Is it health care, stupid? The issues Canadians care about

With the caveat that all polling should be taken with grains of salt (particularly those with findings I don't like) Nanos has some interesting new numbers on the issues that Canadians are ranking as their top concerns.

He lists five that are at the top of the list, with the change from December 2010 in brackets:

Health care: 22.9% (+2.2%)

Economy/Jobs: 20.2% (-2.1%)

The environment: 10.3% (+2.3%)

Education: 5.4% (-)

Debt/deficit: 5.2% (+o.4%)

I'm going to focus on the top two, because I think they represent compelling choices for the Liberals and Conservatives.

It's widely-held (but unfortunate based on the historical evidence) that when economic management is the issue, the Conservatives tend to do better. It's not just in Canada, and it's just one of those things. Not saying we should cede this ground, just that we should start with that reality recognized.

That's why we see the Conservatives trying to shift the debate and discussion these days to the economy: if they can frame the debate on economy and jobs, they see that as ground on which they can succeed. If that's the ballot question, they feel Canadians will turn to them.

That's why we see statements chiding the opposition to focus on the economy, calling the recovery in jeopardy, warning opposition shenanigans could put jobs in jeopardy. They're folding corporate tax cuts into this as well: raising them will cost jobs, they warn. On the other side, there's last week's cross-country stimulus re-announcement tour, and the millions in PMO-directed economic action plan ads.

It's a simple recipe: stoke a little fear on the economy to make the issue of more concern to Canadians, then paint your opponents as dangerous on the issue and tout your own record of achievement, positioning yourselves as the logical, and safe choice. Clearly, the Conservatives want an economic debate: they feel on solid ground there.

But as the Nanos numbers show, the economy/jobs isn't the only issue that is of top concern to Canadians. Indeed, by just a few points, it's not even the top concern currently. Their top concern is actually health care.

Despite health care being consistently at or near the top of concerning issues for Canadians, you don't hear a lot of the parties in Ottawa talking about it. Certainly not the Conservatives, and with good reason: if the economy/jobs are a Conservative issue, health care tends to be more of a Liberal issues. Which means there is an opportunity here for the Liberals to seize the day by addressing the concerns of Canadians on health care, and highlighting Conservative inaction on the file (remember wait times, the infamously forgotten fifth Harper priority?).

We have seen some selected health-care relates initiatives from the Liberals so far. The signature Liberal policy proposal to date, the Family Care Plan, speaks to helping Canadians support ill loved ones. Also related are proposals around ways to attract more doctors and nurses to under-served rural areas, and a national food policy to promote healthy living.

It's a pretty good start. What's needed is unifying messaging around a vision for health care in the 21st century, analysis and criticism of Conservative failure on the file, and a concerted effort to elevate the profile of the health care issue in the national debate.

As I said, I'm not arguing we cede the economy/jobs issue to the Conservatives; far from it. We have a good story to tell on this issue, there are Conservative vulnerabilities, and our policy on corporate taxes is the right one for the times. Don't give them an inch.

But we should also try to raise the profile and shift the debate towards health care, an issue that isn't just a good Liberal issue, but also the issue Canadians are most concerned about. The Conservatives want to change the channel to the economy. Let's try to fight from what, for us, is a position of strength.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: David Dodge scrums on health care

After his morning keynote at the Liberal Party's Canada at 150 conference in Montreal, former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge scummed with the media, and I joined in. He had some interesting things to say on health care reform, the political will to act and the need to find that will, as well as the impossibility of balancing a budget and maintaining services without tax increases. He also spoke of the need for an adult conversation on health care.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Families, aging and man, I'm getting old: Liveblogging Canada at 150, Day Two AM

8:38 AM: And we're back for day two of the Liberal Party's Canada at 150 conference. After some late-ish dinner and drinking by everyone last night with various Montreal hot-spots, it's good to see a large crowd here for the first session, both attendees and back here on media row. No drop-off at all that I see, and certainly most people look more fresh and rested than I feel.

Maybe everyone made sure to drag themselves out of bed for our first speaker, former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge. He's going to do the scene-set on the morning topic, "real issues for Canadian families, how do we care? Basically, retirement planning and health care.

They're doing the pre-game show now, Dodge will be up shortly. Be sure to tune-in online at Canada at 150. I heard the web traffic greatly exceeded expectations yesterday, and with it now being the weekend, we're expecting even more today.

8:48 AM: Dodge looks back to the policies that were born of the Kingston and Alymer conferences, but notes the challenges of 50 years ago and today are greatly different. Then the baby boom was entering the workforce, now it’s leaving. More women are in the labour force. And the regular increases in prosperity and earnings are now tapering off, and are trending to even drop in coming years.

It’s a troubling trend that I’ve heard from others before: we’re getting to a point where, for the first time, the next generation may have it worst than the last. It’s a sobering thought.

What do we do? Dodge says it’s essential to increase productivity, and put in place measures, tax or otherwise, to incent growth. Tax policy needs to favour job creation and investment. He wants EI restructured to remove restrictions to labour mobility created by the regional nature of the program.

Dodge We should stick to a Canadian-focused approach to regulating the financial sector, instead of buying into the international panic to solve problems that we don’t have in Canada. (Here is where I insert a mandatory reference to the regulatory decisions of Chretien/Martin. David was probably around then too… ;))

The question of how do we care becomes moot, says Dodge, if we don’t have the financial wherewithal to do so. True enough. We need a pan to deal with structural deficits he sees sticking around as long as into the next decade.

8:55 AM: Now he’s saying something about bond rates, and I’m completely lost. Go read Report on Business or something for more on that.

Now he’s back on productivity, saying we need to get more productive or we’ll have to work longer hours, which will hurt family life. A good point.

On to retirement planning now, Dodge says we need to save more, and workers need to support themselves more – the government can’t be relied on. People will be working longer, and taking a lifestyle hit once they do retire.

Average worker, to retire at age 65 with income of 70 per cent of final earnings, needs to save 11% of earnings a year. That’s sobering, and reminds me I really need to get on that one of these days.

9:01 AM: Dodge is turning to health care now, pointing out that the issue is costs but with technological improvements, medical science can do more than ever before, and we want access to those advances. It’s increasing costs by at least 1.5% year, and with population increasing 1% annually and population ageing, health care costs will accelerate even more greatly than before. Long-term care costs will also be increasing by 8% annually by the end of the decade, growing at double the rate of government revenue growth. And even the most optimistic projections won’t cover it.

What do we do? There are options. One is to way for it directly, such as a dedicated health tax. Another is to reduce the scope of the public system, forcing people to rely more on private insurance. The third is co-pays. And the fourth is pure two-tier, let the public system decline and those with the wherewithal go private.

There are no easy answers, says Dodge, but it’s time to actually have an adult debate on the topic, and fully and frankly consider these issues.

9:06 AM: Finally, he turns to long-term care. People often relied on their children to ship them off to the home or for long-term care, but Dodge notes boomers have had less children then past generations. So there will need to be a possible government role, and we’ll need to come up with new ideas on long-term care,

Concluding, he says we need to face up to these problems now, and there needs to be federal leadership: the feds can’t dump it on the provinces, and all governments can’t just dump it on people to fend for themselves. We do care as a country, and we need to act.

9:32 AM: The panel is now on retirement is up now an I'm back in the room getting up to speed, after leaving the room for a post-speech media scrum with David Dodge. Shot some video, he had some interesting things to say on the choices for government.

Speaking of video, I'm just posted one where I turn the camera on the media and ask them what they think the Liberals need to get out of the conference this weekend.

By the way, they've been very good at the conference about taking questions both in the room, but as many from the Webcast, and often via Skype video. Great interactivity to take the conference outside of this room into the many satellite events across Canada, and to people watching from home.

9:57 AM: Interesting discussion from the panel on retirement, and lots of interesting questions from the floor and the Web. I’ve been listening more than taking notes the last little bit. Interesting to see Canadian Labour Congress president Ken Georgetti on the stage at a Liberal-sponsored conference. Pretty hard to call him a Liberal partisan.

Also, just joined on press row by Macleans’ Paul Wells, totting a copy of, of course, Le Monde. CTV's Roger Smith also just came in.

10:05 AM: Lots of talk of defined-benefit plans (you get a guaranteed benefit on retirement) vs. more market-based systems where your benefit is based on the performance of the markets. Nortel is coming up often, and what happened with its pensioners through their descent into bankruptcy.

Some dissent on the panel on this issue. Obviously, we’d all prefer a guaranteed income. It seems to be an increasing anachronism, though. It’s expensive, it puts significant fiscal pressure on both management and labour, and too often plans have been allowed to drop below full-funding for various reasons, and have often been downgraded through collective bargaining. Some say we need government regulation, others say it’s a market issue.

I’d say the old model of large defined-benefit plans provided by an employer in partnership with labour is probably outdated. It worked better in an era where someone stayed in the same job for all their lives. We’re past that, though. People now will work many, many jobs in their lifetimes. And younger workers don’t want to stay with one employer all their lives.

I think by wanting that labour mobility, we as younger workers accept certain trade-offs. Large-scale defined employer plans may be one of them. Possible solutions? I’d say among them are either the government stepping in with a large-scale defined plan, perhaps with mandatory savings, maybe expand the CPP, or just put the onus on people to sink or swim.

At a minimum, though, I think a minimal government social safety net is needed, because too many seniors live below the poverty line, and that’s only going to increase. That means fixing CPP, at a minimum.

Off for a break, then a panel on healthcare.

10:50 AM: And we’re back for a panel on healthcare, the ever looming but presently ignored elephant in our country, and indeed the world. Costs spiralling out of control, population ageing, what ya gonna do?

10:56 AM: The panel is three doctors. Certainly very learned ones, and from a variety of areas of the medical field, but I wonder, isn’t having a panel of just doctors kind of a limited perspective?

There seems to be a consensus from the doctors on shifting away from disease and more towards encouraging and managing health. That makes sense, prevention will always be cheaper than prevention. It’s the same theory the left argues on crime – better, and cheaper, to prevent crime by addressing root causes than spending a fortune jailing criminals.

Very sensible, and easy to say, but what would it mean to shift our medical system from focusing on disease to focusing on health? What would that involve, specifically? I’m not entirely sure. But preventative medicine seems like one way (and there will need to be many more) to address the issues with the system.

11:17 AM: Lots of talk on nutrition, childhood obesity, and so on. On another matter, though, also talk of service delivery. I wonder if it’s time for the left (I’m including myself here) to consider if who delivers the service is perhaps less important than who pays for it.

We do have private delivery of publicly-funded health services today, that’s a widely known but largely ignored fact. We tend to shy away from talking about it for fear or being drawn into a two-tier healthcare debate.

There are good, sensible reasons for private service delivery though: they can usually do it more cheaply and efficiently. Not always, there will always be services where its not a fit.

I think, though, that we should be less focused on who delivers the services. As long as it’s still public pay, I think the fundamental tenets of public health care are protected, and universality and access can be ensured. So let’s get innovative and creative around service delivery.

11:29 AM: Frank McKenna asks a question on health care. Well, more of a speech really – maybe he misses them. He wants the feds to do more, and he wants the feds to have the courage to do more. The lack of catastrophic drug coverage is a major hole in Canada. Also, he wants the Canada Health Act opened-up to allow experimentation around service delivery to happen at the provincial level, looking at things like more nurse practitioners, to find best practices that can be replicated in other provinces.

11:54 AM: And the health panel is wrapping-up, lunch beckons. Panel asked for one recommendation. They are: invest in innovation in new ideas. Prevention, not consequences. And nothing matters to Canadians more than their health.

The environment and the economy after lunch, new blog post then. Off to eat.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Is it health care, stupid?

If there’s been one challenge for the Liberal Party during these years in opposition … ok, scratch that. One of the many challenges for the Liberal Party during these years in opposition has been our inability to move past the tactical attack and build a strategic narrative.

By that, I mean we focus in narrowly and mightily on an ever-changing parade of stories of the day and scandals du jour, letting them dominate our time, our messaging and our media. We get ourselves psyched-up each time that this will be game-changer: isotopes, cancer is sexy, stimulus funding, giant cheques, H1N1, to name but a few. Inevitably, after an initial flurry of coverage, the story dies away and we’re back to square one, looking for the next home-run opportunity.

Governments, however, are rarely (if ever) defeated by home-runs, and a focus on tactical attacks isn’t going to score runs in the long-run. A death by a thousand cuts alone could take a thousand years. Tactical attacks are important, but without trying it into a larger strategy you’re not going to get anywhere. And we haven’t. We're just flailing about.

But take a look at many of the tactical issues where we’ve tried to gain traction over the last year: listeria and food safety, medical isotopes, preparing for the Chalk River shut-down, H1N1 and flu pandemic preparation. There’s a common thread emerging here: health care. It's traditionally a strong Liberal issue, and one that is still at the top of public concern.

Certainty, as the headlines show this morning the H1N1 issue is rife for tactical attack against the Harper government:

Flu 'fiasco' fault of feds
Minister unhappy over vaccine
H1N1 vaccine supplies slow
Long lineups, vaccine shortage beset Week 2 of swine flu campaign
Pandemic straining Canada's public-health services
Signs of frustration as Canadians seek H1N1 vaccine

And Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq and the Harper government’s handling of the crisis is getting poor media reviews. From CTV’s Question Period yesterday:

JANE TABER: What did you take from the interview that Craig did with the Health Minister? What have we learned, anything?

GREG WESTON (Sun Media): I think the first thing that I was struck with, Jane, pardon the expression, is, I thought it was about as compassionate as a needle in the arm. You know here we have people who are standing in line for six, seven hours, being turned away, after months of being told that they had to get out and get the swine flu shot. Now we've had a couple of unfortunate deaths, parents who are understandably desperately worried about their kids, and they're being told that it's a jurisdictional issue, or they're being told, well, that's the provinces' responsibility, it's not the federal responsibility. I mean this is exactly what will make people throw things at their television, I think. You know, this is the worst side of government is a lack of compassion, when they get too locked up in process and they forget how do we help these people out there, and no government is answering that, and, frankly, the communications on this, as Craig pointed out on a few times, have just resulted in mass confusion and now panic.

So as I said, certainly an issue ripe for tactical attack. But without context, without placing this issue in a larger strategic picture, then H1N1 will join the long list of issues the Liberals huffed and puffed about for a few weeks that will simply fade away over time, leaving the Conservatives little to no the worse for the wear.

And there is a larger picture to be painted here, because there is a common thread to be identified here: health care. When it comes to issues of public health and safety the Conservatives just aren’t getting the job done. They bungled food safety. They knew Chalk River was on its last legs, but they did little to nothing to explore and secure alternative medical isotope sources. When it was unexpectedly (but inevitably) shut down, they had no viable alternative plan to ensure cancer screening continued. And with everyone knowing H1N1 was going to be a major challenge this fall, the government bungled the preparation despite months of prep-time, leaving us looking like boobs compared to our global peers.

It’s not enough to just focus on H1N1 and the government’s incompetence preparing for the crisis. Tie it into a larger historical pattern of incompetence and use it as a springboard to talk about wider Conservative inaction on health care and why and how a Liberal government will make it a priority. Talk about wait times and Conservative inaction on their infamous fifth priority, talk about defending our public system when Harper is unwilling to do so, and offer some health-care related policy tidbits as examples of what the Liberals would do differently.

For a change, let’s get strategic.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Mulroney rebukes Harper at tribute event?

That's certainty how I would interpret this passage from Brian Mulroney's speech at the big Conservative love-in tonight, as reported by CP:

A Conservative prime minister has launched a stirring defence of universal health care, and lauded Barack Obama in his bare-knuckle political battle to extend benefits to all Americans.

But it's not the current one. Brian Mulroney used a speech to 1,500 Conservative supporters to wade where Prime Minister Stephen Harper has steadfastly refused to venture: the bitter U.S. debate over health reform.

The former prime minister drew parallels between Obama's uphill fight to reform health care to his own struggles as prime minister, which may have cost him popularity but benefited the country.

"Political capital is acquired to spend in great causes for one's country," Mulroney said Thursday.

"Prime ministers are not chosen to seek popularity. They are chosen to provide leadership. . . President Obama is fighting for a form of universal health care and is encountering ferocious resistance.

"The attacks on President Obama are often bitter and mean-spirited and his approval ratings are sinking like a stone. Still, he fights on. . .

"Fifty years from today, Americans will revere the name, 'Obama.' Because like his Canadian predecessors, he chose the tough responsibilities of national leadership over the meaningless nostrums of sterile partisanship that we see too much of in Canada and around the world."

The vast, crowded hotel ballroom went silent at that part of Mulroney's speech. One woman was seen snickering.

Mulroney's eagerness to take sides in the U.S. health debate was a stark and obvious contrast from Harper's reluctance to touch that political powder keg.

Seems to me like that's a message from Mulroney to Harper: Obama is doing important things, Harper should be supporting him, and speaking-up for the Canadian system.

Because prime ministers are chosen to provide leadership.

Leaders lead.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Fox gave Huckabee a show?

I'm down in Denver for a few days for work, and one of my favourite things to do when I'm down in the US of A is to watch Fox News. In small doses, of course. I don't want to end up in an American hospital with bleeding ears.

Did you know they gave former (and future?) Republican presidential nomination candidate Mike Huckabee a show. It's quite amusing so far? He speaks in a flat monotone. And he even has a studio audience, who seem to enjoy his occasional lame jokes.

Speaking of health care, as I came down the dial Huckabee was in full rant mode (for Huckabee, that is), with the theme of how he'd trust Walmart more than the government to deliver health care. Because if he's not satisfied with the product he buys at Walmart, he can return it. I'm confused, Mike. If you're not satisfied with your Walmart colonoscopy, what exactly will you return for a refund? And will Walmart import the liver for your transplant from China?

It gets better, though. He ended with a line (I'm paraphrasing) until the government has demonstrated they can deliver bottled water to people, I don't want them delivering babies.

A more obvious Katrina-reference I have never seen. Remind me again, Mike, whose watch that was on.

Anyway, gotta go. After the commercial, Huckabee is interviewing Farah Fawcett's best friend on her new book.

Ah, Fox News.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Seth Rogen defends Canadian health care

Canadian-born actor Seth Rogen defends Canada's health care system on the Jimmy Kimmel show. Mostly he talks about getting dissed by Megan Fox, but he does stand-up for Canada like a good Canadian boy.

Which means, by my count, even Seth Rogen has spent more time defending Canada's health care system than Stephen Harper and his cabinet.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Ujjal Dosanjh on Canada AM talking health care

I haven't seen any online video of his second CNN appearance yet (and it appears the first one has been removed from YouTube for a "Terms of use violation" UPDATE: It's still here though) but here's Liberal MP and former health minister Ujjal Dosanjh on Canada AM yesterday talking about his recent appearances on CNN to defend Canada's health care system, and health care reform:



Health care reform, by the way, is a debate we need to be having in Canada too because, as Ujjal says, our system isn't perfect either. And if you look at most polls, health care still trumps the economy and the environment as the top issue of concern for Canadians.

It's a debate we need to begin having.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Ujjal Dosanjh talks health care on CNN

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Conservative mask is slipping

The polls open in less than 24 hours, but despite running a bubble campaign that has seen at least 119 Conservative candidate muzzlings and a Prime Minister in Stephen Harper that is no longer deigning to answer questions from members of the media, the true face of the Conservative agenda is beginning to show.

For example, there's Dean Del Mastro, the Conservative candidate for Peterborough, who in this video tells a pro-abortion rally on Parliament Hill. Del Mastro assures the crowd that the abortion "issues matters and is not going away" and that the abortion "laws will change in this country." (h/t) No matter what Harper says (when he is willing to actually speak to people) his caucus clearly has other ideas on abortion:



Then there's Peter Kent, the former Conservative TeleVision (CTV) anchor running again as a star Conservative candidate in Thornhill. In a recent debate, Kent called for more private clinics in Canada, a dangerous move towards a two-tier health care system for Canada where there's one system for the rich (who can afford to follow Stephen Harper's stock tips) and another for the rest of us. Once again, Harper's flimsy promises are overridden by his own caucus:

A Conservative candidate's suggestion that a private clinic be used as a model for health delivery across Canada prompted opposition charges that Prime Minister Stephen Harper wants to expand for-profit health care outside the public system.

Peter Kent made the comment during a recent campaign debate in Toronto's Thornhill riding.

Besides letting their ultra-conservative mask slip, the Conservatives are also staying classy on the campaign trail. Like Luc Harvey, the Quebec Conservative MP that showed up at a BQ campaign event to shout at and heckle Gilles Duceppe. Remember when Preston Manning wanted to restore decorum to Ottawa? I do.

A Conservative MP crashed a Bloc Québécois campaign event in Quebec City today, haranguing Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe who was shaking hands and meeting voters at a local market.

Conservative candidate Luc Harvey narrowly won by 231 votes in the riding of Louis-Hébert in 2006, and is fighting for his political life in the face of polls that predict a Bloc victory in his riding in Tuesday's election.

As Mr. Duceppe talked to farmers and clients at the Marché Public de Sainte-Foy, Mr. Harvey walked up from behind and asked Mr. Duceppe to say what he has accomplished since his election in 1990.

“Tell us about your record,” Mr. Harvey shouted.

There's also Axel Kuhn, the Conservative candidate in Etobicoke-Centre, who distributed a flyer attacking Liberal incumbent Borys Wrzesnewskyj that contained out and out lies, attacking him for not attending committees he's not even a member of, or that don't even exist.

What does it take for an Ontario Superior Judge to leave his Thanksgiving dinner to grant an emergency injunction? Ask Axel Kuhn, the Conservative candidate in Etobicoke Centre, whose latest electoral advertising effort seems to cross the line into actual defamation, according to Justice G. R. Strathy, who earlier today took the rare step of barring Kuhn’s campaign from distributing campaign literature targeting his Liberal rival, incumbent MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj.

And then there's Stephen Harper himself, who delayed his campaign schedule last week and held his first impromptu press conference to attack Stephane Dion for being unable to answer a poorly-worded question in his second language.

I don't buy their smokescreen that he couldn't answer the question because "he has no plan" for the economy. He has been talking about his plan for weeks before Harper even introduced his platform. The plan was expanded with the "30-day plan, unveiled in the French-language debate, a plan Harper attacked as a sign Dion was "panicking" on the economy.

How, prey tell, could Dion be panicking by releasing a plan when he doesn't even have a plan? The Conservative talking points are tripping over themselves. They make no sense. Their presser was about insinuating that because Dion's English isn't perfect (it's better then that CTV interviewer's though), he's not fit to lead our country. I even heard a Conservative radio ad the other day that used the line "can you imagine him representing us on the world stage?" Real nice. I'm sure this message will go over real well with all the Canadians for whom English is their second language.

It's a good thing for Conservatives that Canadians are more understanding of Harper's difficulties with French:



We're also more understanding of Stephen Harper's problems with English. Unless we're really voting on February 14th:



And unless he really gave us $300,000 in tax breaks (I'm still waiting for my cheque, by the way Steve):



This has been one of the most mean-spirited campaigns I've seen in years run by the Conservatives, and one that has been based almost entirely on lies. They lie about our climate change plan, they like about our massive tax cuts, they say we'll cut the child care subsidy when we'll really increase it, they say we'll raise the GST when we said no such thing and that indeed we will not, they put out attack fliers filled with lies that Ontario Superior Court judges have to interrupt their turkey dinners to issue injunctions against. They display no empathy for ordinary Canadians worried about their jobs and their savings and offer no plan for the economy besides buying bargain stocks. Their candidates refuse to attend all-candidates meetings or talk to the media, and their "leader" even turtles for the last days of the campaign, afraid he might go off script and say something he actually believes.

Do we really want more of this?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Sensible tax policy from Ontario

I like this announcement from health promotion minister Jim Watson. It just makes sense. The costs of smoking-related illness are a huge drain on the health care system, so why not make it cheaper and easier for people to quit? Any foregone tax revenue from the nicotine patch will be made back many times over in reduced health care costs down the line. Hopefully Ottawa will follow suit.

Smokers trying to quit are getting a break as the provincial government scraps its 8 per cent sales tax on over-the-counter nicotine replacement therapy and challenges Ottawa to remove the GST.

The Ontario measures take effect Aug. 13 and will save consumers about $5 million a year on nicotine patches, inhalers, gum, lozenges, sprays and tablets, Health Promotion Minister Jim Watson said.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On competitiveness and politics

A few interesting articles were highlighted by Woman at Mile O this morning around the issue of economic competitiveness and health care.

It started with comments by Hillary Clinton, who of course is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in the U.S. She recently told a union audience that U.S. jobs are bleeding to Canada because heath care costs are so high in the U.S. that Canada’s medicare system is giving us a competitive advantage.

This got autoworker union boss Buzz Hargrove in a snit, who said both countries are losing jobs to overseas imports. The Ontario Liberal government chimed in to, sending Finance Minister Greg Sorbara out to note the economic pressures being faced by Ontario manufacturers.

It seems everyone is trying to paint a bad picture in their jurisdiction (the cynic would say so they can come in and fix it). I think everyone is right though, and everyone is also being a bit selective in their comments. The manufacturing sector in Central Canada and the U.S. is hurting, with overseas imports a definite contributing factor. The high tech sector is on the upswing though and growing strongly, that’s where the job growth is occurring.

I think Clinton overstates her case slightly, I’m not sure jobs are flowing wholesale from the U.S. into Canada. But she is most definitely right when she says Canada’s healthcare system is a competitive advantage. It very much is.

And it’s so often overlooked when the business lobby whines about things like productivity or infrastructure investment, where we compare unfavourably to the U.S. While they’re really just after government concessions and tax breaks they are right, we do have work to do in some areas.

But they nearly always overlook the areas where we do have competitive advantages. Like quality of life. A happy worker is a more productive worker, so quality of life is important to both employees and employers. Like the quality of the public education system, access to recreation and leisure activities, crime and safety. R&D tax credits.

And health care. This is a major issue for both employees and employers. In the private health insurance system of the U.S. many working Americans can’t afford coverage. And to attract talent, many U.S. companies purchase private coverage for their employees, at a huge cost to the business.

In Canada, they don’t have that cost. Employees know they have access to universal Medicare, and the employer doesn’t have to shell out a fortune for it. That is a huge competitive advantage that can’t be understated, Clinton is absolutely right.

A few years ago I was invited down to the Cary, North Carolina headquarters of SAS, the world’s largest privately held software company. It’s founder and president, Jim Goodnight, is a billionaire several times over and with no stockholders to satisfy, the profits are his. But his business success is driven by employee talent, and so he has invested heavily to attract the best.

His Cary campus illustrates many of the challenges businesses in the U.S. face. It is huge and sprawling, and resembles a gated community. In addition to sports fields, recreation centres, theatres and day cares he has even built a private hospital/clinic for SAS employees. As a staunch Republican Goodnight probably wouldn’t put it this way, but in order to attract and retain talent he has had to spend big money, and it’s on things that in Canada, are provided by various levels of government as a matter of course. While there’s other factors that influence where one sets up show, how much money would SAS save were its headquarters in Canada? They wouldn’t need that hospital, for one.

So yes, we have work to do around improving the business climate in Canada. But let’s talk up our advantages too and Hillary is right, health care is a one of them.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers