Op-Ed: Security Perimeter jeopardizes Canadian public healthcare system
Is the marketing of the Security Perimeter Agreement to Canadians based upon a "Noble Lie"? Will "harmonization" require we, as Canadians, to give up our public healthcare system, along with our very nationhood?
The new perimeter security and trade Agreement between Canada and the U.S. which was announced
in early December 2011 has been publicized as aiming to make travel to cross-border business easier. However, many Canadians may not be aware that the Agreement envisions the "harmonization" of all laws and public polices between the U.S. and Canada toward a North American Union (NAU).
The Security Agreement requires the dismantling of our current one tier and comprehensive Canadian public healthcare system in order to conform to a U.S. "model".
A "Consortium" of Big Business executives and their transnational political operatives who presided over the administration of the "Security and Prosperity Partnership" (SPP), and now the Security Agreement seek to hold back the funding of Canada's universal public healthcare system. The NAU was consolidated by the SPP Agreement that had been signed by then Prime Minister Paul Martin in 2005.
By holding back necessary funding to the Canadian universal public healthcare system, the political-industrial complex that has orchestrated the NAU agenda and the related "Security Perimeter" will need to convince Canadians that a privatized system would be better. By starting our public healthcare system for funding, elites seek to then further "harmonize" our public healthcare system "in response to public pressure."
A CUPE conference
had concluded that the "idea that privatization is the answer to the problems in our health care system is a myth. Many health care experts have denounced the false analyses and preconceived ideas, which suggest that increased privatization of health care will solve the problems at the heart of our system."
"All indications show that a system with increased privatization actually costs more, not less, than a public, universal health care system. More privatization raises administrative costs, and the quality of services tends to get worse, not better."
The experts also tackled the myth that our public system is unsustainable because of a supposed explosion in costs. Costs are not out of control. The average spending on health care as a percentage of GDP has basically been stable over the last decades.'