taxation. Those who are 'less' fortunate receive subsidies and tax credits and so on and so forth but if you are in the 'fortunate' category subsidies and credit do not exist instead it is mandatory to give almost 50% of your earnings. But when do we reach the point of: enough! A prevailing negative attitude is directed at those who have more yet without those who have more there wouldn't be any money to give to those who have less. There is a taxation psychological benchmark; there is a point of saturation. This is a time for a reality check: we do not live in a communist country where everyone lives in the same house, receives the same education, drives the same car, wears the same clothes, achieves similar successes and failures, lives to be 84, receives a gold medal for effort, constantly gets a pat on the back for a 'job well done', has 2.2 children, is artistic, athletic and a gifted musician or a highly-skilled craftsmen instead we live in a country of individuals who excel in different areas and at different rates or sometimes not at all because the harsh reality is that we are not all the same. We are entitled to justice and individual rights and freedoms but at the end of the day it comes back to the individual. Our role as a society is to provide individuals with opportunities to education and training as well as other social safety nets to meet the basic needs of life but it comes down to the individual. Guarantees for a successful life are not promised or wagered.
Little did I know: Conservative Majority
I don't think I could have even conjured the possibility logically, reasonably or emotionally of a Conservative majority. I simply could not let it cross my mind but what here we are: Conservative majority with the NDP as the official opposition. What has happened to Canada?
The Irony: an article I didn't post - written prior to the election
Lester Pearson would never be elected today but Matt Damon would! Campaigns have changed with technology: charisma motivates voters. What about substance or depth or character? In my lifetime I have never been so worried about the outcome of an election. The worst case scenario is a Conservative minority government with the NDP as the official opposition. What would be catastrophic is an NDP government.
Have we lost our way? Is debt irrelevant? Are we delusional to the degree that we ignore the reality that higher debt equals higher taxes.
Stephen Harper's disregard for democracy has created an opportunity for the NDP to gain momentum because "Union Jack" is making promises that he knows he won't have to keep. Empty promises! The solution to the problem is not to spend more money. This is the reality check: the only citizens impacted by tax increases are the those who are WORKING.
Have we lost our way? Is debt irrelevant? Are we delusional to the degree that we ignore the reality that higher debt equals higher taxes.
Stephen Harper's disregard for democracy has created an opportunity for the NDP to gain momentum because "Union Jack" is making promises that he knows he won't have to keep. Empty promises! The solution to the problem is not to spend more money. This is the reality check: the only citizens impacted by tax increases are the those who are WORKING.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Privileged
Being born into a 'privileged' family certainly enables the individual to propel themselves into a position of opportunity much quicker than those of us who were born into a family of those 'less' privileged however it does not guarantee personal success and achievement without dedication and devotion. In a race, in the beginning there is most certainly an advantage but in order to win the race it is essential to keep running.
Monday, May 2, 2011
More taxes - at what point will taxes impact productivity?
No more taxes! When I think about how much my husband and I have paid in taxes in our lifetime I am astounded that this country is in debt. What happens to all of our money? I remember being 7 years old listening to a conversation between my parents while preparing their tax return. The word income tax was mentioned. At that age I had no idea what income was so I asked my dad, "What is income?" He explained that is the money received for working. When he explained that income tax is the money workers pay to the government I was in shock. "You mean you have to pay the government money to go to work. When I'm an adult I am not going to do that!" He responded, "You have no choice because you don't have an option to pay the government because they take your money before your employer pays you." Still to this day I find the notion of income tax to be bizarre. Now I understand why we have to pay tax because we use the services provided for by the government but a psychological benchmark must exist whereby too much tax impacts the individual's productivity.
There must be a barrier of acceptance because I believe I have reached that barrier. I read an article today about a tax on miles traveled which is being considered by Translink as a means to generate revenue for transportation projects. Currently, Translink generates revenue from property taxes and a portion of fuel tax revenue but apparently that isn't enough to fund future projects so out of desperation they are looking to the taxpayer once again to finance projects but at what point does the taxpayer revolt? We pay tax to go to work, property tax, sales tax, fuel tax, death tax, everywhere we go we pay tax then we pay for licenses, permits, parking, and on and on it goes. To add insult to injury we are faced with a wait list if we are sick. The government worries about the aging population and rising health care costs but where will it stop? I think we should be able to expect something in return for the amount of tax we pay.
There must be a barrier of acceptance because I believe I have reached that barrier. I read an article today about a tax on miles traveled which is being considered by Translink as a means to generate revenue for transportation projects. Currently, Translink generates revenue from property taxes and a portion of fuel tax revenue but apparently that isn't enough to fund future projects so out of desperation they are looking to the taxpayer once again to finance projects but at what point does the taxpayer revolt? We pay tax to go to work, property tax, sales tax, fuel tax, death tax, everywhere we go we pay tax then we pay for licenses, permits, parking, and on and on it goes. To add insult to injury we are faced with a wait list if we are sick. The government worries about the aging population and rising health care costs but where will it stop? I think we should be able to expect something in return for the amount of tax we pay.
It will be necessary to make drastic changes in the future if we want to be viable and sustainable.
Change is never easy. We resist change because it is unpredictable. Often times we continue with the status quo because we know what to expect even when we are on a path of self-destruction. Perhaps, we are psychologically programmed to support certainty more than the uncertainty that is a result of change. Canada is in a precarious position because we have reached a point in our history where we must grow up. The period of adolescence is over. It has been over for a long time. We need to define who we are in the world. We have much to be proud of but where we are lacking is our national identity.
What do we need to do? First, we must address the issue of climate change not tomorrow but today. It is time for Canadians to take a stand despite the lack of environmental legislation that is adopted by our neighbours. Yes, we know that we share the atmosphere but that does not exempt of us from being responsible. Scientists have provided us with the research and data - they have done their job - now it is up to us to ensure that aggressive environmental legislation becomes constitutional. The reason environmental policy must be constitutional is to avoid deviations from the long-term strategies and objectives when political party leadership changes. Environmental legislation must be founded on the same principles as human rights.
We must find new forms of energy.
Second, we need to address the matter of our national debt. Clearly, we are spending beyond our means which is why our debt is $565 billion. The question is this: how do we ensure that we live within our means without implementing any changes to the system? The answer is: we change the system.
I have wracked my brain for months over the issue of fiscal responsibility. I simply do not understand how we managed to build this country long before the days of income tax yet now we cannot balance the budget? The first task is balancing the budget with no exceptions. The second task is developing a payment schedule to eliminate the debt. Currently, we are paying $84 million a day in interest which is a waste of taxpayers money. This number is staggering: $588 million a week, $2,352,000,000 billion a month and $30,576,000,000 billion annually. If the interest rates were to rise even marginally the cost to service the debt could potentially double which would increase the cost to $60 billion. Canada's GDP is approximately $1.4 trillion. So what do we do? The Liberal government reduced the national debt by $100 billion. If the policies implemented by the Liberal government were followed the debt would have been eliminated in 20 years but instead in 5 years Stephen Harper has reversed the process and our debt is once again on the rise: $566 billion to date. So how do we implement a strategy of debt reduction without cutting essential services? First, we implement efficiencies by reducing the number of public servants. The federal government employs $390,000 public servants, 190,000 work for the Canada Revenue Agency which is roughly 600,000 employees considering that retired government employees return to work as contract workers to avoid payroll budgetary restraints. These numbers do not include the military or the police. We as Canadians did not get ourselves into this situation. We have the government to thank for the mess we are in! To clean it up we must accept change!
Just imagine how rich this country would be if we eliminated the debt?
What do we need to do? First, we must address the issue of climate change not tomorrow but today. It is time for Canadians to take a stand despite the lack of environmental legislation that is adopted by our neighbours. Yes, we know that we share the atmosphere but that does not exempt of us from being responsible. Scientists have provided us with the research and data - they have done their job - now it is up to us to ensure that aggressive environmental legislation becomes constitutional. The reason environmental policy must be constitutional is to avoid deviations from the long-term strategies and objectives when political party leadership changes. Environmental legislation must be founded on the same principles as human rights.
We must find new forms of energy.
Second, we need to address the matter of our national debt. Clearly, we are spending beyond our means which is why our debt is $565 billion. The question is this: how do we ensure that we live within our means without implementing any changes to the system? The answer is: we change the system.
I have wracked my brain for months over the issue of fiscal responsibility. I simply do not understand how we managed to build this country long before the days of income tax yet now we cannot balance the budget? The first task is balancing the budget with no exceptions. The second task is developing a payment schedule to eliminate the debt. Currently, we are paying $84 million a day in interest which is a waste of taxpayers money. This number is staggering: $588 million a week, $2,352,000,000 billion a month and $30,576,000,000 billion annually. If the interest rates were to rise even marginally the cost to service the debt could potentially double which would increase the cost to $60 billion. Canada's GDP is approximately $1.4 trillion. So what do we do? The Liberal government reduced the national debt by $100 billion. If the policies implemented by the Liberal government were followed the debt would have been eliminated in 20 years but instead in 5 years Stephen Harper has reversed the process and our debt is once again on the rise: $566 billion to date. So how do we implement a strategy of debt reduction without cutting essential services? First, we implement efficiencies by reducing the number of public servants. The federal government employs $390,000 public servants, 190,000 work for the Canada Revenue Agency which is roughly 600,000 employees considering that retired government employees return to work as contract workers to avoid payroll budgetary restraints. These numbers do not include the military or the police. We as Canadians did not get ourselves into this situation. We have the government to thank for the mess we are in! To clean it up we must accept change!
Just imagine how rich this country would be if we eliminated the debt?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)