Interesting debate

I just read a post on my friend Pat's blog and it got me thinking. I also managed to stumble upon a particular series in the " Great Debates Series which highlighted again some of the same issues. Now I am not one to necessarily agree with Ignatieff on everything, particularly since his support of the Iraq war (which he sort of maybe recants here and his somewhat failed entry into Canadian politics, but he has a good point in this instance.

Igantieff simply asks the question "Whose history are we talking about?" in response to Jack Granatstein's contention that we don't teach enough history to Canadian and that Canadians do not know their history. Now the larger point they both agree with but Granatstein seem to imagine that there is this central "Canadian" history that emerges, and needs to be taught, and dismisses to large degree the movement towards social history.

Now I am a person who focuses mostly on economics and politics and so even though I think these are important there needs to be a role for social history. For what is history but the story of a people? The move towards social history also adds colour and diversity to the understanding of Canada. We need to appreciate that the history of Canada is not only the history of the white Canadians.

My issue with Pat's posting is that he falls into a similar as many who in general tend towards the Conservative side of the political spectrum. He suggests that the reverence Americans have for the office of their Presidency is something to which Canada should aspire. I profoundly disagree. We have never had the temerity to imagine that we have a manifest destiny, that somehow we are a chosen people, like our friendly (most of the time) neighbours to the South. Pat is right however to link his ideas to imperialism. I would imagine that most Canadians would shrink away from any attempt at overt Canadian imperialism. Canada as a country with Colonies? How is that compatible with democracy is the first question one must ask. (whether Canada fits into the American imperialism or is itself an imperial power today I leave to the Marxists)

As John Ralston Saul writes in Reflections of a Siamese Twin" The United states ... is the natural prolongation of the European idea. It is the European state personified. It has become what France, Germany, England and Spain dreamt they might become if only they had had the space", this is compared and contrasted with the Canadian nation state. In fact the central argument of his entire book, or at least a large portion of it, is that we have to understand that Canada is not in the European model. It is not, and cannot and has never been an example of a tradition European based nation state. He argues that this is our central strength. And while I certainly do see things that can be improved upon and things that are done better outside our borders, to ignore that central reality is to betray our Canadian identity.

Conservatives still have to follow the law

Thank god someone had the good sense to stand up to the conservatives on the issue of the wheat board monopoly. They were told today that they have to get a vote in parliament in order to remove (or destroy) the wheat board's monopoly in the Western Canadian trade in barley.

Now I personally disagree with this policy for a number of reasons but most troubling for me, has been the totally disrespectful and irresponsible way they have been trying to implement this policy. They started by not allowing any debate on the issue and censuring the head of the wheat board with a gag order. Then they held a plebiscite on the issue in which they muddied the waters with unclear questions, they did not receive majority support for the option they are promoting and called it a success! You can see the questions here

Anyways at least there was a judge willing to stand up the bullying of the Conservatives!!

I think they really need to remember their roots and their supposed democratic credentials. They seem intent on doing everything in the dark and not having public debates. I suppose they've taken some lessons from the Liberals.

I think the real question is whether the conservatives actually have any of the feigned outrage left after they have basically become the new Liberals. They deserve all the criticism they have received. I wonder if they can come up with any ideas that aren't stolen from the Liberal playbook this fall.

Sicko!

I just realized it has been months and months since my last post. Wow. I have thought a few times about posting some random comments on here but I guess I haven't gotten around to it recently.

I just got back from seeing the movie Sicko! by Michael Moore. Interesting movie! I also found it interesting in that he seemed to step back from being such a big presence in this film. I enjoyed that, because it meant that he could focus on the stories themselves. I suppose one should throw out the usual caveats, in that he focuses very much on individual cases which don't easily paint the broader picture.

However in the case of healthcare I found that the cases speak for themselves. The fact of the matter is that it is those extreme cases that illustrate the problems with the US healthcare system. The main problem is that it is not universal. The actual method and way of getting towards a universal system matter less than the fact that it is not universal. He is merely presenting some examples of where the health care system breaks down. In fact it is a classic caes of market failure.

Now I happen to be reading an excellent book on efficiency by Joseph Heath called The efficient Society and in it he explains the two problems with your typical insurance market which includes the market for healthcare. The first problem is Adverse selection, and the other is moral hazard. They are both important aspects to consider in an insurance market.

Adverse selection is created when there is imperfect information. So for example in most cases without the huge questionnaires and forms the insurance company has no way of knowing how sick you really are. Because of that sick people will want insurance and will be willing to pay more for insurance than those that are healthy. Healthy people will not want insurance at the same price as those who are sick.

The company will essentially end up with high costs and high premiums because those who are healthy will not be willing to pay high prices and those that have high costs will choose to have insurance and be willing to pay more.

The fact that the insurance company will in general all things being equal attract more sick people than healthy people is called adverse selection.

Basically that was the main example that we kept seeing in the movie. The fact that insurance companies spend an inordinate amount of time trying to deny claims and trying to gather more information on which to asses their policies. They are trying to overcome the adverse selection involved in the health insurance market.

I was also glad in away that Moore did not go into too much detail because I think that would have detracted from his more general point. Americans get poor outcomes for the money they spend. Also for all the money they spend they fail to have universal coverage. This is unlike in any other western country!!

Now when it comes to Canada, I hope that they will begin to realize that there are many other models we can emulate. I find in this country we tend to end up in a situation where it is either the status quo or the American system. Nothing could be further from the truth. The French get better outcomes and do include some aspects of the private system.

The structure of our system does have all sorts of inefficiencies. The fact that private insurance is not allowed in Quebec has been ruled illegal in the Chaoulli decision. The impact of this decision is still rumbling through Quebec and will soon have effects in the rest of the country. We need to have a more honest debate and sooner rather than later.