Prime Minister Justin Trudeau holds a press conference at the Francophonie Summit in Paris, France on Oct. 5.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
Cloudy days
Re “Liberal outlook” (Letters, Oct 10): A letter-writer is “perplexed at the public dislike of our Prime Minister,” but I think he overlooks the broken promises (e.g. electoral reform), the meaningless photo-ops, the broken immigration system, the stonewalling (e.g. the warrant sitting in Bill Blair’s office for 54 days) and so much more not done.
I am hard pressed to name one initiative handled in a timely and efficient way, and I haven’t even mentioned the billions of dollars wasted over the past nine years.
Richard Holland Alnwick/Haldimand, Ont.
A letter-writer submits that the Liberals have given us dental care, pharmacare and more. But all these things have been given to us using taxpayer money. Instead, I find that the Liberal government has been responsible for a spending binge unprecedented in Canadian history.
It’s easy to win friends when one pays them. The difficult thing is to govern responsibly.
Glenn Stephenson Saskatoon
I am delighted to enlighten a letter-writer on why I dislike Justin Trudeau.
There is his refusal to enact promised electoral reforms; his sordid treatment of Jody Wilson-Raybould that aided the company previously known as SNC-Lavalin; his concentration of power into the Prime Minister’s Office; his failure to maintain an adequate slate of Supreme Court judges; his neglect of national defence; his seeming disregard for the detailed work of governance; his willingness to sacrifice the carbon levy on heating oil for the sake of a few votes; his failure to adequately protect citizens from foreign interference; his doors-open approach to temporary foreign workers and student visas; his failure to efficiently manage the civil service, and more.
Now ask me why I absolutely detest Pierre Poilievre.
Brian Swinney Burlington, Ont.
Better prescription
Re “An Unhealthy Debate: Jane Philpott’s prescription for real change” (Editorial, Oct. 9): So refreshing to read about Jane Philpott’s assertion that Canadian citizens needing primary care deserve the same rights as Canadian children when seeking an education. Yes to that. And, yes, it’s time for physicians to be part of the solution.
They should be actively participating in ensuring that all citizens, regardless of health care requirements, have access to a primary care physician. That includes giving up the current practice I hear of doctors saying, “I don’t do mental health or substance use disorder or other challenging conditions,” leaving citizens “out of luck” if those issues happen to be part of their health care needs.
Citizen health needs should be put ahead of physician personal preferences. There are 6.5 million Canadians depending on it.
Deanna Hutchings, Retired health professional Victoria
I wholeheartedly support Jane Philpott’s goal of providing access to primary care for 100 per cent of Canadians. However, I see more ways to accomplish this than by addressing the shortage of family physicians.
I am a 70-year-old woman in good health and, for the most part, I do not need to see a doctor on a regular basis. My family physician is almost impossible to see; after COVID-19, I tried to make an appointment for a physical and was told that service is no longer provided.
I would be happy to see a nurse practitioner, and believe that for those of us who are generally healthy, the provision of this service would free up physicians’ time to deal with more complex patients. Perhaps the focus should be on training more NPs, at a significantly lower cost.
Ruth Alexander London, Ont.
The fix should be simple: Grant access to patient-paid service to all Canadians from Canadian suppliers. Set fee schedules for patient-paid services as identical to government-paid services.
Have doctors practice in both patient-paid and government-paid settings, with proportions governed by an independent regulator. This structure would ensure that the existing system is maintained, that Canadians need not go to other countries for paid health care, that patient-paid health care dollars remain in Canada and, most importantly, that doctors cannot play one system against the other to the detriment of patients.
Two benefits would manifest: Competition between the two systems would make both better, and Canada would stop living in the back half of rankings for health care in Western democracies.
John Budreski Whistler, B.C.
Ontario already has an excellent model to build on: community health centres.
Interestingly, some of these centres began more than 50 years ago during the Bill Davis government. While some CHCs focus on specific disadvantaged communities, many continue the original model of serving a specific catchment area.
Led by community boards, these centres offer primary health care including health promotion and chronic care. There are salaried physicians, nurses and nurse practitioners, as well as counsellors, dietitians and community workers.
In Ottawa, CHCs also work together to offer services across the city that can’t be offered effectively by one centre alone, such as seniors’ foot care, diabetes education, lung health and programs for seniors with gambling and substance use issues, to name a few.
There’s no need to reinvent the wheel. CHCs can be adapted and expanded to achieve the universal coverage recommended by Jane Philpott. Let’s get on with it.
Marguarite Keeley Ottawa
Everyone wants to complain about all the things that are wrong, perhaps without thinking about how the science and practice of medicine have changed in the last 60 years.
There have been so many discoveries in diseases, genetics and medications. New specialties have developed, each demanding funds and drawing the interest of medical school graduates.
With all these changes, Canadians have greater expectations of the system. We have moved away from a system that just covers the cost of a doctor’s visit or visit to an emergency department, to one which delivers new hips, knees, heart valves, dialysis and organ transplants.
There is no doubt changes must be made to provide decent medical care to all Canadians; however, it might be worthwhile to consider how far we have come.
Barbara Clarke St. John’s
Which way?
Re “Uber drivers in Ontario will now have their wages determined entirely by an algorithm” (Oct. 8): I called an Uber for a destination one block north and 15 blocks east of my location. The driver’s app told him to head south.
I pointed out that the destination was the other direction. He said that he was required to follow the route on the app.
We went seven blocks south, east for a while, then eight blocks north. Uber says the fare is partly based on “the efficiency of the route a driver chooses to take.”
Meanwhile, I am paying for double the time and 14 unnecessary blocks. The trouble with algorithms?
Larry Custead Saskatoon
Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com