February 4, 2012 - No. 5

Health Care Agenda of the Rich

Immediate Cuts and Long-Term Starvation of
Public Health Care

- Jim Nugent -

Health Care Agenda of the Rich
• Immediate Cuts and Long-Term Starvation of Public Health Care - Jim Nugent
• Recent Developments in Health Accord Negotiations

For Your Information
• 9th Actuarial Report on Old Age Security Program

International
• February 4 U.S. Nation-Wide Protests Against Drive to War with Iran
• Statement on Assassination of Iranian Scientist - United National Anti-War Coalition
• Challenges to U.S. Oil Embargo of Iran - Konstantin Garibov, Voice of Russia
• U.S. Announces Floating Commando Base in Persian Gulf

Health Care Agenda of the Rich

Immediate Cuts and Long-Term Starvation of
Public Health Care

- Jim Nugent -

The massive health transfer cuts under Chrétien/Martin in the 1990s were accompanied by a drastic reduction of health services and a sharp increase in the privatization of health services in all the provinces. These were carried out in the name of "deficit fighting" after the 1991 recession. After 2004, federal and provincial health care spending was stepped up. Billions of dollars from this increased spending flowed to international health care monopolies, hospital construction consortiums and investors in privatized health care services. Very little went to patient care, which continued to be degraded despite increased health funding.

Now, governments from coast to coast are preparing for a more intensified version of the same. Another round of expanding the privatization of health care is unfolding, again taking advantage of a recession to push the privatization agenda in the name of deficit reduction. A wide range of immediate measures are already underway in most provinces to cut services and open space for the private sector -- job reductions, reductions in level of care, facility closings and restructurings, pushing patients into home care, delisting services and increasing user fees -- and the provincial governments have more prepared.

Private interests in the health care sector have become much more aggressive with the Harper dictatorship in place and their privatization agenda is much more ambitious. This is why Harper is calling the current round of cuts a "transformation" and why provincial governments are presenting their cuts agenda as "reforms" and "innovations."

Continued degradation of patient care and squeezing the livelihoods of health care workers will make more funds available to the health care monopolies operating in the privatized public system. But the transformations and reforms being prepared also involve long-term deconstruction of basic entitlements to public health care, extinguishing the conception that health care is a right of all. The conception that health care is a right was one of the targets of Harper's speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos when he complained that people have "too much focus on our services and entitlements."

For the rich, extinguishing the conception that health care is a right is unfinished business in their destruction of the post-war social contract. The significance of the long-time line in Harper's plan of reducing the federal share of health care funding is that he is pursuing a permanent structural change as well as immediate cuts. His plan is a multi-year defunding plan to ensure the slow starvation of the public health care system. As the public system starves, people will have to buy the health care they need, steadily opening space for the financial oligarchy to profit from health care as a business.

Recent Developments in Health Accord Negotiations

During his speech at the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Stephen Harper boasted that his government has "already taken steps to limit the growth of our health care spending." The steps Harper was referring to were his government's changes to the way funds are transferred from the federal government to the provinces to pay part of the cost of health care delivered by the provincial governments.

Harper's steps limiting health care spending were carried out just in time for his performance at Davos by ramming through new funding arrangements at a December meeting of federal and provincial finance ministers, an action provincial leaders characterized as an abuse of the federal-provincial consultative process. According to press reports, Flaherty plunked down documents outlining new arrangements for both health and social transfers on the finance ministers' table and told them, "Take it or leave it."

The health funding formula Flaherty delivered covers the period 2014-2024. It replaces the funding formula in the 10 year Health Accord negotiated by provincial governments with the Martin government in 2004. The 2004 agreement put in place federal health care contribution increases of 6 per cent a year following several years of cuts under the Chrétien/Martin governments. These cuts had reduced the federal share of health care funding to an all-time low of 9.8 per cent in the fiscal year 1998-99.

According to calculations of the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO), the new federal transfer formula will reduce the federal share of government health funding over the longer term from the current level of 20.4 per cent to 11.9 per cent, establishing a new normal for federal health care cost sharing at about the same level as the Chrétien/Martin years. When medicare was being established in the 1950s and 1960s the federal share of health costs was set at 50 per cent. The PBO says the changed formula represents a loss of $30 billion in federal health transfers to the provinces over the period 2014-2024.

The details of the formula announced by Flaherty are that the current agreement to increase federal health contributions to the provinces by six per cent a year will continue until the 2016-17 fiscal year, after that increases will be equal to the increase in the real gross domestic product (GDP plus inflation). The new formula for calculating the federal contribution to health costs is not related in any way to the actual provincial cost of maintaining the existing level of health care.

When Flaherty set out the new arrangements, he essentially told provincial finance ministers: Here is how much money you will get from Ottawa; use it for whatever you want -- "no strings attached." This is an important part of the new arrangements because it represents a complete disengagement of the federal government from the issue of health care and provincially administered social programs and a rejection of any political accountability for them. It completes the trend of federal governments abdicating any responsibility for ensuring the rights of all to health and social programs. The Harper dictatorship has proclaimed, "Ensuring the health and well-being of the people is none of our business."

These steps to limit the increases in federal government funding of health care were immediately denounced by most of the provincial and territorial finance ministers, both for their content and for the arrogant shock-and-awe manner with which Flaherty delivered them at the finance ministers' meeting. Provincial/territorial governments rely on federal transfers for an average of 19 per cent of their revenue and several ministers began waving the "threat to health care" flag to protect this prime revenue source.

According to a Globe and Mail report, "Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan called the offer 'a frontal attack on public health care' from Ottawa, insisting federal Conservatives were breaking a campaign pledge to stick to six per cent increases for the duration of any new accord. Mr. Duncan said the offer of less will force provinces to cut their health care budgets and their services." Duncan's comments are of course very cynical since he is planning his own frontal attack on the Ontario health care system to finance the McGuinty government's privatization agenda. But Duncan and other provincial finance ministers are deadly sincere about getting their hands on more federal money to devote to pay-the-rich schemes in their own provinces.

Not all of the provincial ministers spoke out against the new formula, however, because of what some commentators called Harper's "shrewd tactics" of pitting the provincial governments against each other. These are divisive, nation-wrecking tactics. They include changing the way the total amount of federal health care spending is allocated to the provinces, so that the allocations no longer correspond to actual health care costs but are based on per capita funding. The allocation of federal funding on this new per capita basis will begin in 2014-15. These new measures will mean a greater share of total federal health funding for provinces where population is increasing rapidly. Alberta, for example will receive $1 billion more in federal transfers that it can use any way it likes. Other provinces, such as Nova Scotia where population is declining because of out-migration of young workers, will get a smaller share of federal funding.

Those provinces experiencing a net decrease in population face a double challenge since these provinces already face increased per capita cost for health care as out-migration raises the average age of the remaining population and reduces the income available for social programs. The changes will reinforce and increase the existing inequality of access to health services for people in different parts of the country, making a complete mockery of the "equal access" principle supposedly embodied in the Canada Health Act.

The themes of reduced federal responsibility for health care and the unilateralism of the Harper government in federal-provincial relations were taken up again when the provincial and territorial first ministers met in Victoria, BC on January 16-17. This meeting was one of two such conferences held each year under the banner of the Council of the Federation. The Council of the Federation was formed by the provincial governments in 2003 to jointly confront the Chrétien/Martin government over massive cuts to federal health and social funding transfers.

Harper declined an invitation to attend this first ministers conference, declaring that his decree delivered to the finance ministers' meeting by Flaherty had closed the discussion. Adding insult to injury, on the opening day of the conference, Harper appeared on a CBC prime-time news special where he repeated his assertion that the discussion of federal transfers for health was over. He blamed the provinces for the health care funding problem. Calling health care costs a threat to the economy, he said the provinces have to make do with the money gleaned from reforms to health care delivery.

At a press briefing as the conference opened, Quebec Premier Jean Charest blasted the Harper government for denigrating federal-provincial relations with its take-it-or-leave-it approach to federal transfers. Charest said he had never before seen a process in which the federal government acted this way: "This is it. No discussion. No exchange of information. Nothing at all! This is obviously unacceptable. The federal system of government cannot work that way."

While supporting no-strings-attached federal funding, further comments by Charest indicated that he wants the federal government's political engagement with the health care issue, especially the question of funding. "Why would Stephen Harper not tell Canadians what he thinks where the level of funding should be at? What's the problem? Isn't it normal that there be a discussion, a sharing of information, of facts? Why is there this unilateralism on such an important issue in the daily lives of Canadians?," he exclaimed.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty agreed with Charest, saying the federal government has to be engaged because it has a "solemn responsibility" in health care. "I think Canadians would be disappointed in the federal government and in the prime minister for his refusal simply to sit down and begin to engage the premiers in an important dialogue about the future of our health care," McGuinty said.

In her remarks to the media at the end of the conference, host BC Premier Christy Clark said, "With respect to the process, the premiers were unanimous that the federal government's decision to unilaterally decide funding was unprecedented and unacceptable." The final communiqué of the Premiers Conference, though milder in tone than the comments made by Charest and McGuinty did contain a joint condemnation by the premiers of Harper's unilateral abuse of process in federal-provincial relations.

Besides the issue of Harper's abuse of process, the conference also dealt with the cuts to health care that all of the provinces have on their agendas under a variety of banners, such as "health care reform," "public sector reform" and "innovation of health care." Measures were taken to set up inter-provincial organizations and forums to help provincial governments to impose these agendas on their electorates.

For Your Information

9th Actuarial Report on Old Age Security Program

Under the Public Pensions Reporting Act, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions submits an actuarial report on the Old Age Security (OAS) Program to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development every three years. This report is the official reckoning of the expected future costs of the OAS and Guaranteed Income Supplement programs to the federal government.

The most recent such report is the 9th Actuarial Report on the Old Age Security Program for the three years ending on December 31, 2009. It was submitted on June 3, 2011. For your information, TML Daily is posting the complete report. Click the image at right to download it (100-page PDF).

The current three-year reporting period began December 31, 2009 and concludes December 31, 2012.

International

February 4 U.S. Nation-Wide Protests Against
Drive to War with Iran

A broad spectrum of U.S.-based anti-imperialist and anti-war organizations have called for coordinated nation-wide protests on February 4 to resist the drive to war with Iran. The protesters will demand: "No war, no sanctions, no intervention, no assassinations against Iran," the U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization informs.

The U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization points out that whenever the U.S. organizes to commit the crime of aggression, whether it was against Korea, or Vietnam, or Panama, or Iraq, Afghanistan and now Iran and Syria, it generates broad disinformation to block resistance at home and abroad. The U.S. strives to hide that it is U.S. imperialism that is the threat, its wars of aggression the crimes.

Amongst other things, President Barack Obama used his January 24 State of the Union address to reiterate that a military attack against Iran is possible: "America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal." The U.S. has tried to provoke a military confrontation, sending additional warships and special forces into the region, using drones in Iranian airspace, and so forth. Iran has not invaded anyone for hundreds of years, while the U.S. admits Iran has no nuclear weapons and so does the International Atomic Energy Agency. Yet the constant deluge of war propaganda against Iran, itself a crime against the peace, is unending.

The sanctions against Iran are already harming the health and well-being of the Iranians, just as they did the Iraqis. Furthermore, plans to bomb Iran using bunker busters, called "tactical nuclear weapons," would be devastating to the people of Iran and the region. The long experience of the people of the U.S. and the world makes clear that there can be no support for U.S. intervention anywhere! The demonstrations are an expression of the just stand against U.S. sanctions, assassinations, intervention and war. They reflect the people's unity in rejecting war on Iran, a war which would also intensify the possibility of a world war to threaten all humanity.

In Syria, the U.S. and its NATO forces are arming and training opponents of the Assad government while promoting the disinformation that the people of Syria want a U.S. invasion. The U.S.-organized forces are used to provoke violence inside Syria so the U.S. can justify attacking, claiming it is, once again, protecting civilians. The promise of protecting civilians is certainly an empty one, given the broad attack on civilians imposed by sanctions and the threatened bombing raids.

Repeated mass demonstrations by Syrians in the capital Damascus and elsewhere made clear they oppose U.S. intervention. This reality was further confirmed by a recent poll. Despite being funded by the anti-Syrian Qatar Foundation, the results showed that: "Syrians are more supportive of their president with 55 percent not wanting him to resign."

It is also the case that the fall of Syria would have serious consequences for the people's resistance in Lebanon and Palestine, as Syria serves as a block against U.S. and Israeli aggression. This is another reason the U.S. wants to achieve regime change to undermine the peoples' resistance to U.S. aggression.

A weakening of Syria is also seen as a weakening of Iran. President Barack Obama's National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, speaking a day after the United States announced new measures against Iran, said that the "End of the Assad regime would constitute Iran's greatest setback in the region yet -- a strategic blow that will further shift the balance of power in the region against Iran" in favour of what are called American national interests.

The U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization affirms that, "The people of the U.S. stand against U.S. Empire and with peoples of the world in demanding an end to U.S. wars. People of the U.S. want to have relations of mutual respect and benefit with the peoples worldwide, as evidenced by the various people-to-people trips made to Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Iran and elsewhere. As a critical step to achieve such relations, the main demands are All U.S. Troops Home Now! No to Use of Force in Settling Conflicts!"

In its call for everyone to join in the February 4 demonstrations and oppose war against Iran and Syria, the U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization urges that, "In this election year, let all redouble efforts to discuss and find practical means to bring into being an anti-war government. Let there be anti-war candidates, let there be broad promotion among the workers fighting for rights to come forward as worker politicians representing an anti-war, pro-social agenda."

Statement on Assassination of Iranian Scientist

- United National Anti-War Coalition -

Another Iranian scientist has been assassinated in Iran by a car bombing. This is the fifth Iranian scientist targeted in Iran during the past two years. This is a dangerous escalation of the covert activities conducted by the CIA and Israeli intelligence and their domestic spies in Iran against the government and people of Iran.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated, "I want to categorically deny any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran." However, both the Israeli and the U.S. governments have admitted to covert activity in Iran. Irrespective of the actors, the assassination of law-abiding scientists living and working in Iran is a reprehensible act that should be condemned by all.

The fact is that the governments of the U.S. and Israel have declared Iran to be their enemy and have publicly stated that they will use all means possible, up to and including military attack, to stop the production of nuclear energy in Iran and to change the government of Iran. To this end, they have admitted to:

1 - Using hacking to disrupt nuclear energy facilities in Iran

2 - Conducting covert operations in Iran

3 - Deploying spy drones to Iran

4 - Imposing draconian sanctions and embargo against Iranian oil exports, banking and trade

5 - Deploying U.S. nuclear super carrier battle groups with destroyers and nuclear submarines to the Persian Gulf

6 - Threatening Iran with military attack

7 - Planning to hold in January the largest ever joint military exercises with Israel

The assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists falls within the covert activities of disrupting nuclear energy production in Iran. In addition, they work to create an atmosphere of fear among other Iranian scientists who want to work in their field of study. This is similar to the right-wing assassinations of physicians in the U.S. who perform the procedure of abortion, which is legal in the U.S. The terrorists who kill scientists aim to make it difficult for the Iranian nuclear energy industry to find scientists who would work there. However, the people of Iran have repeatedly stated their resolve to defend their right to nuclear energy.

Considering that Hillary Clinton threatened Iran with military attack, it is disingenuous for her to state that the U.S. denies involvement in any act of violence within Iran. A military attack on Iran, especially an attack on Iran's nuclear energy facilities, would produce results similar to a nuclear attack. (U.S. Concerned Scientists report.) It would be the most violent act against the people of Iran, resulting in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths.

All the actions listed above, sanctioned by the U.S. government, are intended to weaken the Iranian government and economy, create an atmosphere of fear and dissatisfaction among the people, increase unrest, and decrease trust, all in the service of making it easier for a military attack on Iran. Of course, so far these actions have only strengthened the Iranian people's resolve to protect their country against Imperialism.

Similar U.S. actions are aimed at any government which fails to submit to the U.S. corporate domination. This disobedience or defiance by Iran is its real "crime."

It is extremely important that all international and especially U.S. antiwar and progressive organizations condemn these acts of assassination of innocent citizens as well as all forms of violent and aggressive actions by U.S. and Israel.

1- Condemn the assassination of Iranian scientists

2 - End all sanctions against Iran

3 - End covert activities inside Iran

4 - End all war threats against Iran

"No war, No Sanctions, No Internal Intervention in Iran!"

January 16, 2012

Challenges to U.S. Oil Embargo of Iran

- Konstantin Garibov, Voice of Russia, January 28, 2012 -

China, India and Turkey have warned that they won't support a ban on Iranian oil imports and will prevent the US from blocking oil supplies from Iran. Japan and South Korea are planning to follow suit. Europe introduced a ban on Iran oil imports this week. The Voice of Russia's Konstantin Garibov reports.

The new package of sanctions against Tehran which was approved by EU foreign ministers on Monday provides for a gradual ban on the import of Iranian oil and oil products. The EU plans to stop purchasing oil from Iran by July 1st. Until recently, the main buyers of Iranian oil in Europe were Greece, Italy and Spain, and they bought 600,000 barrels a day.

Europe has chosen to gain time so that it could find alternatives for Iranian oil imports. Yevgeny Satanovsky of the Institute of the Middle East, has this to say.

"There will be no problem in replacing Iranian oil with oil from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, or Kuwait. The Gulf Cooperation Council has already made it clear that it will recoup the losses."

Meanwhile, Europe might face quite a headache as its oil refineries were designed to refine Iranian oil and, what's more, a particular brand of it. Experts have been speculating on who will lose more from the embargo -- the seller, or the buyers? The IMF predicts a 20-30% increase in the cost of oil. That means an increase of 20-30 dollars, at the present. Sergei Druzhilovsky of the Moscow Institute of International Relations, has this to say:

"18-20 percent of Iranian oil is bought by Europe. A ban on these exports will cause no serious problems for the Iranian economy. Oil prices for China and India may be affected by it. It looks like dumping is inevitable as Iran will definitely have stockpiles of oil to go on sale. Iran is now switching to payments in currencies other than the dollar -- the Japanese yen, the Indian rupee, the Chinese yuan."

This week, China and India have reiterated their determination not to support the embargo. Japan moved towards changing its position under pressure from the US. Tokyo asked by way of exception not to force it to cut imports. South Korea has been dragging its feet over the decision, forced to choose between the political solidarity with its pushy overseas partner and the country's energy security. Unlike Tokyo and Seoul, Ankara has dismissed pressure from the US as irrelevant. Analyst Stanislav Tarasov comments:

"Turkey's position is purely pragmatic. It is fully aware that Europe is going through a depression and that cutting Iranian oil imports will only make things worse. Iran is Turkey's main partner, accounting for one half of its oil imports. Ankara won't find any alternatives to Iranian supplies in Arab countries. And oil from Iran offers freedom of action. Turkey is simply being reasonable about the issue. A primitive political game is under way aimed at forcing Iran into joining the six-party talks on its nuclear program. This game testifies to the deteriorating quality of Western diplomacy. The moment Turkey completed its mediatory mission of obtaining Iran's consent to a meeting with the six-party representatives in Istanbul, the West set itself to torpedoing the talks."

Islamabad will participate in a project to build a gas pipeline from Iran to Pakistan despite threats of international sanctions, the Pakistani Foreign Ministry said on Friday.

Pakistan believes that sanctions should be limited solely on the Iranian nuclear program. They should not affect Islamabad because of its participation in a gas project with Iran, a Pakistani Foreign Ministry statement says.

U.S. Announces Floating Commando Base
in Persian Gulf

The U.S. has announced that it intends to deploy a floating commando base, probably in the Persian Gulf, that will serve as a platform to launch teams of U.S. Navy Seals into surrounding countries. Iran and Yemen have been mentioned in particular.

"The Pentagon is rushing to send a large floating base for commando teams to the Middle East," the Washington Post reported January 27. The USS Ponce, a 40-year old amphibious transport dock previously set for decommission, will now be converted into a special ops hub, and then likely sent to the Persian Gulf, the newspaper writes. It says the Pentagon is seeking to retrofit the USS Ponce on an accelerated timeline. In fact, the military has gone ahead and waived "normal procurement rules because any delay presented a 'national security risk.'"

In related news, the Wall Street Journal reported January 28 that the Pentagon has notified Congress that it will divert an additional $82 million to refine the Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP). This is a 30,000-pound "bunker-buster" bomb "specifically designed to take out the hardened fortifications built by Iran and North Korea to cloak their nuclear programs."

"The decision to ask now for more money to develop the weapon was directly related to efforts by the U.S. military's Central Command to prepare military options against Iran as quickly as possible," the Journal writes. "The Pentagon deems the MOP upgrades to be a matter of some urgency," the Journal adds.

"The decision to seek an upgrade in the MOP reportedly comes after a series of tests revealed that the ordinance remains incapable of destroying certain Iranian nuclear facilities, such as the enrichment site at Fordow, located near the holy city of Qom. (Fordow is buried deep within the mountainside, below 260 feet of rock and soil)," freelance writer Ben Schreiner notes.

PREVIOUS ISSUES | HOME

Read The Marxist-Leninist Daily
Website:  www.cpcml.ca   Email:  editor@cpcml.ca