alberta health act - why now?
TRANSCRIPT
this issue:
The province’s new Alberta Health Act initiative is ringing alarm bells
for many health care experts around the province. Firstly, it’s unclear exactly why the government needs to do this... and secondly, it has the potential to repeal Al-berta’s core health laws that underpin our public health care system.
!e Alberta Health Act plan seems to be a carefully staged opportunity for the government to so"-sell health care chang-es, with a “consultation” process to gently persuade Albertans this is important for our health system.
Edmonton MLA Fred Horne and the Minister’s Advisory Committee on Health
came up with the plan in their report last fall. Now Fred Horne has been put in charge of the public relations process and “consultation” on the Health Act.
Carefully controlled “consultation”
One of Fred Horne’s conclusions was that Albertans should be consulted about changes, but the process announced for the Health Act is tightly controlled. !e web questionnaire is carefully framed and NO promoted fully-public meetings have been announced. Instead Horne depu-tized the newly appointed Health Ad-visory Councils around the province to host “invitation-only” meetings.
Friends of Medicare has been pushing for full, public discussion and is hosting pub-lic meetings around the province to in-form Albertans about the issues of a new Health Act.
Find out more!is special issue of !e Guardian is ex-panded to provide extra information about the Alberta Health Act. We urge you to consider it carefully, and get involved. !e stakes of new health care legislation are high. While we don’t know exactly what the new Act will contain or its conse-quences yet, we do know this government has a long history of attempting to disman-tle and reduce public health care.
Alberta Health Act - Why now?Possible major threat to public health care
Public Medicare Repealing Alberta’s
laws?
The coming Alberta Health Act
INSI
DE
“Consultation on Alberta Health Act” . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 2
Sailing around Seniors issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3
Parkland report on Health Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 4 & 5
History of health care privatization in Alberta . . . . . . .Page 4 & 5
Government backs away from seniors’ pharmacy plan . . . . . . Page 6
Friends of Medicare activities across province . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7
Strengthening and Expanding Public Healthcare
A Publication of theFriends of Medicare
Albertans should de#nitely have their say in the government’s “consulta-
tion” on the new Health Act – if they can. !ere are two main avenues to par-ticipate, the government’s very carefully structured on-line questionnaire, and meetings held in communities around the province. But the meetings are NOT being well publicized and were #rst an-nounced as invitation-only events, but a"er Friends of Medicare put on pressure, they said “Spaces have also been reserved at each venue for members of the public.”
!e government’s meetings go on until July, 2010. Find out about the meetings and how to “apply” at: www.albertahealthact.ca
!e website also has a guide to #lling in the on-line survey.
important check and balance when regu-lations and policies are being developed.”
!e problem is that the regulations, which can be done secretly by cabinet, with NO public discussion, will be where the sub-stantive restrictions and content of Alber-ta’s health laws will reside.
For example, the Alberta Health Insur-ance Act one of the laws the government says it will roll into the new Health Act, clearly lays out that doctors can not work both in the public system and at the same time for private fees. If they can work both sided, they could bill the public system for some services and charge the patient for others, which would immediately open the door for two tier, commercial health care. Legislation restricting this is in the LAW not the regulations now.
!e meetings are put on by Health Act front man Edmonton MLA Fred Horne, but are hosted locally by the Health Ad-visory Councils. !ese Councils were ap-pointed by the government last year a"er they abolished the former Community Health Councils. !e government web-site says: “!e local will invite a diverse cross-section of the community to attend the workshops, including youth, seniors, Albertans with disabilities, and local health care providers, for example.”
In other words, the government’s hand-picked Advisory Councils will choose the people to consult on the Health Act.
After the consultations: the Act itself
!e government is talking about the Al-berta Health Act being “enabling” legisla-tion that sets out principles “to provide an
“Consolidation” or “Repeal”Health Act to replace
existing Alberta Medicare laws
The recent Minister’s Advisory Committee on Health uses the
word consolidate when it talks about what will happen with Alberta’s cur-rent laws: “Consolidation of core health acts that deal with publicly funded ser-vices. !is legislation includes:
• Alberta Health Care Insurance Act • Hospitals Act • Nursing Homes Act • Health Care Protection Act• Health Insurance Premium Act”
!e point is these laws which currently underpin our public health care sys-tem will be GONE under the Alberta Health Act. !at could remove the le-gal basis that prevents the development of a parallel, for-pro#t health care sys-tem with private insurance. A parallel system could lure away the best doctors, but be accessible only to those who can pay extra for private insurance.
If the Alberta Health Act TRULY consolidates the former laws, those pro-tections would remain. But only very detailed examination of the #nal word-ing of a new Act will be able to tell if those protections are still in place.
Learn more:www.AlbertaHealthAct.ca
• Changes the new Alberta Health Act could make to medicare
• How to join the public discussion about the Act
• Analysis and tips on the government’s website “consultation”
• Events and activities about the Act
Friends of Medicare’s special website on the proposed Health Act.Find out
more about:Also, even more information is available on the Friends of Medicare’s usual website:
www.FriendsofMedicare.org
Having sailed quite a bit, I have found it painful to watch the Alberta gov-
ernment beat upwind in its e$orts to use privatized delivery to o$-load much of its health-care costs onto those who need the care -- particularly seniors.
We have been watching this tacking back and forth since Ralph Klein became Pre-mier, with frequent changes of skippers. Recently, former health minister Ron Liepert seemed to be making headway but, in the troubled waters of public op-position, he sailed too close to the wind. Gene Zwozdesky was brought on-board and set about reversing some of his prede-cessor’s decisions.
It would be a mistake, however, to assume this signi#es a real change in heading. !e government is still committed to priva-tizing as much health care as possible to achieve its minimalist, ideological vision of what government should be.
We are still waiting for the 600 new long-term care (nursing home) beds that Pre-
mier Ed Stelmach promised in the last provincial election campaign. In fact, the chairman of Alberta Health Services re-cently admitted that 70 long-term and palliative care beds had actually been closed. !ere has been no e$ort to rescind the freeze in the number of long-term care (LTC) beds announced by Liepert in December 2008.
Clearly, the government still believes LTC facilities (where patients pay only for accommodation and meals, and where nursing, medications, rehab and other services are provided free) are too expen-sive a way to care for old people who are cognitively impaired, chronically ill, or so frail they need extensive nursing care.
!e government clearly intends to put such patients into privatized Assisted Liv-ing facilities where, in addition to accom-modation and meal costs, patients pay per-service charges to be toileted, bathed, dressed, wheeled about and fed. !ey will pay both for their medications and for having them dished out.
While the government recently an-nounced a $105-million program to build 1,000 new and upgraded continuing-care spaces, it is unwilling to say how many, if any, will be LTC. !at, presumably, is awaiting the government’s decision on the #nal report of the committee looking at ways of li"ing the ceiling on accom-modation costs for LTC facilities. If the
government agrees to deregulate these rates and allows them to be set by the businesses that will build and operate the facilities, we will doubtless see some new LTC spaces costing $3,000 a month plus care, nursing and medication costs for the few people who can a$ord that.
More than half of the $105 million de-voted to funding these new and upgraded spaces was raised through the Capital Bonds issued by the government last year. Why, one might ask, is the government raising money from Albertans to give to private, for-pro#t corporations?
Extendicare, a private operator that got more than $10 million from the Alberta government last year, recently announced #rst-quarter pro#ts of $15.6 million, up from $3.7 million a year ago. Does anyone think this is a prudent way to spend pub-lic dollars? Surely the folly of privatized delivery of health and care services, where the secrecy of business arrangements pre-vents oversight and accountability, is be-coming apparent.
!e bankruptcy proceedings underway for the Club Sierra and Masterpiece se-niors’ care facilities in Red Deer, and Net-worc Health’s HRG surgical facility in Calgary are examples of the government, and Alberta taxpayers, being le" holding the bag when private facilities fail.
Rather than palming o$ its responsibilities onto private operators, the government needs to face up to its obligation to fund and deliver medically necessary care ser-vices to a growing population of seniors.
!is growth is not a “tsunami” or an un-foreseen event; it is a population bulge that we have known about for more than
Friends of Medicare raises awareness and educates Albertans about the bene!ts of public health care.
Friends of Medicare is a coalition of individuals, social justice groups, unions, churches and other organizations
dedicated to the strengthening and support of public health care in the pro"ince of Alberta.
50 years. We know that the percentage of Albertans over 65 will double in the next 20 years. We know that, discount-ing in%ation and population growth, this will increase Alberta’s health-care costs by about 30 per cent. We also know that increasing health spending by only 1.32 per cent a year for the next 20 years can accommodate this cost increase.
!e Alberta economy is entirely capa-ble of managing such increases. Yes, we might have to revert to progressive in-come tax rates and deprive the wealthiest Albertans of the huge tax break they have enjoyed since 2001. We might even have to rethink our ridiculously low business taxes. But that is in#nitely preferable to messing about with quick-#x privatized solutions that might reduce the strain on public accounts but will ultimately cost Alberta seniors, their families and baby boomers in#nitely more.
Surely it is time the government set a new course toward health services that are not just publicly #nanced but also publicly de-livered -- services that do not deprive ail-ing Alberta seniors, when they most need it, of the medically necessary services they supported with their taxes all their work-ing lives.
Noel Somerville is the chairperson of the seniors task force of Public Interest Alberta.
It would be a mistake, however,
to assume this signifies a
real change in heading.
By Noel Somerville
Report 1Risks of the Alberta Health Act#is is a summary of a report by Parkland Institute Research Director Diana Gibson and Vancouver-based health care researcher Colleen Fuller. A full copy of the report is available on the Parkland Insti-tute website at www.ualberta.ca/parkland
Alberta’s government has undertaken to reform the existing health legisla-
tion and create a new Alberta Health Act. !e initiative is summarized in “A Foun-dation for Alberta’s Health System” (sub-sequently referred to as the Foundation).
!e rhetoric in the Foundation document heavily emphasizes individual responsibili-ty and %exibility of delivery systems. It rep-licates rhetoric seen in Ralph Klein’s !ird Way and the 2001 Mazankowski report.
In this report we identify the potential risks associated with such an act. !e re-port is based on reviews of materials avail-able on the new health act initiative with input from a national working group and a research symposium.
1. risk of expanded for-profit delivery
!e government’s main focus with this initiative is to “reorganize and re-vamp the delivery system.” !e Alberta Health Services states it as, “Recognize role of private and non-governmental organizations in service delivery within the Canada Health framework.” !e submission by the Calgary Chamber of Commerce takes it one step further, stating that “Surgical facility operators have commented that the system would function at much higher level of e&-ciency if AHS were stripped of its regu-latory function.” It also states that the Chamber has long advocated the repeal of the Health Care Protection Act.
For-profit delivery does not deliver
!e research on for-pro#t hospitals reveals three main areas where they fall short: i. 'uality and safety of health services.
ii. Costs of health services.
iii. 'uality of jobs.
Findings include higher death rates in private hospitals and dialysis clin-ics, more quality de#ciencies and less nursing care in nursing homes and less care to the dying in hospices. Investor-owned hospitals spend much less on nursing care than not-for-pro#t hospi-tals, and their administrative costs are 6% higher. Privatization takes money from the pockets of under-paid, mostly female health workers and gives it to investors and highly paid managers.
2. risks of merging the acts
One of the key priorities identi#ed for the new Alberta Health Act is to make de#nitions standard across health care legislation in Alberta by merging a num-ber of the acts and standardizing de#ni-tions. !is includes the Nursing Homes Act and the Hospitals Act. Protections in the Nursing Home Act include ratios for nursing sta$, as well as a variety of other regulations protecting quality or care.
Standardization may lead to the lowest common denominator. It also may be used to get rid of wording that limits
1967 Premier Manning fights against Medicare
Alberta’s Premier, Ernest Manning led a na-tional campaign against compulsory public insurance for physician fees, #ghting the idea every step of the way, along with the Canadian Health Insurance Association (a partnership of commercial insurance carri-ers and non-pro#t insurance controlled by doctors), the Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Medical Association.
1982 Surveys reveal extent of extra-billing in Alberta.
Consumers’ Association of Canada tele-phone survey #nds extra-billing by doc-tors is a problem for many families. More than one-quarter of the households re-ported they had been extra-billed and were reluctant to visit physicians because of the practice.
1984 The CanadaHealth Act
!e Canada Health Act for federal fund-ing of universal, comprehensive necessary hospital and doctor services is passed unanimously in Parliament supported by the governing Liberals, Brian Mulroney’s Conservatives and the NDP.
1986 Health minister seeks to end extra-billing
Alberta Health Minister David Russell, (who had earlier claimed Alberta would accept cuts in federal medicare funding rather than stop extra-billing by doctors) gives in and negotiates an agreement with the Alberta Medical Association to end extra-billing. Withheld federal health funding and public outcry against extra-billing force the change.
1991 22 Alberta Tory MPs back user fees for health care
Alberta Tories back user fees in a letter to Prime Minister Mulroney. Two of the MPs went on to careers in the insurance industry, Don Mazankowski with Great West Life and Ken Hughes, now chair of Alberta Health Services, who ran his own insurance agency.
1994-95 Klein’s massive health cuts
Alberta Health budget goes from $4.3 billion in 1993 to $3.7 billion in 1995. Over 5,000 nurses laid o$. !ree Cal-gary hospitals sold or demolished.
1998 Bill 37 The Health Statutes Amendment Act
!e Act would have given the Health Minister the authority to allow private hospitals. Also had a buried clause remov-ing ban on private insurance coverage for auxiliary hospital services. Huge pressure causes government to withdraw the Bill.
Undoing Medicare:constant theme in Alberta politics
From the beginning there was strong commercial resistance to Alberta’s, and Canada’s, public health care system. Insurance corporations and other busi-
nesses have constantly tried to break in and break it up. In Alberta, there is a long history of attempts to commercialize health care, and of strong public support for Medicare that has held back privatization.
for-pro#t involvement, protects the public sector, or dictates higher quality standards such as nursing ratios.
!e repeated commitments that the new Alberta Health Care Act will com-ply with the Canada Health Act are hardly reassuring. Alberta’s legislation already exceeds the CHA in impor-tant areas. !ese include limits on the evolution of a parallel private system through bans on doctors working in both systems. !ere is no indication that these protections will not be lost.
3. risks of the patient charter
A number of other jurisdictions have experimented with the patient bill of rights. !ese are very controversial. !e online survey being conducted by the Advisory Committee contains a num-ber of elements in the patient charter that raise concerns.i. rights to timeliness and access
-!ere is debate as to whether or not time guarantees should be included in a patient’s charter. Some legal and policy experts argue it could be used to improve accountability and out-comes on wait times. Others suggest that it could be used as a vehicle for opening the door to more privatiza-tion in a Chaoulli-style lawsuit. !e risk of this would depend very much on how those rights were articulat-ed. For example, 'uebec’s charter includes timeliness and access pro-visions, but those are limited spe-ci#cally to the public system and by caveats related to the limits imposed on the public system.
ii. responsibilities - !e act as proposed places strong emphasis on personal responsibility. !e online survey in-cludes a section on patient responsibil-ities such as: learn how to better access health services; use services appropri-ately and wisely; and make healthy choices. !is shi"s responsibility from health care providers and the govern-ment to individuals, and is a signi#-cant move away from universality.
Emphasizing patient responsibility for health can lead to system biases against people with unhealthy habits such as smoking, poor diet or lack of exercise. Personal responsibility is important, but these issues should be dealt with through public education and interven-tion programs and policy initiatives.
3. conclusions and recommendations
Considerable resources are required to create a new Alberta Health Act and important risks are associated with that scale of legislative change. !is report #nds that there is nothing to be gained with the new legislation as proposed to date that could not be done under the current legislation and much that could be lost. !e initiative should not pro-ceed as proposed.
!e legislation should only be changed if the real objective is to strengthen the public health system and better inte-grate the community sector within it, and to put a limit on any further for-pro#t delivery. !is is the topic of the forthcoming second report in this series.
2000 Bill 11 Health Care Protection Act
Gives government the power to regulate private “non-hospital surgical facilities” and allows public health care to purchase services from private hospitals. A"er ma-jor public rallies and nightly vigils at the Legislature, #nal version of the law tight-ly restricts private hospitals. Bill 11 actu-ally discourages the expansion of more private facilities.
2002 Mazankowski’s “Framework for Reform”
Report to Alberta government proposes to reduce services covered by medicare and greater reliance on private business health services and private insurance, and calls Medicare “an unregulated mo-nopoly”. Because of strong public oppo-sition, nothing is publicly enacted by the government based on the report.
2005 Government announces “The Third Way”
Premier Klein says “take the shackles o$ the health authorities, open up the system and see what works and what doesn’t.” Government document shows planned amendments to Alberta Health Care Insurance Act and Hospitals Act to open market to private insurance and to private health delivery.
2008 New Premier Ed Stelmach assures Albertans “Third Way is DOA”
But government announces “action plan too make public health system more e&-cient”... “our new direction will build on the Mazankowski report in 2001” and other reports including the 2006 !ird Way plan.
2009 Minister’s Advisory Committee calls for new Health Act
Act will replace existing Medicare Leg-islation, and besides de#ning principles, will look at: “publicly funded services currently are de#ned through various terms, including insured services which has di$erent meanings in di$erent stat-utes, medically necessary services, basic services, basic care services, basic health services, hospitalization bene#ts and in-sured surgical services.”
Undoing Medicare: constant theme in Alberta politicsMLA Fred Horne
chairs the committee holding hearings on
the Act
Seniors Pharmaceutical Strategy NOT OUT OF THE WOODS YETBy David Eggen
Government powerpoint unveils motive for changing lawsIn 2005, when the Alberta govern-
ment was prepping for the !ird Way, one of the discussion papers was a powerpoint which is still on the gov-ernment’s website (www.health.alberta.ca/documents/Removing-Barriers-PPT-2005.pdf)
!e report couldn’t be more clear – the Alberta Health Insurance Act and Hos-pitals Act must be amended or repealed to make way for private insurance for medical services in the province.
A federal study discusses parallel pri-vate health care in Canada and refer-ences the Alberta presentation. Part of Economics researcher Odette Madore’s conclusion is: “Duplicate private in-surance is currently permitted in Aus-tralia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Such insurance, combined with doctors’ ability to engage in dual practice (that is, to work in the publicly funded system while at the same time practising in the private sector), has en-couraged the development of a viable
parallel private system for health care in these three countries…. Duplicate pri-vate health care insurance has brought two substantial bene#ts: a wider choice of providers and faster access to care for those who can a$ord private insur-ance; and additional funding for capac-ity development in the hospital sector. At the same time, however, it has raised concerns about inequity of access and length of waiting times.”
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0571-e.pd
On Tuesday, March 30th Friends of Medicare met with the provincial
health minister to discuss issues concern-ing Albertans’ health.( Our number one concern at that time was to compel the government to scrap the controversial and regressive plan to charge senior’s monthly premiums as well as co-payments for their prescription drug needs.(
( We told the minister in no uncertain terms that we were launching an aggres-sive campaign to “can the plan” and to come up with a overall senior’s health strategy that did not discriminate accord-ing to age and income, and that did not unfairly target seniors with extra fees.(
Like us, the government must have been getting a similar message of anger and frustration on this issue, and they were in no mood to defend yet another poorly conceived and unpopular health care pol-icy. On Wednesday, March 30th, the very next day a"er our meeting, the govern-ment announced that they would “post-pone” their senior’s drug insurance plan until further notice.(
!is is welcome news, and it speaks to the power of the population when they speak up against bad policy from the provincial government.( In the previous year more than 30 000 Albertans signed petitions, attended meetings and rallies, and wrote
and phoned the government to tell them to “cease and desist” with their plans to dismantle and privatize our public health system.( !ey did not cease and desist yet, but we did jolt them su&ciently to compel them to remove and replace the health min-ister and to pay back some of the billions of dollars in outstanding debt that had piled up from years of government neglect.
Senior’s do not appreciate being targeted, due to their age, with an extra tax on their health care.( !ey planned and saved for their retirement and then the government changes the rules, with middle income se-niors being targeted to make some small saving to the government’s general rev-enues.( Many senior were suspicious that the change would not save any money anyway, since the plan would require bu-reaucrats and audits to determine how much money senior’s had, and how much more they should pay for their drugs.( Once the government set levels of income for payment, what would stop them from changing the categories to force people to pay even more?
Many seniors know the Senior’s phar-maceutical strategy was nothing more than an expensive insurance scheme that would develop a market to expanded pri-vate insurance.( Once the government cracked the concept of universal coverage, what would stop them from applying this to other areas?
So the senior’s pharmaceutical strategy is postponed, for now, but the structure is so deeply %awed it must be cancelled and re-placed.(( !e time has come for a universal prescription drug plan for all Albertans that is a$ordable to all.( Senior’s deserve a plan that includes prescription drugs, but as part of an overall health strategy that focuses on preventative health and qual-ity of life.
Friends of Medicare held it's pro"incial Annual General Meeting in Edmonton recently. Members travelled $om across the pro"ince to join in the discussion of issues and campaigns.
Premier Stelmach and recent health ministers make a careful point of
talking about “publicly-funded health services”. But many concerned citizens point out that “publicly-funded” and full “public health care” are NOT necessar-ily the same. “Publicly-funded” could be contracted out to medical corporations, something the government is doing al-ready with the costly HRC surgical con-tracts in Calgary.
!e Minister’s Advisory Committee on Health suggests publicly-funded health services coulc be just part of health care de-
livery: “!e Alberta Health Act should ad-dress the much broader range of health ser-vices within the province, both those that receive public funding and others within the overall continuum of services that en-able healthy people and communities.”
Albertans know they depend on public Medicare for ALL necessary medical ser-vices. !at is the full security of a public health care system. Albertans don’t want a system with private insurance where this is covered, this is not, or with this limit, or that limit. Albertans want full public health care. You’re covered!
“Publicly-funded” services are NOT the same as full public health care
were running around the province. Al-most overnight AHS had moved from re-cruiting nurses worldwide because of the shortage, to the opposite opinion, that Alberta had too many nurses. Frontline sta$ – trying to keep up with extra beds doubled up in rooms and lining corri-dors – were well aware of the reality that Alberta’s health care system had not yet recovered from the massive layo$s of the 1990s.
In April a survey of AHS employees and volunteers showed only 18 percent of phy-sicians and 41 percent of nurses, techni-cians and other employees are proud to work for AHS. Only 29 percent of em-ployees and 19 percent of physicians said they were optimistic about the future of AHS. !ese survey results highlight the poor morale levels and low trust in the se-nior leadership of AHS.
!e uncertain future of Alberta Hospital Edmonton has caused great concern for sta$ and families of patients. Changes to ‘assisted living’ and reduced care in the province’s Long-Term Care facilities have made many Albertans question why they can not get care provided in their own communities. !e confusion caused around cataract surgery contracts and their centralization in a few facilities or the closure of helicopter ambulance land-ing pads raises questions about whether the members of the AHS superboard even consider smaller cities and rural commu-nities in their decisions.
!e number of stories of poor decisions and chaos in AHS is too long to list in one article. !e reality is that two years a"er the forced merger and creation of the AHS superboard, our health care system is arguably less e&cient due to the ama-teur, hidden, and secretive leadership of the AHS superboard and their CEO Ste-phen Duckett.
AHS stands for Amateur, Hidden, and SecretiveAll the corporate management buzz
words in the world could not give full justice to the chaos, turmoil, and low-morale that was directly caused by the re-disorganization of Alberta’s health care system two years ago. !e forced merger of the nine regional health authorities may have been based in the management-speak of “synergizing” governance and “incentivizing” good intentions, but the result has been a disaster.
!e creation of the Alberta Health Ser-vices superboard has led to the removal of local leadership in the health care system. !is resulted in a secretive board of direc-tors running the show, many of whom have little connection to front-line health workers or communities. !e AHS board is dominated by political appointees with strong connections to private health care providers and the private insurance in-dustry. !eir lack of health care experi-ence may have contributed to a long series of missteps and misinformation.
Economic mis-management has to be one of the big blunders. In 2007-2008, the year before the twelve health authorities were merged, the authorities had a com-bined de#cit of $97 million. In 2008-09, the year health authorities were amalgam-ated, the de#cit more than tripled to $343 million. And in just one more year, Al-berta Health Services managed to again more than triple that de#cit, to over $1 billion. AHS went on, in a most unusal move, to borrow $220 million from the Royal Bank.
AHS CEO Stephen Duckett took it upon himself to pick a high school style #ght with the Nurses. In November 2009, Duckett told nurses that “the future of nursing is not in nursing’s hands.” At the time Duckett made this statement, rumours of layo$s and facility closures
EdmontonDavid Eggen – !780 423 4581
CalgaryTed Woynillowicz – 403 286 9283
PalliserJan Bunney – 403 526 0332
HintonLynda Jonson – 780 865 2360!!
Peace Country Health [email protected]
Canmore Anne Wilson – 403 688 5325
LethbridgeMichael Cormican – 403 381 7635!!!!!!!!
Red DeerBrenda Corney – 403 347 9108
Pincher CreekJoan Turcott – 403 627 3602
ACTIVE IN YOUR COMMUNITY
Friends of Medicare have a number of chapters and af-
#liates supporting public health-care across the province.( !e chapters and a&liates act as lo-cal representatives for Friends of Medicare and help to organize around local health issues .(
For example, in Medicine Hat the Palliser chapter hosts Medi-care Mondays at various local co$ee shops and restaurants to discuss health care with mem-bers of the public.( !e Peace country chapter has rallied more than 6 communities together to #ght for their local hospitals.( Many chapters host educational speakers and sessions as well as social events and rallies.
Our public health care system is the most valuable public asset we own together as a so-ciety. Public health care is there for everyone, and is part of what makes us a strong, car-ing and just nation. !ere will always be individuals who seek to privatize our health care system for #nancial gain, so it is up to us to stand up and #ght for a strong public health system. Private-for-pro#t business interests are gaining in%uence in Alberta. It
is the provincial government’s bias to expand private health care and diminish our public Medicare system. Public health care is more economical, more equitable, and certainly more e&cient than private-for-pro#t medicine. Countries around the world look enviously at what Canada has achieved. It is up to the public to push for a stronger, expanded system for the 21st century. - David Eggen- Executive Director, Friends of Medicare
Talking about the Alberta Health Act
Albertans need to hear about the Alberta Health Act and its implications. You can help:
• distribute copies of this paper to friends and neighbours
• call your MLA to express your concern• go to the Horne Committee hearings• come to a Friends of Medicare event• organize a co$ee party or a discussion time
Call Friends of Medicare if you would like a speaker to come and talk, or get extra copies of materials. Keep in touch!