Canadian Auto Workers President Ken Lewenza wants Ontario to guarantee the pensions of retired workers should GM and/or Chrysler fail.
The audacity of such a demand is blinding.
The North American automakers are in such trouble because of two main factors: one, the unbridled and short-sighted greed of the Unions and two, the colossal mismanagement of the automakers. Other factors like product quality were secondary as the automakers were forced to cut corners. This slippery slope has contributed to the fact that ‘Big Three’ no longer holds the same meaning.
In the 1990’s, when GM was considered ‘too big to fail’, the Union lobbied the Government to allow GM to not properly fund its worker’s pension fund. Why? Because the cookie jar was already empty and those now-loosened funds could buy more cookies for the Union’s members. And as the first deal made come negotiation time is used as a template, all of the ‘Big Three’ were set on the same hook.
These retirees made wages and enjoyed benefits well beyond that of other union and non-union workers (most of whom with superior skills and qualifications) and in their collective stupidity and arrogance believed everything their union told them about the party never ending; that they always had their employer dominated. Most, it seems, planned for their individual financial futures accordingly, depending on their gold pensions to be there.
Now the Union is telling the government that they should make you and I pay their way. I don’t have a pension. I have to save for my own retirement. And I might be made to fund the retirements of workers who had remuneration packages entirely incongruent with their skill-set and the market value for their work.
I think not. Let these retirees go back to work. I wouldn’t anticipate retiring without planning ahead. Why should they?
Friday, April 10, 2009
Monday, April 06, 2009
Health Care: Looking For Middle Ground
As expected, there are groups in the United States using the tragic and untimely death of Natasha Richardson as fodder to diss ‘Canadian-style’ healthcare. I don't fault the Canadian system for her death. These things happen. Its not tragic because she was pretty, or because she was famous, or because it happened in Canada. She was young and the injury preventable and seemingly mundane. Its tragic because it would seem she sought out treatment too late.
Pragmatism should (usually) come before national pride, so I am not a proponent of the status quo with respect to the Canadian health care system. The notion that health care should still be delivered through a bloated government monopoly is asinine and idealistic.
Health care has come a long way and is a lot more complex and expensive than it was 40+ years ago. When Tommy Douglas’ idea went national, cancer patients simply died. Diagnoses and treatments that we have now for many diseases and disorders just didn’t exist. These are often very expensive. Things have changed drastically since the systems inception. Why shouldn’t the system?
Horror stories abound on both sides of the border and point to the faults of both. We hear of people dying in Emergency Rooms because they had diagnostic appointments weeks or months in the future. And we hear of people not having access at all because of finances. We also hear wonderful stories of the successes each system has. That’s all rhetoric. No system is perfect.
The truth often lies in between both extremes. If we are pragmatic, we might realize that changes can be made in both systems to improve access and timeliness.
Why can’t a ‘for profit’ clinic invest its privately-funded start-up capital in diagnostic machinery and then staff qualified, well-paid (though probably non-union) personnel and charge back the services it provides to the public system? If the public system can do it cheaper, then the private company would have to only live off the excess demand. Perhaps we could even ask the patient if they’d like to cover the difference and take the private option if it can be provided sooner. (I know I would) But if as I suspect, a private venture could do it cheaper, so much the better. The savings can be sent elsewhere. I don’t see the threat to our system that the NDP and Liberals talk about.
I don’t care what the United States ultimately decides to do. I am only concerned with the Canadian system. I think it’s a broken system. Moreover, I don’t think Tommy Douglas would disagree given how things have changed since the 1960’s. We can't let our misplaced pride in being different from the United States stop us from seeing the truth and changing according.
Unfortunately, while the system is considered a sacred cow, we won't be able to save it from itself. Because of that, I believe the system will eventually collapse.
Pragmatism should (usually) come before national pride, so I am not a proponent of the status quo with respect to the Canadian health care system. The notion that health care should still be delivered through a bloated government monopoly is asinine and idealistic.
Health care has come a long way and is a lot more complex and expensive than it was 40+ years ago. When Tommy Douglas’ idea went national, cancer patients simply died. Diagnoses and treatments that we have now for many diseases and disorders just didn’t exist. These are often very expensive. Things have changed drastically since the systems inception. Why shouldn’t the system?
Horror stories abound on both sides of the border and point to the faults of both. We hear of people dying in Emergency Rooms because they had diagnostic appointments weeks or months in the future. And we hear of people not having access at all because of finances. We also hear wonderful stories of the successes each system has. That’s all rhetoric. No system is perfect.
The truth often lies in between both extremes. If we are pragmatic, we might realize that changes can be made in both systems to improve access and timeliness.
Why can’t a ‘for profit’ clinic invest its privately-funded start-up capital in diagnostic machinery and then staff qualified, well-paid (though probably non-union) personnel and charge back the services it provides to the public system? If the public system can do it cheaper, then the private company would have to only live off the excess demand. Perhaps we could even ask the patient if they’d like to cover the difference and take the private option if it can be provided sooner. (I know I would) But if as I suspect, a private venture could do it cheaper, so much the better. The savings can be sent elsewhere. I don’t see the threat to our system that the NDP and Liberals talk about.
I don’t care what the United States ultimately decides to do. I am only concerned with the Canadian system. I think it’s a broken system. Moreover, I don’t think Tommy Douglas would disagree given how things have changed since the 1960’s. We can't let our misplaced pride in being different from the United States stop us from seeing the truth and changing according.
Unfortunately, while the system is considered a sacred cow, we won't be able to save it from itself. Because of that, I believe the system will eventually collapse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)