Wildrose Alliance sugar coating realities of privatization
This op-ed piece from AUPE President Guy Smith ran in the Edmonton Journal on Saturday, Feb. 19, 2011. It was written in response to a piece by Wildrose Alliance leader Danielle Smith published in the Journal on Thursday, Feb. 10, 2010.
Danielle Smith, leader of the Wildrose Alliance, argues that increasing the “competitive delivery of health-care services” in Alberta would improve the province’s health system by making it similar to models found in places like Stockholm, Sweden. In reality, changes by the Wildrose Alliance would make it more like the model in Stockholm, New Jersey.
Let’s be clear: the Wildrose Alliance’s plan for competitive (which really means private) health-care delivery in Alberta will come from the United States, not Sweden.
Ms. Smith’s mention of Sweden’s envied health-care system in last Thursday’s Edmonton Journal to push for her party’s privatization agenda is misleading to Albertans.
It’s true, Sweden has one of the top health systems in the world, but it’s important to note the political and social differences in that country that make their system so successful.
Simply put, Sweden benefits from a long history of policies implemented by a social democratic government, and Alberta does not.
Sweden has deep roots in social democracy, which for decades has heavily influenced social policy, including health policy. These policies often lie in the idea of a collective responsibility to ensure quality services for everyone, regardless of barriers like income or age. Canadian Medicare, for example, came from social democratic ideas in the 1940s. Under a social democratic government there is more focus on social programs as well, which directly address the prevention and causation of issues like poor health.
By contrast, Alberta’s prevailing ideology is similar to U.S.-style free-market capitalism and the related social policies brought with it. Conservative policies in Alberta tend to focus on individual responsibility and private profit, not so much on social responsibility. In Alberta, taxes are flat and we collect fewer resource royalties than other jurisdictions, leaving us with less revenue to fund the programs needed to battle things like poor health before it clogs our system. Under a Wildrose Alliance government, this would not change and would most likely get worse. After all, they are a U.S.-style political party.
It’s important to note that while there is privately delivered health care in Sweden, as Smith says, it is heavily regulated and monitored by the government to ensure quality and service. The Wildrose Alliance agenda is one of less government, meaning it’s reasonable to believe they would not regulate the private health market. Like the U.S. system, under the Wildrose Alliance there would be little regulation as health corporations focus on competition and revenue. But wait, there’s more.
Sweden has a system of progressive taxation and collects higher royalties on their oil, which helps pay for their programs. They also enjoy the benefits of a large unionized workforce to deliver their services. If the Wildrose Alliance would really like us to be more like Sweden, then can we expect progressive tax reform, higher resource royalties and labour friendly legislation from them as well? Highly doubtful, as the words “taxation,” “higher royalties” and “union” are nothing short of blasphemy in Wildrose Alliance circles.
Smith is just plain wrong when she claims the crisis in the Alberta health-care system is the result of its publicly funded and delivered model, and that the way to better the system is through increased privatization. Think about it: have your utility bills gone down since those services were opened to competition and privatized in the 90s?
Don’t be fooled again, Alberta!
Health care is not a commodity one can choose to purchase or not. Quality service must be available to all, barrier-free. Using the Swedish model to sugar coat the Wildrose Alliance’s privatization agenda is like putting chocolate on a lemon: it may look sweet from the outside but it’s still sour underneath.