I'd like to take up the question at the end of the previous post: what is the point of confederation? Why do some of us want to preserve it, and others to break it up?
At the risk of oversimplification, I would say that the original purpose of Confederation was twofold: one, to connect the different regions of the country and make them work together to enjoy the benefits of access to larger markets, chiefly in Europe; and two, to keep the Americans at bay. But that was then and this is now. Today, I would argue that the main reason for confederation is to pool resources to further the common interests of all Canadians. This goes against the fundamental principle of the profit-maximizing company, so perhaps inevitably there is a constant tension between the two forces, and this tension I believe is manifested in the latest instance of a referendum on separation, this time in Alberta. Let's look at how this plays out with health care, which plays a major role in the referendum questions.
Without a doubt, Canada's universal health care system would not be possible without Confederation, and vice versa. It is founded explicitly on principles of universality, accessibility, and portability. The idea is simple. The government acts as a single payer for privately supplied medical services, getting the money from taxes. The provinces manage this part, and the federal government transfers funds to the provinces to ensure that every Canadian can access the same services wherever they are. There are two relevant forms of transfers. One is specifically for health care, where each province receives a sum proportional to its population, and the other is an equalization transfer by means of which poorer provinces that don't have the same ability to tax as wealthier ones can boost their health care spending so that someone in Nova Scotia gets the same level of care as someone in British Columbia, or Alberta.
Accessibility means zero up front cost. When you need the health care system, it's available without asking you to pay a penny. That's what accessibility means. So the cost is paid for by taxes, whereby wealthier people pay more. And equalization transfers mean residents of provinces with greater ability to raise taxes transfer funds to the health care system in provinces with less ability to raise taxes. That's what equalization means.
So people who are wealthier than others and provincial governments that are wealthier than others ask why they should pay more for the same service. They see themselves as being unfairly forced to subsidize others.
And profit-maximizing insurance companies feel robbed of the opportunity to make the largest possible profits by charging premiums that wealthier people are willing to pay.
What stands in the way of both is Confederation, that enshrines in law the pursuit of equality in access to health care.
It's quite obvious who the UCP represents, and it is not surprising therefore that the UCP wants to get equalizing Confederation out of their way. But there are two approaches they can take. One is outright separation. The other avoids the considerable downsides of separation, and looks for loopholes in the structure of Confederation that can be exploited to gain the same advantages without formally separating. The latter is Danielle Smith's approach. She has contempt for the very idea of equality and therefore is quite comfortable with finding a way around the formalities of Confederation while protesting that she believes in a united Canada.
The same us-versus-them mentality pervades the immigration questions. The same sense of being taken advantage of by others.
So now it is up to all the electors of Alberta to take a stand. But let's be clear. This is not about independence or shifting the balance of power between the provinces and the Confederation. This is about equality, about looking after each other, about the idea of from each according to their means to each according to their needs. Please vote no to all the UCP's referendum questions on October 19. And as always, please Discuss... and share with others. Thank you.