Economists know best? I don't think so

Something about economists has always really bugged me, but I could never figure out what exactly, or why for that matter. That is, until I read this article: “Time for two-tier health care: Calgary Economist”. Source: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2010/02/18/calgary-health-let-the-rich-pay-economist.html

This CBC piece highlights the ideas of an economist by the name of Dr. Herb Emery (pictured above), who feels that it’s about time that Canada begin to consider a two-tiered health care system. His reasons for this? Well for one, the system would be “more sustainable if wealthy Canadians were free to pay for their own privately insured medical services”. And two, by allowing more competition into the system, Canadians who want to pay for their health insurance can do so, in turn taking “a bit of funding pressure off the public system”.

I’m a big supporter of universal health care and so hearing stories like this really irritate me. To Dr. Emery, health care is likely pictured in terms of dollars and cents. Utilitarianism, efficiency and effectiveness guide his decisions. But when it comes to human life and health care, this mentality no longer works. In my opinion, the focus of health care should be help others heal, no matter their race, shape, size, or social status. I will always remember something my economics teacher said: “Economists will never make good politicians”. And she was right. They are too focused on balancing a free market, manipulating its variables of supply and demand as if it were a teeter-totter. In the process, they completely neglect the fact that there are PEOPLE in these free markets whom are clearly affected by the direction the economy takes. I also won’t lie to you: I’m irritated that an economist, of all people, is telling us how to fix a health care system. Despite his vast education and credentials, telling me how to fix the health care system is like a dietitian counseling the government on how to solve the recession. What can I say? I’m possessive of my jurisdiction. :)

There are several ideas that Dr. Emery presents in the article that I find are very indicative of backwards/individualistic thinking. First, take a look at the link for the article itself. Notice anything? The very end of it reads “Calgary health let the rich pay”. I think this is a very telling statement, even if it is delivered in the form of an HTML. Let the rich pay? Sure, the wealthy will have money to pay for these services but how will the poor pay? They’ll pay with their health of course. And to think, is it fair that the poor will have to ‘settle’ for basic care from the government simply because they cannot afford to ‘upgrade’ like the wealthy can? Is it fair that some will have to wait 6 months for a CAT scan, while a CEO can get one the next day?

I also want to address this notion of ‘funding pressure’. Dr. Emery stated that a two-tiered system would remove pressure from our current system but I say, keep the pressure on! Now before you think I’m out of my mind, let me clarify. When I say keep the pressure, I don’t mean that I want to add extra work to doctors or nurses, or stretch the system past its capacity. HOWEVER, I do want to keep funding pressure on the government. The way I see it is that if we implemented a two-tiered system, the wealthy would pay for themselves and stop complaining. The poor would get whatever minimal coverage they could, and then the government - seeing that everyone was taken care of in some way – would wash their hands of this matter. This is not what we want. We want the public to constantly pressure the government to reassess the current system, make improvements, and increase funding. Two-tiered health care, in my opinion, will only absolve politicians of their responsibilities. And let’s be honest, we all pay taxes meaning we should dictate the services we get!! (That sounds like something my 50 year old parents would say, but it’s true!) It's a funny thing: even though I barely make a measly two pennies to rub together, every February the government starts asking for a portion of what I brought home. They say the funds collected will go towards health care and other costs, but then why don’t I see an improvement in the system? It doesn’t help to hear about spending scandals, knowing that part of my taxes went to pay for a politician’s grande Chai latte at Starbucks instead of an IV drip. If this economist wants to talk about supply, demand and money with me, then maybe we should reassess wasteful spending at each level of government and see how much money we could come up with. I bet by cutting some of these trivial ‘expenses’ we could probably build and fund a whole new hospital.


Dr. Emery, nearing the end of the article, also notes that latest wave of elderly (aka the baby boomers) will be one of the leading stressors on the health care system. And to be honest with you, I’m so tired of hearing this same excuse. No doubt they will be a large group of people to accommodate, but you cannot blame health care expenses on them alone. How about all those smokers that unnecessarily add to our health care woes? Or those with cancer? Let’s blame them for rising costs because chemotherapy is really darn expensive to offer. I’m being sarcastic of course, but hopefully I’ve made my point. Don’t blame these costs on the vulnerable and the weak. That’s just a cowardly way of covering up mismanagement at a government level.

If two-tiered health care is fully initiated and accepted in Canada, I do not see a bright future for our health care system. Look at Michael Moore’s movie Sicko, which clearly illustrated the pitfalls of a privatized system. I’ll never forget how one man needed to decide which finger to reattach after two had been severed. The one he ended up choosing cost significantly less – a staggering $48,000 less – to reattach. Is this really what we envision for Canadian health care? Take a look at the U.S. right now, as President Obama fights to have others accept a national health care system. It’s a complete disaster, but I don’t get it. Why aren’t more people on board? Tommy Douglas, the founder of our system, fought so hard to establish what we have now. Why are we ready to give it up so easily?

I’m sure there is information that I’m missing information on this matter and that there’s plenty more to discuss. But in my eyes, it really comes down to one question: is access to health care a luxury or a human right? What do you think?