Rich White Men...They Know What's Best for Us!
So the Halifax Chamber of commerce is worried about the amount spent on health care? It's considerate of them, pointing out that the cost of health care in this province far outstrips the capacity of government to provide it. How noble of them to take such an interest in their fellow man.
What?
Oh. I guess the references to lost productivity and overall cost might indicate a biased perspective.
The projections of the increase in health care costs were being discussed over a year ago, when I was involved in that area of the world. This is not new information - it's just a new use for it. Thank you for pointing out that the system is not sustainable at it's present rate of growth. If I need some inside information on what colour the sky is, I'll know who to go to.
Promoting healthy workplaces is a positive thing, but let's not lose sight of the fact that each of these lost days represents a sick person, or that person's sick child - the focus should be on how to provide these people with wages that will allow them to live, to eat healthy, to afford to properly heat a home, to afford something other than a mouldy one bedroom hole in the wall.
The most important thing that the government and the Chamber can do, if either of them is really serious about creating a healthier workforce, is to give people a living wage, not just a minimum wage. Wages and social assistance for the poorest of our citizens will not currently allow them to feed and clothe and house themselves adequately...
...Which leads to absenteeism due to illness.
Yup, in some ways, this is a problem you, the small businessmen of Halifax, have created. In terms of government, promoting a healthy lifestyle is one thing, but you have to provide the means by which people can achieve it.
The problem is that improving health through preventative means, and with due attention to the Determinants of Health, will not really start to pay off for ten years. This is the bare minimum amount of time necessary for population health measures to have a tangible effect, measured by a reduction in the number of people accessing the system.
But, with a (normal) election cycle, there is no political will to follow through. Who in his right mind wants to be responsible for the positive effects that would take place long after they may be out of office?
And, heaven help us if the opposition (of whatever stripe) can take credit for something you started. That just wouldn't be fair. But then again, life's not fair.
Just ask all the sick people out there.
What?
Oh. I guess the references to lost productivity and overall cost might indicate a biased perspective.
The projections of the increase in health care costs were being discussed over a year ago, when I was involved in that area of the world. This is not new information - it's just a new use for it. Thank you for pointing out that the system is not sustainable at it's present rate of growth. If I need some inside information on what colour the sky is, I'll know who to go to.
Promoting healthy workplaces is a positive thing, but let's not lose sight of the fact that each of these lost days represents a sick person, or that person's sick child - the focus should be on how to provide these people with wages that will allow them to live, to eat healthy, to afford to properly heat a home, to afford something other than a mouldy one bedroom hole in the wall.
The most important thing that the government and the Chamber can do, if either of them is really serious about creating a healthier workforce, is to give people a living wage, not just a minimum wage. Wages and social assistance for the poorest of our citizens will not currently allow them to feed and clothe and house themselves adequately...
...Which leads to absenteeism due to illness.
Yup, in some ways, this is a problem you, the small businessmen of Halifax, have created. In terms of government, promoting a healthy lifestyle is one thing, but you have to provide the means by which people can achieve it.
The problem is that improving health through preventative means, and with due attention to the Determinants of Health, will not really start to pay off for ten years. This is the bare minimum amount of time necessary for population health measures to have a tangible effect, measured by a reduction in the number of people accessing the system.
But, with a (normal) election cycle, there is no political will to follow through. Who in his right mind wants to be responsible for the positive effects that would take place long after they may be out of office?
And, heaven help us if the opposition (of whatever stripe) can take credit for something you started. That just wouldn't be fair. But then again, life's not fair.
Just ask all the sick people out there.
