Emma this is really interesting... I'm embarrassed to say this (more like type this), but being an ignorant American I have absolutely no clue how the Canadian health care system, let alone general government works. I'm particularly interested in the New Democratic Party, it sounds as if their ideas about how to improve Canada's healthcare system take on a very public health 'preventative' method; I especially like the plan's idea to "build provincial capacity to train doctors and nurses."
I took a look at the New Democratic Party's website and their specific ideas on how to reform Canada's healthcare system (http://www.ndp.ca/page/6736); they have some interesting ideas. They emphasis preventative methods, suggesting child health and nutrition education, funding for cleaning up unsafe water systems, law changes for toxic phthalates, and many other great ideas.
The website is anything but shy when addressing the US's healthcare system, quick to find flaws, stating "Public health care is fairer than the US for-profit system- where a fatter wallet means better care and 45-million Americans have no health coverage at all. It's also more efficient, costing $2,000 less per person every year" The website also goes on to say, "Stop US-style privatization- calling for reliable federal funding linked to provincial commitments not to subsidize the expansion of for-profit care" (they bold and enlarge "stop US-style privatization" on the website, it was a key point)
Apparently our country is a great role model... a great role model for what NOT to do!
Very interesting... I'd love to know the results of the election, you'll be hearing from me on October 15th Emma :)
While the US is in the middle of a pretty intense election, Canadians are also getting ready to cast ballots on October 14, 2008.This election was only called recently, and while I am sure that a number of you are not schooled in Canadian political science and are wondering what that means, here is not really the place to explain election cycles (although I can, and I will, if you want – all you have to do is ask!).Just know we Canucks operate in a different system called the “Westminster” model based on the British system of government.But, I digress; I thought, in light of our different health care systems, it would be interesting to contrast the health care plans being put forth by Obama and McCain with the health care proposals being put forth by the three main Canadian parties: the Liberals, the Conservatives, and the New Democratic Party (NDP).
Canada’s health care system is very different from its US counterpart, so while the two Presidential candidates here bicker over how to change the current system of health insurance, leaders of Canadian political parties don’t have to worry about what structure this system will take – everyone already has health insurance that is provided by provincial governments.The fundamentals of the Canadian universal health care system that we have today were hashed out in the middle of the 20th century by Tommy Douglas, a provincial leader in Saskatchewan, so the governments (Provincial and Federal) have had about a half a century to refine program parameters.These parameters are called the Five Principles, and are set out in the Canada Health Act, which stipulates that each province must have a health care program that is universal (covers all citizens), portable (so when a person leaves his or her home province, he or she is covered in other provinces, as well), and publicly administered (although delivery of certain services can be private).Each program must also be comprehensive, which means that each province must cover, at minimum, all insured services offered by doctors, hospitals, and dentists.The comprehensiveness requirement does not mean that all medical services are covered, but only that a list of services (the “core”) must be covered by a province – many Canadians have additional health care coverage in order to pay for things like eye glasses or certain dental procedures. The last of these principles is accessibility, which guarantees reasonable access to insured services by Canadians.Every province must have these principles in place to receive health care funding from the Federal government.In sum, the situation confronting Canadian politicians is drastically different than that facing McCain and Obama.Given this, what are Canadian leaders focusing on in their health platforms?
The Liberal party leader recently announced that, if elected Prime Minister, his government would implement a $900 million catastrophic drug plan to ensure that Canadians facing “catastrophic” drug charges due to serious illness are not crushed by the financial burden of expensive pharmaceutical treatments.Pharmaceuticals are not in the “core,” so they are not currently paid for by the government.The leader of the Liberal party did not lay out the exact parameters of his plan, but said they would be negotiated with the provincial premiers in the event that his party wrests power from the ruling Conservatives.Other measures that the party would take in the health care realm are not outlined on their website.For more on the Liberal plan, go here: http://www.liberal.ca/ story_14602_e.aspx.
The Conservative Party, which has been in power for the past two years, has no health policy plan on their official website (http://www.conservative.ca/?section_id=2444 &language_id=0).Instead of steps that they will take if they are re-elected, the “health care” section of their website focuses on what they have accomplished since coming to power, and attacks the poor records of the other major parties.This attack includes a list of what the Liberal Party (the Conservative Party’s main opponent, and right now Canada’s second most popular party) failed to accomplish in the health care realm when it was in power from the early 1990’s until 2006.
The NDP (http://www.ndp.ca/home) want to improve the Canadian health care system by implementing universal prescription drug coverage, building provincial capacity to train doctors and nurses, creating more long-term care spaces and expanding home care coverage for seniors, and stepping up disease prevention efforts.Based on their websites, the NDP has the most comprehensive platform of the three parties.However, the NDP is the only three of these parties that has never formed a government at the Federal level in Canada, and this is unlikely to change come October.
It is important to note that these are not the only three Canadian political parties – there are others, including the Green Party and the Bloq Quebecois.However, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP are the only three national parties that have a presence in the national legislature.The Green Party has never had a member of its party elected to the House of Commons, and the Bloq is a separatist party from Quebec that maintains a substantial presence in the House of Commons, but will never be a majority because it does not run candidates outside of Quebec (and will, therefore, never form a government).
The three parties each talk about health care, but their plans (if they even offer one) are not central to their platforms, because health care is not as acute an issue in Canada as it is here.The reforms outlined above all tinker with what already exists – they are not as bold as the plans of the Presidential candidates here, but they don’t really need to be, as the issues that Canadians face are not as acute as those that Americans must grapple with.It will be quite interesting watching both elections unfold, and if you want to know the Canadian results, come and see me on October 15th!
In light of today's discussion on US Values, I wanted to make sure everyone was aware of the work being done by the Herndon Alliance and Lake Research Partners.
The Herndon Alliance is a "nationwide non-partisan coalition of more than 100 minority, faith, labor, advocacy, business, and healthcare provider organizations... expanding the base of people supporting affordable healthcare for all, and increasing the breadth and depth of voices working and speaking out for healthcare reform".
And, their strategies are:
1. Identifying the beliefs and values of Americans.
2. Exploring the opportunities and barriers for reform.
3. Developing initiatives and strategies that are consistent with the research findings and help us move reform forward.
4. Identifying the areas of commonality between different affinity groups and engage them with the research findings.
5. Developing strategies and communications mechanisms that allow our partners to successfully build public support for our ultimate goal of guaranteed affordable health care for all.
I wish I had some sort of illuminating and intelligent response ready to go after reading Matt's post on re-re-re-re-filtered water but I can only sit here thinking - "wow - talk about a paradigm sh*t."
In any case, my thoughts this week revolve around the idea of consensus building and the need to get along with different types of individuals/groups/interests. In many ways, the key to getting policies, plans, and strategies to move forward is deceptively simple: lets just find the idea we can all agree on.
All throughout what we've been learning, whether via school and/or personal experiences, it's stated (implicitly or explicitly) that working in the real world and getting things done takes effort, patience, communication, compromise, and resolve. I'm sure we can count tons of times where we wanted to do something one way, and it seemed obvious to us that it was the easiest, efficient, and correct way to do it. But then some John "Trying to steal my Thunder" Doe would come in and throw a wrench into the thing for no apparent reason asking his dumb, rhetorical, kindergarten questions. Sure we wanted to tell this guy "you're delaying the inevitable" or "we've already decided and its better so just get with the program" or "you're a couple donuts short of a dozen." Sure we wanted to go to the HR rep who hired the guy and say "thanks for turning work into a daycare center." (Note: if this happens to you - perhaps a hug or vacation might be in order). BUT - we don't. Why is that?
1. We don't want to get fired, 2. What if tomorrow you're the guy who isn't quite sure what's going on. What if you need a just a tad bit of guidance before throwing your weight behind the proposal/idea/plan/etc. and 3. We need to have a collective support. We understand that in order to have progress and move forward - it's going to take some "stewardship" and effort to make sure everyone understands what's going on. It's going to take some compromise and follow through by all parties involved. You don't want to face roadblocks and opposition just b/c you didnt take the time to explain yourself fully and you clash with your colleagues. People are afraid of what they don't know - so it's up to us future leaders to shed light on the dark, take steps towards the unknown, and explain the unexplainable - in ways that educate but don't alienate.
Combine this with the fact that legislatures never really create comprehensive social welfare programs or regulations - administrative agencies use their discretionary authority to develop detailed rules and appropriate measures. Even if policies/measures are enacted at higher levels, it falls to administrators to flesh out the follow through, and make sure the policy stays true to its intent.
And for many of us, our careers will lead us to those policy and managment levels, where we will be responsible for fleshing out the rules and measures. We are going to have to be able to get along with our colleagues, with our critics. We are going to need each other's support to push ideas through, and in other cases, to call ideas into question. We can't lose our patience or get annoyed b/c someone took our parking spot, or someone doesn't see our point.
I hate to state the obvious, but turns out sometimes individuals will let their personal biases cloud their judgment. Shocking - I know. It would suck royally if the person holding the deciding vote on a measure to provide free immunizations to children votes negatively b/c - officially - it wouldnt reach the children who need it most, but - unofficially - it's because one were condescending in a meeting the week before.
I want to believe people wouldnt let personal feelings/phobias get in the way of the greater good, but it does happen and whenever there are many differing ideas and little agreement, people often say "there are too many chiefs, not enough indians."
That's why it's imperative we all get along and develop those consensus building skills. We will be responsible for finding a common ground and consensus among a sea of differing view points. We will be responsible for balancing different types of personalities. We will have to shelve personal feelings for something bigger than just you or I. Sometimes we will lead, and sometimes we will follow - but as long as we are moving forward - I think it's a journey that'll be worthwhile.
Following is one of my postings from the PolicyMatters website which is the Goldman School's journal. I have more posts here:http://www.policymatters.net/ingram.html
Thanks for reading!
I always wondered how recognizable a much lauded "paradigm shift" would be while it was actually underway. Would one be able to sense the tides of public opinion reverse? Would some kind of collective mass exhalation be audible one the shift was complete? "Oh, we've evolved again. Sigh."
I need wonder no more. Reading the New York Times magazine this week, I personally met a paradigm shift today over lunch, and, as you'll see, it's testament to my own shifting paradigms that I didn't lose my lunch upon reading the article.
The article deployed a cute little euphemism -- "indirect potable reuse" -- in its summary of a rather gruesome proposition. Apparently, Orange County's golf links and McMansions have been hogging lots of water, and the region is developing a little problem with access to this precious resource. An interesting solution has arisen and it involves a beautifully simple cyclical process of harnessing one's own waste.
I'm talking about poop and pee. And I guess a little dirty shower water too. Raw sewage as grist for the drinking water mill. In Orange County, a new, ultra high-tech system is utilizing physical and chemical processes to clean, and clean, and clean again, municipal sewage. After all that scrubbing, the end product is drinking water.
It turns out that it is entirely tenable to transform the most repugnant of human byproducts into safe, potable, and relatively cheap water.
Of course, many of us loath the idea of a cycle that involves our rear ends. This collective fecophobia is so irrationally pervasive that the poor scientists who devised this gorgeous system have to eventually dump the filtered water back into the more "natural" environment of some lake, where it sits around for a while looking pretty before we can suck it back up and pipe it to our homes. Meanwhile, the filtered water gets dirty again while sitting in the lake. All this so we can think to ourselves that the water in your glass came from a high alpine pond, rather than your drain.
While there is a fair amount of sensationalism and emotion wrapped up in this particular psychological leap -- golden shower to goblet -- the real point here is much larger and more important. We cannot continue to think about a unidirectional movement of resources. Extraction, use, and refuse has been a cycle that has driven human development since earliest human civilization, but it is one that we are nearing the end of. The idea of material goods moving from "cradle to cradle" has been discussed in an excellent book by the same name. The authors argue that recycling, reclaiming, and reusing materials is now key to mitigating climate change and achieving economic stability in the long term. We cannot continue to think in narrow terms of valuable raw materials vs. burdensome waste materials. Instead, all "waste", including human waste, should be harvested for its persistent value.
Perhaps the defining feature of a paradigm shift is the moment where everyone looks at one another and says "Huh. That seems to work pretty well. Shoulda done that sooner." Whether or not we are there yet with the "toilet to tap" policy idea is debatable. What is not debatable is that we need this paradigm shift, and soon.
I first wanted to start off by thanking Emma and Sarah for describing such an incredible experience at the conference they attended!
Speaking of conferences, I received an invitation in the mail for two different conferences regarding Global Poverty and Health Crisis lead by renowned faculty at UC Berkeley. I extend the invitation to anyone who is interested.
Here is the information:
Global Poverty: Challenges and Innovations in the New Millennium Wednesday October 29th in San Francisco City Club Faculty speakers: Ananya Roy and Tom Kalil
Learn how the world at large-- and Cal students in particular-- are responding to the increasingly global nature of our society. See how Berkeley students use science and technology to enhance public health particularly among the world's poor.
Health Crisis in America: Thursday, October 30 Montgomery Theater, San Jose Faculty speakers: Pat Crawford, Stephen Shortell, Robert Tijan
Hear about the incredible promise that stem-cell research holds. Learn about emerging approaches for fighting obesity. Discuss the potential for improvement in America's health system.
6-7pm: Networking reception with no host bar
7-8:30pm: Lecture and Q&A session
$20 per person $25 at the door (seating limited)
Visit discovercal.berkeley.edu to register
Questions: Call 888.UNIV.CAL
This is a great opportunity to listen and engage with renown faculty/ alumni who attend as well as network for future job/ internship opportunities.
I hope some of you will mark your calenders for these events!
I must echo Sarah's enthusiasm - this was a super event! For me, the excitement was threefold: Firstly, I have always thought that maybe I would enjoy a career as a lobbyist. Mr. Trippler's speech excited me, and got me thinking more about careers in government relations, as well as government relations related to public health issues. Secondly, occupational health and safety has always been something that is near and dear to my heart: I have a cousin who was permanently disabled in the workplace, as well as two close family members who died in work-related accidents. When I was an undergraduate, I studied workplace safety from a theoretical perspective in my labor economics classes, and if any of you want to see a graphical analysis of risk in the workplace, I am your man! On top of this, in my honors research paper, I looked at the risks shouldered by fashion models when they decide to engage in dangerous eating behaviors to get ahead in the job market. This is definitely not the type of issue that immediately comes to mind when one thinks of workplace safety, I know, but it does fit under the occupational health and safety rubric. Thirdly, as Sarah said, Mr. Trippler talked about what actions were being taken by individual states, and the fact that the Federal government is lagging behind in some occupational health and safety areas. From a public policy standpoint, this is one of the advantages of living in a country with several separate state-level governments (note for readers: my nerdiness might start to show in the next couple of sentences). During my undergrad, I took a number of public finance courses in which I learned all sorts of fascinating things, including the idea of states (provinces in my case) as essentially policy laboratories. The small size of states (relative to the country as a whole) means that it is relatively less costly to implement programs at the state level. If they work, the federal government can take this into account when looking at the feasibility of implementing similar programs for the country as a whole. Thus, states can be thought of as experimental environments for different policies, which is even cooler if different states implement different sorts of policies to address similar issues. It may be the case that the Federal government has not acted on some occupational health and safety issues for totally unrelated reasons (such as organizational problems in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration offices), but I thought I would take this opportunity to discuss something I believe is cool about public policy in federations. I think that the main thing I took away from this evening (aside from the excitement of re-living my days as an undergraduate econ nerd) was the breadth of the public health field and the number of opportunities therein. Before a month ago, I had never even heard of the field of industrial hygiene, but the meeting was actually about two things that I identify quite strongly with: safety in the workplace and getting a toe in the policy process to ensure that the concerns of an important group are heard. I definitely encourage all of you to explore relative unknowns lest you let what could be an awesome opportunity slip by!
