Public vs. private - two perspectives

Two separate articles in today's paper have me wondering about the hoary old public-private dichotomy.

First, the god-forsaken eastern Ukrainain town of Soledar is being pounded into oblivion, not by the Russian army, but by Yevgeny Prigozhin's Wagner Group, a private army of mercenaries. Despite taking heavy losses in the campaign for this small town, which boasts little more than a network of salt mines (and a reasonaly strategic position, to be fair), the mercenaries have dug in and are coming close to taking what's left of the town.

But I had to stop and wonder what was the difference between the Wagner Group fighting and the Russian army fighting? The mercenary organization has a reputation for extreme violence and a readiness to commit illegal atrocities, but hell, so does the Russian army. Yes, they are paid for their efforts, but so is the army of Russian conscripts (although presumably much less). They are loyal to their employer (at least while they are still being paid), and not to Mother Russia, but very few Russian conscripts have warm fuzzy feelings for Vladimir Putin by now.

Which leads me to wonder: has anyone tried to buy off the Wagner Group? Maybe Prigozhin himself can't be bought (although maybe he can?), but the individual fighters? Might it be a cheaper option for the Ukraine-supporting West to bribe the Wagner Group force with some big money than the huge amounts of cash being pumped into military equipment and ammunition? Could the Wagner Group even be persuaded to work AGAINST Russia? Idle musings, nothing more, but food for thought nonetheless.

The very next article in the paper is also about a very different public-private argument. The Conservative Ontario government has made no secret of its love for private healthcare. As the healthcare system creaks and groans in what feels like its final death rattle, the government is in the process of bringing in a law allowing what it calls "independent health facilities" (basically for-profit private health clinics) to take up some of the slack. Doug Ford has made it very clear that Ontario residents will not have to break out their credit cards in order to receive healthcare, and that, whatever changes are made, they will all be covered by the current OHIP system.

So, private doctors will be paid by the government to treat patients for free. But isn't that effectively what already happens? Doctors and specialists in the public system are essentially self-employed business people underwritten by the public health insurance system. How is the idea of publicly-paid private clinics any different, if patients are still receiving their treatments for free (which after all is the basic tenet of socialized medicine)? 

There has been the predictable outcry and claims that we are heading pell-mell towards the despicable American system. But it does raise the question of what actually constitutes public healthcare. Is the important part that residents do not have to pay direct for the care they receive? Or is the salient point that the organizations providing the care not make a profit? Equal and universal access to care, funded by progressive taxes paid to governments, is the usual definition of medicare, and that may not actually change under the proposed changes.

Presumably, though, the private sector will charge even higher rates than the doctors currently in the public system, and so tax-payers will ultimately be on the hook for higher taxes to cover it (which the government does not seem to be talking about), but the underlying principal is surely the same. So, why not just pay current public sector doctors and nurses more money to retain their services, and to encourage new entrants into the field, and to discourage new graduating doctors from heading straight down the higher-paying specialist route, especially given the acute need for regular family doctors, particularly in rural and northern areas? Wouldn't this achieve the same end, more cheaply, and with a lot less controversy?

Public solutions do exist. For example, one other proposed solution within the current public system might be "community surgery centres" (also known as "ambulatory surgery centres"), which are designed to handle large volumes of low-complexity surgeries. These community surgeries can apparently deal with about 30%  more operations than a hospital on any given day at a similar cost. What's not to like?

Either way, it seems clear that the status quo is failing Ontarians, and some drastic re-think is needed. Mr. Ford is determined to bring his dream of more private medicine to fruition, following in the footsteps of other provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, starting with procedures like cataract surgeries, MRI and CT scans, and hip and knee surgeries. So, it will be interesting to see how it all transpires, and how much push-back there will be from the strongly-unionized public sector (and whether there is a mass exodus of doctors and nurses from the public system to the better-paid private sector - potential poaching of public hospital staff by private clinics is probably the top concern of hospitals when considering Ford's plans). 

And finally, here is one other relevant consideration: although Mr. Ford credits BC as a big inspiration of his own plans, it turns out that BC is actually heading in the opposite direction currently, as it is in the process of bringing private clinics back into the public system, and clamping down on private operators accused of underusing operating rooms. Hmm.

Where is Mustafa, Mr. Poilievre?

Globe and Mail columnist Gary Mason has set off something of a firestorm by asking a very simple question: where is Mustafa?

But first, who is Mustafa? Mustafa appears in Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre's latest designed-for-social-media campaign video. Poilievre has a penchant for hard-hitting anti-Trudeau videos. His supporters love them (mainly because they hate Trudeau too); most other people just roll their eyes. Mustafa is a guy in the video who arranged a resort wedding in Cuba despite not having a passport. Poilievre apparently encountered Mustafa in Ottawa airport by sheer coincidence, the day AFTER his wedding was supposed to take place. His wife-to-be and 20 guests were living it up in Cuba while he was languishing in Ottawa still trying to obtain a passport.

The point of the video is supposed to be that Justin Trudeau was personally responsible for Mustafa's pain, and the pain of thousands like him. In fact, according to Poilievre, everything that goes wrong in Canada is, almost by definition, Trudeau's fault. (In actual fact, the passport log-jam of a few months ago has largely been remedied, and most people are now able to obtain passports within a reasonable period.)

But several things about Mustafa's story ring false, and Mr. Mason set about trying to contact this Mustafa. And failed. Social media campaigns sprang up on Twitter, Instagram and Reddit (I don't use any of them, but take your pick), frantically searching for Mustafa.

So, is Mr. Poilievre playing fast and loose with the truth? Is Mustafa a plant, a straw man? Was he paid? Does he even exist? Are those clever Poilievre videos all a big con? Do you care?

China's "Project Path" not convincing democracy protesters

Since China passed a draconian national security law back in mid-2020, hundreds of Hong Kong residents have been arrested for the crime of supporting democratic governance and independence for Hong Kong, including some high-profile individuals like Apple Daily publisher Jimmy Lai. In November 2021, China, in tried-and-tested totalitarian style, also instituted a program called "Project Path", designed to put these lost souls "back on the right track".

Project Path, administered by Hong Kong's Correctional Services Department, is a "deradicalization" program to "enhance their sense of national identity". Hong Kong's tame pro-China secretary for security, Chris Tang, has hailed it as a great success, having treated hundreds of arrested anti-government protesters over the last year and a bit.

Some have described the program as an exercise in brainwashing, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that Project Path is really just an unsophisticated, simplistic propaganda program, attempting to force intensely pro-China materials on offenders in the vain hope that they will be convinced of the wisdom of the Chinese way. 

One participant has explained, under conditions of anonymity, that if inmates didn't agree with the propaganda, they were forced to continue with the program. If, however, they just pretended to go along with it, they were released with a reduced sentence. The inmates quickly realized this, and this graduate of the program estimates that maybe one in ten participants were actually being convinced.

The heavy-handed Chinese security clampdown in Hong Kong has effectively stifled public dissent, and mass rallies are a thing of the past. However, it seems clear that widespread unrest and dissent continues to simmer below the calm surface. And Clockwork Orange-style re-education programs like Project Path are unlikely to change that. 

Donald Trump - the president of precedents, all of them bad

Supporters of defeated Brazilian presidential candidate Jair Bolsonaro have had their very own January 6th moment as they smash up the Brazilian Congress, Supreme Court and Presidential Palace, in a large-scale and violent riot that is described as having "striking similarities" to the January 6th 2021 insurrection in Washington DC (even down to the "Make Brazil Great Again" hats and t-shirts, which Bolsonaro himself also like to wear).

Put this down as yet another thing that would never have happened without the precedent of Donald Trump.

The Kraken is coming (yawn)

The XBB.1.5 sub-variant of the Omicron variant of the COVID-19 virus is being called (or at least "referred to by some", according to this article) the "Kraken" sub-variant, and I have no idea why.

Despite first being detected as recently as October, XBB.1.5 (and I have no idea where the "XBB" came from either - weren't we on "BA"?) is cutting a swath through the USA, accounting for 40% of new cases there, and up to 75% in some areas like the Northeast. It is just starting to make an appearance in Canada, with just a handful of cases registered in British Columbia, but it is ridiculously contagious and it seems only a matter of time until it becomes the dominant variant.

So, yes, it is kind of a big deal, if you can raise enough interest in a virus that has been with us for 3 years now. But whose idea was it to call it the Kraken sub-variant? Other variants haven't merited this kind of mythological status. Is it supposed to shock and scare us into protective action (good luck with that!)? Is it supposed to put some kind of an anthropomorphized face on a faceless virus? Is this sub-variant supposed to represent some kind of apotheosis? (Surely, more and more variants are going to continue to rear their heads - see, there I go too! - in the future.)

Killed police officer was a great guy, but maybe not a hero

Constable Greg Pierzchala was shot in an apparently random and senseless gun crime near Hagersville, Ontario, last week. He was shot while attending a pretty routine road incident by a young hoodlum who had been granted bail despite a number of assault and weapons charges (that's a whole other issue).

Pierzchala had only been a police officer for just over a year, and had barely finished his 10-month probation period. He seems like a genuinely nice guy, although of course everyone likes to think well of the dead. At his funeral in Barrie, Ontario, yesterday, friends, colleagues and family members all spoke very highly of him. He was a nature lover, enjoyed martial arts and appreciated art, quite the Renaissance Man it seems. He enjoyed his job and had a "big heart", to employ a rather overused phrase. Her was certainly a brave man, as are all police officers who routinely put themselves in the line of fire day in and day out. He was even an "inspiration", at least to his younger sister.

But was he "a hero"? Again, his sister thinks so. But that's a high bar to reach. Soldiers in wartime are often referred to as "heros"; people who rescue others in dangerous situations; people who turn around the fortunes of countries or oppressed minority groups. These are heros. Does Constable Pierzchala belong in this august company? Maybe he might have done one day, but just a year into his police service, he had not had the opportunity yet. He was killed in an apparently random attack; he was in the wrong place and the wrong time. However nice a guy he was, we should probably not disrespect centuries of genuine heros by bandying the word around willy-nilly.

Republican "Freedom Caucus" now more Trumpian than Trump

Pretty much everyone but the 20 far-right Republicans who are part of the MAGA-style pro-Trump "Freedom Caucus", who are holding the whole American country hostage by refusing to elect Kevin McCarthy as speaker of the small Republican majority House of Representatives, find this whole situation pretty embarrassing.

The Republicans have tried 6 times over two days to land a vote that will allow McCarthy to take up the position he has coveted for so long. They say they will keep holding votes for as long as it takes until they get what they want. The "Freedom Caucus" has vowed to keep up its opposition as long as it takes until McCarthy gives up and allows a more right-wing candidate to be voted in to the position, one who supports their demands for, inter alia, rule changes allowing more influence to individual representatives at the expense of party elders, a pledge to balance budgets, a vote on term limits, and a border plan that includes more deportations and the completion of Trump's border wall. This, of course, would lead to even more opposition from a larger number of more moderate Republicans, so the impasse looks insurmountable.

Thing is, even Trump opposes these "pro-Trump" zealots. He has openly called on the Freedom Caucus to "VOTE FOR KEVIN" (in capitals, of course). He's not just being nice -  Trump doesn't do nice - he wants someone he knows he can dominate if/when he gets elected back into power. 

But the likes of Lauren Broebert, Chip Roy, Matt Gaetz, etc (here is a list - most of the names I don't even recognize), are now more Trumpian than Trump. As one commentators put it, Trump has "set in motion forces he can't control any more", and "he can't put the genie back in the lamp".

Interestingly, parallel to these federal shenanigans, the state of Pennsylvania, after a weird, tight, see-saw election, has recently voted a Democrat in as Speaker, despite the Republicans having a very slight majority. More than a dozen Republicans voted across the aisle for the consensus candidate, and the winner promptly vowed to govern as an independent. Kumbaya! Don't expect anything remotely like that to happen at the federal level.

UPDATE

After 14 rounds of unsuccessful votes, McCarthy finally got himself elected Speaker on the 15th vote, having sacrificed any credibility he might ever have had, and after making a bunch of unspecified concessions to the hard-right Freedom Caucus, concessions that moderates say may make it harder for the GOP to effectively govern (including the reinstatement of a rule that would allow any single member to call a vote to oust the Speaker at any time). 

It was not an edifying sight. Apparently, it almost came to fisticuffs in the GOPs ranks at one point, as Mike Rogers and Matt Gaetz had to be pulled apart.

Of course, Trump was behind the scenes, pulling strings, holding meetings, and he will almost certainly take "credit" for it. But all this has really not been a good look for the Republicans, especially given their razor-thin majority in the House. Democrats are vowing to take advantage of this Republican disarray, and to go on the offensive. We'll see what that means in practice.

Competition Tribunal and Competition Bureau are in competition

In Canadian business regulation circles, the Competition Tribunal is supposed to be the legal arm of the Competition Bureau, ruling on competition cases brought to it by the Bureau. In the case of the ongoing Rogers Communications takeover of Shaw Communications, however, the two competition bodies seem to be directly competing with each other.

In a rushed announcement late on the Thursday before the end-of-year long weekend, the Tribunal ruled this last week that the merger of the two big telecoms was "not likely" to lead to higher prices for Canadian customers and so should be allowed to proceed, even though it appears at first blush to result in less competition in the field (the infamous "efficiencies defence"). 

This week, though, the Bureau has called on the Federal Court of Appeals to overturn that decision, arguing that the Tribunal erred in how it assessed the deal, particularly in how it assessed Shaw's plan to hive off its Freedom Mobile cellphone business and sell it to Quebecor's Videotron, and also that it made fundamental errors of law. Ouch!

How can the two bodies be so out of sync? The Competition Commissioner Matthew Boswell, who heads up the Bureau, seems to be taking a brave and principled stand against a system that largely favours businesses over consumers. The Tribunal appears to be taking a lot of things on trust (e.g. that Quebecor, which currently only operates within Québec, will start to compete outside of its home turf), and completely dismisses out of hand the Bureau's legitimate concern that the merger will "likely result in consumers paying significantly higher wireless prices".

Many people have panned the Tribunal's hasty decision from a whole slew of different standpoints, despite the enthusiasm for the deal from Rogers, Shaw and even the CRTC (Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission). No less than two cross-party parliamentary committees have concluded that the merger would leave consumers worse off, notwithstanding the Freedom Mobile hive-off, and notwithstanding  the Competition Tribunal's inexplicable ruling. 

Which leaves us with the question: what is the use of a competition regulator if it doesn't regulate on behalf of the lowly consumer?