The evidence from all OECD countries shows that the private sector is far more bureaucratic and much less efficient than the public sector when it comes to providing health care.
Ten Health Care Myths
Gentlemen from Hooker - and many other places - are quite literally pouring these and many other poisons into your coffee and your kids' juice. They just do it in a more indirect, anonymous, and apparently socially acceptable way.
150 Years of Dirty Water
Letter to Morningside, CBC Radio:
I was driving along in my truck on Wednesday morning listening
to the CBC, as usual, when Morningside's regular business panelists
launched into their passionately partisan defense of the free trade
deal. I was particularly struck by Richard Osler's strongly emotional
reaction when Peter suggested that ordinary Canadians might conclude
that "if it's good for the 'fat cats' it's bad for us".
Mr. Osler insisted that the worst thing we could do is to look at
the trade deal in terms of "them and us".
My own reaction was that that is precisely how we should look at
it. If anything is certain, it is that some people will do well
by free trade, while others will be hurt. Many business people will
do well by it: hence their support of the deal. Some sectors of
business, such as the textile, printing, and winemaking industries,
will be hurt, hence their opposition to it.
In general, the deal promises benefits for those who are - pardon
me if I use an 'old-fashioned' term - capitalists, and for those
who deal in capital, such as investment brokers and economic analysts.
But what is good for a male investment dealer is not necessarily
good at all for a female textile worker who will be thrown out of
work by free trade.
This simple truth makes it not only appropriate, but imperative,
to look at the trade deal in terms of whom it hurts and who benefits.
Your analysts seemed to be quite unwilling to actually analyze the
deal and its impact on different groups in society.
This brings me to the thought that the unanimity of your panelists
in supporting a deal opposed by many Canadians points to a problem
with your panel. The assumption underlying the 'business' panel
seems to be that 'business' is about mergers, deals, interest rates,
and stocks and bonds, and that the people best equipped to talk
about business are people who belong to the world of capital and
finance. But business is also about the people who actually work
in the offices, factories, and farms, who are so profoundly affected
by what happens in the world of capital.
Surely it is inappropriate to look at business only from the point of view of businessmen and women. Would it not make for a more balanced panel if it included the viewpoints of the great majority of us who do not deal in capital and corporate takeovers? Are there not knowledgeable economic commentators who could bring a labour or social policy perspective to business trends? Is it really necessary or appropriate to have a panel so exclusively tied to the perspectives of capital?