The desperate search for an election issue in Canada

In a world of political distemper, Canadians find themselves in a strange and wonderfully unique position – being in the midst of a national election without a single big national issue. Everyone is trying. (“Rich corporations” and “majority government” are raised in every speech.) Yet, so far, nothing beats the wide-eyed news coverage of “scandal-ettes” and inside gossip. Big challenges make it into speeches. But none of the party platforms threaten to resolve any of them.

This weekend—on the eve of next Tuesday’s leader’s national debate—thoughtful Canadians who can’t garden yet or even those who work in campaign war rooms will feel under terrible pressure to find something important to argue about—a proposition on which ‘good’ people can strongly disagree and on which they can say “yes” or “no.”  

Corporate tax cuts could grow as an issue if the Liberals want to take on the inequities of capitalism rather than just empathize with the middle class. However, only western Canadians have ever elected (and re-elected) economic populist governments. And, today, the west is booming and enthusiastic about attracting foreign investment.

Harper’s call for a majority government has been framed as the safest way to keep the others out of power. It could take off as an issue if he discussed how a majority could be used positively. But many parts of the country may not want what it could produce—such as a re-organized House of Commons with seats strictly allocated according to where Canadians now live, or, unemployment insurance strictly defined by national labor market conditions.

The prospect of another trivial election determined by innuendo and advertising is embarrassing. However, looking too hard for that big issue could do more harm than good. The most menacing cry out there today is “let’s have an adult national debate about Canada’s health care crisis.” And, of course, every poll puts health at or near the top of people’s concerns.

This week, a well regarded retiring parliamentarian Dr. Keith Martin and the C. D. Howe Institute, with the help of retired Governor of the Bank of Canada David Dodge provoked fresh calls for “national” leadership on affordable, timely health care. As you’d expect, the retiring politician explicitly provoked the clamor.

“Our health-care system must be overhauled in order to fulfill its ultimate objective, which is to ensure that all Canadians, regardless of income, will have timely access to the quality care they need when they fall ill. During this election, political parties must not be allowed to hide from this, our citizens’ most urgent concern. Lives depend on it.”

Click on: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/06/we-need-two-tiered-medicine/

Let’s hope other politicians don’t bite.

The facts on the ground—not just wise federalist theory—suggest that Ottawa is the last healthy place to look for leadership on the efficient delivery of health care. Federal leadership, beyond the “power to convene” meetings as Michael Ignatieff describes it, is fueled almost entirely by “aspirational” targets and tens of $billions in transfers to the provinces.

There may be better ways to transfer the money, leaving greater flexibility to the provinces or greater say to their taxpayers. Amending the guidelines of the Canada Health Act may be necessary. However, going any further at a federal level would only cloud the issues and slow effective change.

The national government has all sorts of interesting responsibilities to impress us on. Healthcare, however, is emphatically a provincial problem that must be addressed by steady, gutsy provincial leadership. The province’s own most of Canada’s public healthcare system and raise almost 80 % of the taxes that pay to operate it. They should be encouraged to shift any of their responsibilities.

Premiers will win office or be thrown out on how they manage this issue. It isn’t an issue that should make or break prime ministers.

Republicans would be wise to devise a Plan-B on universal health-care

Calling “e” un-Obamacarconstitutional is all the rage amongst the more aggressive leaders of the Republican Party. The accusation addresses several partisan objectives: it aims to delegitimize the other side; it skirts complicated legislative details, including benefits as well as costs; and it asserts that they are on the side of flag and country. After all, being un-constitutional is literally un-American. So how could it possibly be in our interests?

The life cycle of this feisty stratagem may be drawing to a close.

The constitutional challenge attacks the cornerstone of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—the requirement that all individuals purchase basic health insurance. Laurence Tribe, a professor at Harvard Law School argues with great confidence that the Supreme Court will side with Obama:

“Since the New Deal, the court has consistently held that Congress has broad constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. This includes authority over not just goods moving across state lines, but also the economic choices of individuals within states that have significant effects on interstate markets. By that standard, this law’s constitutionality is open and shut. . .

“Many new provisions in the law, like the ban on discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, are also undeniably permissible. But they would be undermined if healthy or risk-prone individuals could opt out of insurance, which could lead to unacceptably high premiums for those remaining in the pool. For the system to work, all individuals — healthy and sick, risk-prone and risk-averse — must participate to the extent of their economic ability.

“In this regard, the health care law is little different from Social Security. The court unanimously recognized in 1982 that it would be “difficult, if not impossible” to maintain the financial soundness of a Social Security system from which people could opt out. The same analysis holds here: by restricting certain economic choices of individuals, we ensure the vitality of a regulatory regime clearly within Congress’s power to establish.”

Click on: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/opinion/08tribe.html?_r=1

Tribe doesn’t argue that judicial or congressional conservatives are obliged to like what the Democrats are doing—only that it’s constitutional. Twentieth century experience provides legitimates reasons to worry about expanding the role of federal governments in the delivery of basic social services. However, the courts have generally left it to elected politicians to define the appropriate place of federal, state and individual responsibilities.

When the constitutional arguments run their course, Republicans will have to start talking about health-care again. Simply promising to repeal the entire act will lose considerable credibility if the court up holds its constitutionality. Furthermore, will the majority of Americans who believe in federal reform in the provision of health-care believe that once Republicans have torn down what Obama has put in place they’ll implement a credible alternative?

Nobody goes to the political center easily these days. However, Republicans would be well advised to concentrate on finding practical, even conservative, ways for the federal government to respond to nation-wide concerns for accessible, affordable health-care. Ironically, they might have another look at the Canada Health Act.

Setting aside public administration, it simply transfers monies to the provinces on behalf of four widely popular health delivery guidelines: comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility. While provincial health plans are often called socialistic by American conservatives, the Canadian federal government’s role is quite light-handed compared to what is already the case in Washington.