Read articles here and here and here.
To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published April 23, 2009 as Letter of the Day)
The various articles over the last couple of days regarding the $12 million dollar hospital deficit have me doubting the future of government provided universal health care in Northern Ontario, if not the whole province.
We have the sole Sudbury hospital caring for significant ALC patients, a crisis that has dragged on for years. They are also now supporting a medical school as well as an aging population in an area suffering a major doctor shortage. The operation has been streamlined in prior years to meet provincial fiscal requirements, so the deficit indicates to me that they aren't able to keep up with the demand for services. The provincial government feels that the solution is to CUT SERVICES EVEN FURTHER!.. Then they side-step responsibility by suggesting the LHIN's are the ones in control.
So where will services be cut? I have seen first hand how stretched the nursing and support staff have been under the present regime. Maybe they can reduce custodial and cleaning staff since it isn't as patient centred, but I recall that was the reported cause of C. Difficile and MRSA outbreaks in other facilities. Wherever they cut, I expect there will be both quantitative and qualitative deterioration in the health care standards. As the lunacy continues, I see our ability to handle our hospital needs in the future going down the tubes.
I hoped the last election would see a discussion of health care needs but Tory's gaffe on school funding pre-empted any meaningful dialogue. Besides, whoever gets elected, the same bureaucrats in the ministry who think this is rational still run the show. The current model is, in my opinion, doomed to eventual failure and it will not be a pretty sight.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Re: Pothole problem comes down to money - March 18, 2009
Read article here
To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published April 1, 2009 as Letter of the Day)
I read Greg Clausen's comments on the pothole problem with great interest. If I understand him correctly, we don't have the money to fix the roads properly. Further, when they are fixed, we don't have the money to seal them to enhance longevity. (The last part sounds penny wise and pound foolish.)
After due consideration, my questions to Clausen, City staff, Council and the Mayor (not in any particular order) are:
Given the continued deterioration of our road surfaces, coupled with the funding limitations, what is the strategy for dealing with this issue in both the short and long term?
Where do they see us being in five years?
Should I sell my car and buy an All Terrain Vehicle?
Seriously, throwing ones hands up and saying there isn't enough money accomplishes nothing. We need increased money, less roads, more efficient techniques or a combination of the three. Unless, of course, the plan is to continue to stick their collective heads in the sand and let the infrastructure disintegrate.
It's time for staff at Civic Square to earn their considerable salaries and put forward a workable proposal to deal with this. And it's time our elected representatives pushed them to do it.
To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published April 1, 2009 as Letter of the Day)
I read Greg Clausen's comments on the pothole problem with great interest. If I understand him correctly, we don't have the money to fix the roads properly. Further, when they are fixed, we don't have the money to seal them to enhance longevity. (The last part sounds penny wise and pound foolish.)
After due consideration, my questions to Clausen, City staff, Council and the Mayor (not in any particular order) are:
Given the continued deterioration of our road surfaces, coupled with the funding limitations, what is the strategy for dealing with this issue in both the short and long term?
Where do they see us being in five years?
Should I sell my car and buy an All Terrain Vehicle?
Seriously, throwing ones hands up and saying there isn't enough money accomplishes nothing. We need increased money, less roads, more efficient techniques or a combination of the three. Unless, of course, the plan is to continue to stick their collective heads in the sand and let the infrastructure disintegrate.
It's time for staff at Civic Square to earn their considerable salaries and put forward a workable proposal to deal with this. And it's time our elected representatives pushed them to do it.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Re: Sask's Justice System Under Microscope - February 23, 2009
Read article here
To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published February 25, 2008 as Letter of the Day)
Certainly Warren David Rattray should have been declared a Dangerous Offender based on his prior crimes. As mentioned, the prosecutor needs to make the request and then pursue that through the courts. We have seen several cases in Sudbury where the Crown put forth the effort and the courts declined to make the designation. With the current workloads and plea bargains, it isn't surprising that they don't often pursue this option.
But this need not be the case. Back in 2006, Prime Minister Harper, as part of his Tackling Violent Crime Act, suggested that anyone convicted of three violent or sexual crimes should be automatically deemed to be a Dangerous Offender unless they can show a valid reason why they should not. It seemed perfectly logical to me and, had it been in place previously, Rattray would likely not have been walking the streets.
The crime bill was passed in February 2008 despite passive opposition from the abstaining Liberals and active opposition from the rest. Then it went to the unelected Liberal controlled Senate and was never heard from again.
I am tired of politicians who look out for the interests of violent criminals. It's time to change the rules.
To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published February 25, 2008 as Letter of the Day)
Certainly Warren David Rattray should have been declared a Dangerous Offender based on his prior crimes. As mentioned, the prosecutor needs to make the request and then pursue that through the courts. We have seen several cases in Sudbury where the Crown put forth the effort and the courts declined to make the designation. With the current workloads and plea bargains, it isn't surprising that they don't often pursue this option.
But this need not be the case. Back in 2006, Prime Minister Harper, as part of his Tackling Violent Crime Act, suggested that anyone convicted of three violent or sexual crimes should be automatically deemed to be a Dangerous Offender unless they can show a valid reason why they should not. It seemed perfectly logical to me and, had it been in place previously, Rattray would likely not have been walking the streets.
The crime bill was passed in February 2008 despite passive opposition from the abstaining Liberals and active opposition from the rest. Then it went to the unelected Liberal controlled Senate and was never heard from again.
I am tired of politicians who look out for the interests of violent criminals. It's time to change the rules.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Re: We've Had Enough - November 7, 2008
Read article here
To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published November 21, 2008 as Letter of the Day)
Kudos to the Ontario Government and the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care for their cunning. As I suspected when they created the Local Health Integration Networks, these agencies are not there to promote solutions to local health care issues. They are there to provide one layer of bureaucratic insulation protecting the government from facing the needs of our hospitals and citizens.
The MOH spokesman says they can't do anything because the matter is being discussed between the hospital and the LHIN. The LHIN says it doesn't have any money to address the issue, stonewalling the cries for help from SRH. The situation is critical, Ms. Kaminski has pointed out this will be even worse due to reduced beds when the one site hospital is complete and the Province (remember them, the buck stops there) hides behind the LHIN.
This has been going on for far to long without any meaningful action being taken. What does it take to get the politicians in Toronto (where they have a number of hospitals to serve them) off their rear ends to do what they are mandated to do? I've been ready to do whatever is necessary for some time and, now that the doctors have finally had enough, tell me where to be and what to do.
To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published November 21, 2008 as Letter of the Day)
Kudos to the Ontario Government and the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care for their cunning. As I suspected when they created the Local Health Integration Networks, these agencies are not there to promote solutions to local health care issues. They are there to provide one layer of bureaucratic insulation protecting the government from facing the needs of our hospitals and citizens.
The MOH spokesman says they can't do anything because the matter is being discussed between the hospital and the LHIN. The LHIN says it doesn't have any money to address the issue, stonewalling the cries for help from SRH. The situation is critical, Ms. Kaminski has pointed out this will be even worse due to reduced beds when the one site hospital is complete and the Province (remember them, the buck stops there) hides behind the LHIN.
This has been going on for far to long without any meaningful action being taken. What does it take to get the politicians in Toronto (where they have a number of hospitals to serve them) off their rear ends to do what they are mandated to do? I've been ready to do whatever is necessary for some time and, now that the doctors have finally had enough, tell me where to be and what to do.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Re: The Failed Legacy Projects - Saturday, October 25, 2008
Read article here
To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published October 31, 2008 with some editing)
I appreciate Denis St. Pierre's reporting on the aftermath of the vote.
Your Worship, here is this lowly taxpayer's take on the situation. The main issue in the last election was road repair. People weren't happy with the state of local roadways. You may have talked about the legacy projects in your campaign, but I didn't notice. I wanted my roads fixed.
Two years into your term, we have had the roads budget substantially increased both years due to additional senior funding. Around $30 million per year, if I recall correctly. The problem is, other than a few major (largely overdone in my opinion) projects, the roads still suck. And I had seen no logical plan of how these deficiencies were going to be addressed until now with the shave and pave, although the streets to be done still weren't listed anywhere I saw. (Note to Robert Falcioni - if you are recommending a $30 million project to council, you should bring a list of prior examples to bolster your case). And the long overdue Maley Drive project cut to two lanes? Give me a break.
So now, let's forget how the current economy might curtail private and senior funding options. On the cost side alone I am concerned. When have we come in anywhere close to initial budgets on any major construction project in this region. And, in this case, if we had the funding for the original budget but incurred substantial extra costs, where would the additional funds come from? Remember the four-laning of MR 55, more than 50% above the original proposal.
Quite frankly, Mr. Mayor, you lost sight of the big issue from the last election. You haven't been able to lead or motivate staff to deal with what we said was our major complaint. I don't have faith that you or staff can deliver anything close to what you were promising in this omnibus motion, even if I did think it was all necessary. Why, oh why, did we extend the term to four years?
Now fix the roads and maybe we'll feel better about letting you build something else.
By the way, Ted Callaghan, I'm in your ward. You'll have my vote again next time if you choose to run.
To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published October 31, 2008 with some editing)
I appreciate Denis St. Pierre's reporting on the aftermath of the vote.
Your Worship, here is this lowly taxpayer's take on the situation. The main issue in the last election was road repair. People weren't happy with the state of local roadways. You may have talked about the legacy projects in your campaign, but I didn't notice. I wanted my roads fixed.
Two years into your term, we have had the roads budget substantially increased both years due to additional senior funding. Around $30 million per year, if I recall correctly. The problem is, other than a few major (largely overdone in my opinion) projects, the roads still suck. And I had seen no logical plan of how these deficiencies were going to be addressed until now with the shave and pave, although the streets to be done still weren't listed anywhere I saw. (Note to Robert Falcioni - if you are recommending a $30 million project to council, you should bring a list of prior examples to bolster your case). And the long overdue Maley Drive project cut to two lanes? Give me a break.
So now, let's forget how the current economy might curtail private and senior funding options. On the cost side alone I am concerned. When have we come in anywhere close to initial budgets on any major construction project in this region. And, in this case, if we had the funding for the original budget but incurred substantial extra costs, where would the additional funds come from? Remember the four-laning of MR 55, more than 50% above the original proposal.
Quite frankly, Mr. Mayor, you lost sight of the big issue from the last election. You haven't been able to lead or motivate staff to deal with what we said was our major complaint. I don't have faith that you or staff can deliver anything close to what you were promising in this omnibus motion, even if I did think it was all necessary. Why, oh why, did we extend the term to four years?
Now fix the roads and maybe we'll feel better about letting you build something else.
By the way, Ted Callaghan, I'm in your ward. You'll have my vote again next time if you choose to run.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Re: Hospital seeks to avoid cuts - April 9, 2008
Read article here
To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published April 15, 2008)
George Smitherman says hospitals facing cash shortfalls shouldn't expect more from the province, even if it means laying off nurses and closing beds. Otherwise, he said, there would be a "free-for-all where hospitals spend whatever they want and send in the bill at the end of the year, and that the people's heath-care system can't be sustained on that basis".
In my vision of "the people's health-care system", the hospitals would spend whatever was required to meet the health care demands of their community and send in the bills as the year went along. I understand the need to be vigilant about frivolous spending and poor hospital management, but to fund these institutions without any consideration of the of level of legitimate services required is surreal.
Smitherman's strategy of closing beds and reducing service levels to forestall deficits doesn't punish the hospital management. It punishes the taxpayers of this province, ordinary citizens who need the care that the provincial government, in the person of George Smitherman, would so glibly deny them.
To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published April 15, 2008)
George Smitherman says hospitals facing cash shortfalls shouldn't expect more from the province, even if it means laying off nurses and closing beds. Otherwise, he said, there would be a "free-for-all where hospitals spend whatever they want and send in the bill at the end of the year, and that the people's heath-care system can't be sustained on that basis".
In my vision of "the people's health-care system", the hospitals would spend whatever was required to meet the health care demands of their community and send in the bills as the year went along. I understand the need to be vigilant about frivolous spending and poor hospital management, but to fund these institutions without any consideration of the of level of legitimate services required is surreal.
Smitherman's strategy of closing beds and reducing service levels to forestall deficits doesn't punish the hospital management. It punishes the taxpayers of this province, ordinary citizens who need the care that the provincial government, in the person of George Smitherman, would so glibly deny them.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Re: Council can't agree on new policy - April 3, 2008
Read article here
To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published April 7, 2008)
I was appalled at some of Council's comments in this article. Councillor Dupuis asks the question, "The only thing they could hang us for was freaking tickets? " No sir. Personally, I think you could be hung for Council's lack of effecting an improvement in road conditions, among other things. (The editor altered this sentence thusly: "No sir. I think you (have responsibility for) the lack of improvement in road conditions, among other things." I guess they thought hanging seemed a tad harsh, even though Councillor Dupuis brought it up first.) The ticket affair merely shows this council's disdain for the taxpayers who elected them and a misguided sense of their place in the political sphere of things.
Thanks to the Sudbury Star and the whistle blower for shining a light into places our elected officials would rather leave dark. I had hoped the new auditor would improve transparency at City Hall, but having them report to this Council will be like having the fox in charge of the hen house.
Councillor Dupuis, I read the Sudbury Star and I vote. Every time.
To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published April 7, 2008)
I was appalled at some of Council's comments in this article. Councillor Dupuis asks the question, "The only thing they could hang us for was freaking tickets? " No sir. Personally, I think you could be hung for Council's lack of effecting an improvement in road conditions, among other things. (The editor altered this sentence thusly: "No sir. I think you (have responsibility for) the lack of improvement in road conditions, among other things." I guess they thought hanging seemed a tad harsh, even though Councillor Dupuis brought it up first.) The ticket affair merely shows this council's disdain for the taxpayers who elected them and a misguided sense of their place in the political sphere of things.
Thanks to the Sudbury Star and the whistle blower for shining a light into places our elected officials would rather leave dark. I had hoped the new auditor would improve transparency at City Hall, but having them report to this Council will be like having the fox in charge of the hen house.
Councillor Dupuis, I read the Sudbury Star and I vote. Every time.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
