Re: Private Health Care Need Not Be Scary

[EU]

Who would even consider that any press from the Fraser Institute has any merit? It's where old Conservatives go, after dementia sets in like Ralph Klein did. Their policies are set by people with addled brains.

[EU]

BS Fraser Institute Study Advocates Privatization of Minority Language Rights

January 17th, 2012

The Fraser Institute's first report of the new year is a strident attack on provincial bilingualism policies which attempts to count the costs of providing services to minority populations and, predictably, argues that the best solution is to "privatize" these services, meaning that either the government or, preferably, private citizens will be required to hire a private-sector translator whenever a service is provided in the "wrong" official language. Provincial spending on bilingualism, they say, "costs Canadian taxpayers... $900 million annually."

Since it's the Fraser Institute, you won't be at all surprised to learn that a few corners are cut here. First of all, a large majority of this funding goes to minority-language schools which are guaranteed under the Constitution. We can't open a debate about reforming Francophone schools without reopening the Constitution. This doesn't appear to faze the Fraser Institute, of course. Bilingualism costs outside of the education system are actually "only" $223 million, and despite what the brief claims, it's unclear how much cheaper they could get through privatization.

[EU]

Fraser Institute Objects to Paper Size of New Financial Disclosure Requirements

December 22nd, 2011

The Fraser Institute has published a new report denouncing a set of new financial disclosures which mutual funds may eventually be required to make to investors. From a consumer protection standpoint, that sounds like a good thing to me. As usual, the Fraser Institute hacks feel otherwise, and they share these feelings without bothering to mention who (if anyone) paid for this study.

In the past, we know, the Fraser Institute has taken money from tobacco companies to argue against tobacco regulations, money from mining companies to promote deregulation in that sector, and money from companies who do business with China to promote the benefits of Canadian trade with China. This is, in short, their modus operandi, only difficult to prove because it is usually carried out in secret. So, the first question might be: which organization might oppose consumer protection laws, and have the money to commission a study of those laws?

I think you can guess the answer as well as I, and so we are left to wonder whether they got their money's worth from the report. I rather doubt it, because as you can infer from the Fraser Institute's chief objection to the new regulations, it would seem there's actually not much there to criticize:

For people who prefer to digest information on a portable communications device, Fund Facts could be delivered through that device. However, if information is formatted for letter-sized paper, it could be difficult to review on smaller devices.

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe this is the Fraser Institute's first formulation of the Blackberry defence: financial disclosure doesn't count if it can't be read on a smartphone. Interestingly enough, the Fraser Institute doesn't habitually disclose its financial sources in a format that can be read on any device. They don't seem to find this linkage as ironic as I do.

The Fraser Institute, as usual, proposes as its solution to throw out with the bathwater not just the baby, but most of the household furniture as well: there should be, they say, no need to have any format requirements at all. The chief argument for formatting requirements is that it would require companies to present their information in a similar layout which could be easily read and compared by potential customers. This is unnecessary, says the Institute's Neil Mohindra, because that sort of sophisticated market research would require consumers to "read several documents" — a task he feels most Canadians are simply not up to.

[EU]

Fraser Institute's New Report on Healthcare — More of the Same

December 13th, 2011

The Fraser Institute has released its regular survey of healthcare wait lists in Canada, and it says the results aren't good: wait lists are too long, an average of 19 weeks, which they say is "the longest total wait time recorded since the Fraser Institute began measuring wait times." And yes, for the most part, 19 weeks (read: over 4 months) is indeed a long time to wait for surgery.

First, as always, you must consider the source of this report. Not just the Fraser Institute, but who funds it. I have already explored the rather sordid fundraising techniques used by this supposedly independent think tank, which have extended to soliciting money from the tobacco industry to oppose tobacco taxes and spread spurious claims that secondhand smoke is not harmful. This report does not identify a sponsor, but there usually is one. For instance, the annual survey of evil mining regulations is paid for a mining trade association. So, does anybody fund the healthcare survey? The Fraser Institute certainly takes in money from drug companies and private clinics, both of whom would benefit considerably from the privatization of healthcare.

Oddly enough, the report makes a great deal of the fact that 19 weeks is a "new high," but you have to dig very deep into the appendices to discover that in most provinces, the real spike in specialist-to-treatment wait times occurred during the 1990s, and then wait times plateaued or even declined over the past 8 years or so, presumably a result of the Liberal government's healthcare accord. (The one that the Harper regime will almost certainly not be renewing in 2013.) So public spending actually did improve matters, which I know is anathema to the hacks at the Fraser Institute.

[EU]

Can You Commission a Study from the Fraser Institute?

November 27th, 2011

Picking up where I left off last week, I want to explore what we know about the "objective" process by which an "independent" think tank like the Fraser Institute goes about choosing a topic to write a research paper about. As economists, they will doubtless nod in approval when I give you the basic maxim of that profession: there is no such thing as a free lunch. And in the research profession, there is no such thing as a free paper. So, every time the Fraser Institute publicizes one of their new studies, the question you should ask yourself is: who paid for this study, and should that affect how I read it?

Sometimes the Institute acknowledges its funding sources: for instance, the Institute openly acknowledges that its annual mining industry survey is paid for by a trade group, the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada. Other times, it is not apparent that any dedicated funding was provided for the project to go forward, even though I am absolutely certain that it was. Unattributed studies are not uncommon, and I caught the C.D. Howe Institute carrying water for the private trash lobby in just this fashion last year.

What you might be interested to learn is who else shares these ideas. Before getting to that, though, I want to back up a little and review what we do know about how the Fraser Institute conducts research. As the Institute proudly declares, it is "independent," and "non-partisan," and takes no government money (though it it happy to issue tax receipts to that its donors can collect government money). Its researchers are top-notch, and their work is vetted, when necessary, by a review board. Until I began writing about the board earlier this year, several of its supposed members were actually dead. They've since clarified that little problem.

(more...)

[EU]

Who Funds the Right-Wing Think Tanks in Canada

November 26th, 2011

Earlier this week, David Climenhaga seized on the ludicrously suggestive "freedom of information" campaign being waged by conservative forces in this country (CBC and unions should have to open their books for public inspection; corporations and the rest of government, not so much) to advance an even more radical solution: any organization that receives government money should have to publicly report how much money it gets and what it does with it. That would also include think tanks, subsidized corporations, and churches.

I'm not sure whether it's intended in all seriousness or not, but I think Climenhaga raises an interesting idea while still sort of missing the point. I am not particularly excited by the idea that every citizen should have the right to pore over the public account books on a whim (though in a democracy, she should). More important, where think tanks and the like are concerned, is that most of these groups routinely put themselves into a conflict of interest when they advocate policies which benefit their large donors (mainly foundations owned by large corporations and billionaires who own large corporations), and compound that conflict of interest by not disclosing it. This position isn't about accounting transparency; it's about basic public ethics.

Finding out where think tanks get their money from is exceedingly difficult in Canada because they are not required to disclose who funds them, and the Canada Revenue Agency does not list all recipients of grants from a charitable foundation (unlike in America, where this information can and is retrieved by organizations like MediaMatters. Still, I want to make use of some of the limited available material we do have to make some observations about how the Canadian think tank sector works.

(more...)

[EU]

http://sixthestate.net/?tag=fraser-institute">http://sixthestate.net/?tag=fraser-institute

[Romero]

Misleading with statistics: The Fraser Institute



No sooner noted than illuminated -- yesterday morning mainstream media was credulously reporting another "Fraser Factoid," this one a report by the far-right political lobby group purporting to show Albertans get poor value for the money they spend on public health care.



Actually, since in this case the market-fundamentalist "think tank" had little choice but to rely on publicly available and legitimate research to tease out its predictable conclusions, the news couldn't be made to seem as bad as the reports author doubtless would have preferred.



Indeed, from the perspective of those of us who live here in Alberta where the Progressive Conservative government of Premier Alison Redford has committed itself to keeping our system of primary health care in the public sector, the news hidden in the real numbers was actually pretty good.



So the Fraser Institute's propagandists had to grudgingly admit that, even according to their biased interpretation of facts from a single year, 2010, Alberta has "the highest quality of clinical performance" -- that is, the best "mortality rates, hospital re-admission rates, and patient safety."



What's more, according to the Fraserites (and notwithstanding the constant brouhaha in the media often stirred up by the same people), Alberta is not doing badly for wait times either, and ranks No. 3 for the number of procedures performed per capita.



In other words, despite their stream of negativity and propaganda, Alberta's public health system is delivering the goods and serving most citizens pretty well. Right?



Of course, that's not where the Fraser Institute wants us to go. So if they can't persuade us that a publicly financed and publicly operated primary health care system is getting lousy results, because the indisputable facts say otherwise, they'll try to get us to think instead that we're not getting value for our money.



In addition to introducing the controls, co-payments, denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions and high costs of private insurance, as most Canadians still understand despite the tireless efforts of the Fraserites for the past 39 years, "choice" in heath care is not choice at all -- it is more and better service for the wealthy and impoverishment, sickness and death for those of us who cannot pay.



Imagine the cost of insurance coverage -- let alone the full cost of treatment, which can range from $20,000 to $180,000 in the United States -- to pay for something as common and simple as an emergency appendectomy operation!



http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/djclimenhaga/2013/01/misleading-statistics-fraser-institute-health-care-and-value-mon">//http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/djclimenhaga/2013/01/misleading-statistics-fraser-institute-health-care-and-value-mon

Gee, what a coincidence that the Fraser Institute says every province's health care is too expensive, all health care should be privatized, schools should be privatized, everything should be privatized, and gets its money from corporations and lobbyists who want everything privatized!

[Anonymous]

Good article by Ricky Leong. Who would have thought that the Fraser Institute would give top marks to the usually fiscally reckless government of Quebec.



Health care will continue to eat up an even larger % of provincial budgets unless inevitable changes are made. We all know more private health care delivery is coming, so let's do it sooner rather than later.

The word "private" in relation to health care still sends a shiver down many Canadians' spines.

 

We peer across the border into the U.S. and see the occasional horror story about people being refused medical insurance or denied treatment.

 

But the truth is Canada's flavour of private health care is not nearly as scary.

 

In fact, thinking outside the box helped Quebec to get top marks from the Fraser Institute for delivery of health-care services.

 

In a report unveiled last week, the right-leaning think tank determined Quebec had the best available medical resources of any province, had some of the best wait times in Canada and spent the least per capita to deliver public health services.

 

The idea of big government and inefficient spending are stereotypical for Quebec.

You may be shocked to learn that province has a robust private medical sector that helps to reduce the cost of providing public services.

Here's one example of how it's accomplished.

 

Let's say you're seeing a specialist at a hospital and your doctor wants you to get a quick scan or X-ray done.

 

To get that done at the hospital would have meant a long wait, so instead, you take a short walk down the street to one of many private purveyors of diagnostic services.

 

They do all the scans and send it back to your doctor in good time.

 

Then they bill the government for services rendered.

 

It's a tidy, efficient, less-than-apocalyptic arrangement between the state and private enterprise.

 

If you and your physician had no choice but to use the public health system, you might have had to wait far longer to get it done.

And to fix it all within the public system would have meant sinking scarce taxpayer money into more people and more buildings.

 

From first-hand experience, having previously acted as an interpreter for my grandparents as they navigated Quebec's health-care system, I can say this arrangement works fine, most of the time anyway.

 

It's still public health care, just different.

 

Back to the Fraser Institute report: Alberta does well in terms of pure medical science but the think tank's report suggests this province lags in terms of value for service.

 

We are among the provinces that spend the most on health care — 41% of our provincial budget is tied up in the delivery of health services. (Quebec and Ontario are among the provinces that spend the least.)

 

Our patient wait times are among the best, but Quebec's and Ontario's are better.

 

Overall, the think tank ranks Alberta seventh in terms of value for health-care services delivered.

 

If the Fraser Institute's findings regarding Alberta's health-care system are anything to go by, we may want to look to Quebec for advice.

 

(I know: That sentence was as weird for you to read as it was for me to write.)

 

Happily, it's looking as if government is finally ready to listen.

 

Speaking with the Sun's Rick Bell, both the health minister and the head of Alberta Health Services acknowledge pouring more taxpayer money into public health care isn't necessarily going to produce better service delivery or better efficiency.

 

They say it's time to see what impact might be had by evaluating how existing health-care dollars can be better deployed to provide service to the public.

 

Sure, Alberta's current budgetary predicament has a lot do to with this, but at least there is finally acknowledgement we can look forward to changes meant to help this province get more bang for our health-care buck.

 

That's the kind of medicine Alberta taxpayers will surely be happy to swallow

http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/01/21/private-health-care-in-alberta-need-not-be-scary">http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/01/21/pr ... t-be-scary">http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/01/21/private-health-care-in-alberta-need-not-be-scary

Quebec has been using this approach for a long time now. If it gets people in for the diagnostic services they need faster I'm all for it. If it saves a few dollars then that is just an added bonus.

[Romero]

The Fraser Institute, February 2001



 Statistics are to governments what paint is to an artist. Statistics are the life support system for government policy—as well as the agenda of many advocacy groups whether on the left or the right. Few government policies or causes are compelling without numbers.



Take secondhand smoke, for example. This issue has two main proponents. There are those who find secondhand smoke offensive, and there are those who think that no one should smoke.



Teens have been smoking ever since they found out it was something their parents didn't want them to do. Until recently, teen smoking was regarded as a fad or phase of adolescence. When I was in high school, the school board even allowed kids to smoke in designated smoking areas on campus. Then the generation that made smoking marijuana almost as common as smoking cigarettes turned into prohibitionists.



So most smoking statistics are pulled from thin air. They're used because they make compelling sound bites. Even if you remember no facts, you'll remember the statistic. Of all the things that can be said about smoking—it is a leading cause of statistics.



http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/forum/2001/02/section_12.html">//http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/forum/2001/02/section_12.html

That's right - as recently as 2001, the Fraser Institute was trying to convince people that secondhand smoke and teenagers smoking was harmless!

[Anonymous]

Misleading with statistics: The Fraser Institute



Gee, what a coincidence that the Fraser Institute says every province's health care is too expensive, all health care should be privatized, schools should be privatized, everything should be privatized, and gets its money from corporations and lobbyists who want everything privatized!

Individual feelings aside of the Fraser institute or the blogger you quoted, I have read from other sources that Quebec contracts out more health care procedures than most provinces.

[Romero]

That's alright. It's gonna happen. Better than privatization.

[cc]

Troll can copy / past / post anything he wants about SFU. That's his usual tactic to attack the messenger when he can't dispute the message.



Of course private is coming. Doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that, a calculator and a normal brain is all that is needed.



The dipshit down south is too late outa the gate. He is going the wrong way on the one way street that he didn't realize was about to have its direction reversed, lol

[Romero]

Troll can copy / past / post anything he wants about SFU. That's his usual tactic to attack the messenger when he can't dispute the message.



Of course private is coming. Doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that, a calculator and a normal brain is all that is needed.



The dipshit down south is too late outa the gate. He is going the wrong way on the one way street that he didn't realize was about to have its direction reversed, lol

SFU?

[cc]

Now that we know the report is not bogus can we get back on subject?

With that silly crew? Not likely. They never quit attacking messengers when the messages disassemble their pre-programmed screwed & skewed ideology