Boston Harbour and Health Care in Alberta

Alberta Health Services Board of Directors under the advisement of the Alberta Minister of Health recently promoted Stephen Duckett from Chief Executive Officer of the AHS to Alberta resident and potential patient/client of the AHS. Mr. Duckett and his family are now simply users/payers/owners of the AHS.

I personally question the wisdom of that promotion coming as it did after years of troublesome decisions starting with the budgets and policy direction of the government from Don Getty's time as premier through to the present day, but that's not the point of this blog posting.

The point is that there was a public hue and cry about the disaster that may be coming home to roost in healthcare in Alberta. That public hue and cry caused the government of the day to react. A head rolled.

Imagine if Alberta Health Services was Alberta Health Services Inc. The disservice of patients is then seen as a business opportunity for a new Alberta Health Services II Inc. That would likely be the end of that. The disserved would then simply have to wait until the new service started up. It, of course, would go after the same people that the first Alberta Health Services Inc. had gone after because those would presumably be the most profitable patients. Excess capacity, if and when it arose, could then be directed to serve those unserved patients as they might contribute some margin to an operation where the overhead costs are already covered by the first patients served.

Would the public holding to the principle of equality before the law, in need of healthcare as a means of protection of the person have had any influence on the executive decisions of Alberta Health Services Inc. or Alberta Health Services II Inc.? What are the chances? Only a chance if the patients' needs and the shareholders' needs could both be met by the changes brought about by that influence.

Entrepreneurialism and for profit commercial business have succeeded in creating mountains of wealth for their owners, employees, suppliers and stakeholders throughout society generally. However, does that business model really apply to essential services where the user is always at the mercy of the business? What if we need a police force? What if we need judges? What if we need fire departments? What if we need armed force against an aggressor? Do we really need to place ourselves at the mercy of those who would supply us with those essential services meeting often crisis based needs, to start negotiating for a better price or finding a better competitive supplier?

What if the supplier goes out of business, leaving us with no security of supply? What then? I guess the public did not take the risk of business failure, so has not incurred the risk of financial failure. The public has only taken on the risk of failure of life which is much harder to quantify in dollars and cents, but easier to quantify in quality of life.

So in the AHS case, we did not have supply without representation. That's the significant positive feature to public funded, administered and delivered health care. We do have supply with representation. The Alberta government, with that single action, proved the need for public health care. Even though Mr. Duckett probably did not deserve the treatment he got and even though the AHS may be the worse off for that action, that action did clearly illustrate that public health care is and needs to be accountable to its users/payers/owners.

The rousing cry is then, "No essential services supply without representation!"

Now that's education!

Gregory Petsko clearly defines education and posits a powerful defense for that definition.

That's the point of education!

What an entertaining read about a deadly serious issue.

http://genomebiology.com/2010/11/10/138

Mike

One Vote

So there I am scrutineering the counting of ballots. The poll clerks are counting the ballots: one vote for X, one vote for X, one vote for Y, one vote for X, one vote for W ... to the last ballot.

I look at a ballot and of course have no idea who cast that ballot. However, I wonder, what made that voter cast that ballot for that candidate?

Fascinating, I think. Was it an issue? Was it personal acquaintance? Was it a persona? Was it an accident? What made that voter express trust in that candidate?

Boy, if only every candidate could know the answer to that for each and every ballot cast in her or his favour! Would the candidate realize the voter didn't understand the candidate's position on an issue and voted in favour of something the candidate did not actually support but thought she or he did? Was the voter thinking that candidate was most likely to deliver a life experience that matched the voter's needs for quality of life?

It's sort of like going to work and getting paid either because you did great work that really helped your employer achieve her goal that day or getting paid even though you completely screwed up and actually blocked her ability to achieve the goal.

It would be useful to know what really took place. It would help the employer and the employee or alternatively, the voter and the candidate.

Votes seem so simple don't they.

Votes

Have you ever acted as a poll clerk, scrutineer or other official overseeing the election process?

Counting votes makes something very clear to me. When the votes are counted, they are counted thusly: one vote, one vote, one vote, ... , to the last one vote.

To listen to political operatives or political reporters one might get the idea that all Calgarians vote Conservative. That sounds like when the votes are counted a ballot containing 30,000 votes shows up and the Conservative candidate wins.

But, it's truly one vote, one vote, one vote. Fascinating isn't it. Each and every one of us casts a vote, one vote. That means that the powerful have one vote. The meek have one vote. Does each of us have a role to play in protecting our role in government? Looks that way!

Healthcare - Never a more important issue

Stephen Duckett came to Alberta with interesting credentials. His strong public health background might have been the perfect camouflage for a cynical move back to the future where low income people could pay for health care by bringing chickens to the clinic, were they allowed to raise them in the backyard.

Mr. Duckett's wife is upset with his firing as any wife might be under any circumstances. However, she doesn't waste her breath simply leveling a blast at the powers that fired him. She delivers a considered essay describing the dysfunctionality at work and points to better ways of delivering a responsive, responsible patient driven health care system.

Ms. Jackson nails it! Well written, thoughtful letter with many clues to finding a meaningful roadmap to the future of healthcare everywhere, including Alberta.

Alberta made a mistake firing health boss, says Stephen Duckett's wife
Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Alberta+made+mistake+firing+health+boss+says+Stephen+Duckett+wife/3916229/story.html#ixzz170rZJYVv
LETTER: Firing my husband was a big mistake, Alberta
Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/LETTER+Firing+husband+mistake+Alberta/3916269/story.html#ixzz170rkrCTY

Thank you Ms. Jackson.