Here’s what’s behind the big raise offered to B.C. doctors. True North https://tnc.news/2022/11/06/whatley-bc-doctors/
I wrote this for True North News. I wanted to share it with readers here, too.
The headlines (including mine) use dollar signs for attention. But the BC offer pivots on control, not money.
Here’s what’s behind the big raise offered to B.C. doctors
Family doctors in British Columbia seem to have struck gold this week. The province offered a $135,000, 54% raise in return for a change from fee-for-service to a rostered – or what’s known as capitation-style –practice. This means average total billings for an individual physician will increase from $250,000 to $385,000.
Dr. Ramneek Dosanjh, President of Doctors B.C., called the six-figure offer a “seismic shift” and a “new dawn” in the physician-government relationship.
Governments rarely offer such raises. It reminds us of the British Labour Party’s push to build the National Health Service in 1948. British doctors had long opposed state medicine. But overnight, they did an about-face and embraced it. Aneurin Bevan, Minister of Health, was asked how he got the doctors to flip. He said by “stuffing their mouths with gold.” Continue reading “BC Stuffs GPs’ Mouths with Gold: $135,000 raise”
Time to move beyond rights. Healthcare is an obligation. Photo credit Wbur.org
“In the animal kingdom, the rule is eat or be eaten; in the human kingdom, define or be defined.”
Dr. Thomas Szasz
Defining healthcare sparks endless debate, especially in America. Canada seems to have settled on rights, with socialized medicine. The Romanow Report declared that, “Canadians view medicare as a moral enterprise, not a business venture.”
However, the right to stand in line for promised care is itself immoral. In the 2005 Supreme Court of Canada Chaoulli case, Chief Justice Beverly McLaughlin famously said, “Access to a waitlist is not access to health care.”
Rights
Defenders of rights form a crowd of dignitaries.
Earlier this year, President Biden said, “Health care should be a right, not a privilege, for all Americans.”
Former President Obama celebrated the seventh anniversary of his Affordable Care Act by saying, “We finally declared that in America, health care is not a privilege for a few, but a right for everybody.”
Pope Francis said health “is not a consumer good, but rather a universal right, and therefore access to healthcare services cannot be a privilege.” Francis moves the right upstream, which begs the question whether healthcare actually delivers health.
Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization, declared that “Health is a fundamental human right.”
Rights-talk appeals to natural rights. It assumes they are self-evident. Rights also touch on negative and positive rights: the right to be left alone vs the right to demand something from your neighbour.
Jeremy Bentham, 19th century philosopher, said only the state can confer rights through law. Natural rights confuse the existence of a want with the means of fulfilling it. Bentham called rights “nonsense on stilts.” Those who admire Bentham’s collectivism usually ignore his “nonsense.”
Privilege
By default, those who refuse to pledge allegiance to healthcare rights must be apologists of privilege. However, it is hard to find many saying so explicitly.
Media accused President Trump of calling healthcare a privilege. He said state care was like giving a “bozo with zero experience a management position.”
In 2017, Miss USA was asked onstage whether Affordable Care was a right or a privilege. Caught off guard, she called it a privilege related to her employment — clearly the wrong answer. Media had a fit.
Misplaced Privilege
Privilege, if it existed at all in healthcare, used to lie with the medical profession, not patients. Doctors used to control their own profession.
Who are we? Is liberalism finished? (See photo credit below)
For some reason, physicians love this line:
“I am socially liberal but fiscally conservative.”
It sounds moderate, prudential, even sophisticated.
“Socially liberal” suggests individual choice about sex, marriage, and life in general. “Fiscally conservative” suggests spending restraint and market freedom.
Both statements come from the same philosophy. The first is social liberalism, the second economic liberalism.
In other words, “I am socially liberal but fiscally conservative,” is simply liberalism through and through.
What then do we mean by ‘liberalism’?
Liberalism
Liberal just means freedom. Most people like freedom, at least for themselves.
Liberalism, on the other hand, means something more.
Francis Fukuyama is perhaps the most well-known expert on liberalism. At the end of the Cold War, he wrote, The End of History and the Last Man (1992).
Fukuyama predicted a future of liberalism without contest or equal. No more socialism, conservatism, or anything else. Nothing but liberalism forever and ever.
Given the lack of competition, Fukuyama did not need to define liberalism against its enemies. Everyone knew what he meant.