Editor:
So Keith Maxwell (“Campaign has done harm,” Letters, May 4) thinks union interests are behind the effort to keep private-for-profit care off the Coast. No surprise – his bias is clear in every letter he writes. And obviously, unionized employees who stand to lose their jobs are against this proposal. But if Maxwell had attended one of the public meetings addressing concerns about this project, he would have seen a lot of grey heads in the room. This protest has been primarily driven by the very people who will need long-term care, and who feel that they deserve a say in how it is delivered.
Maxwell correctly states that the cost of care is borne jointly by the Health Ministry and the recipients. Government subsidies are fixed, whether care is publicly or privately provided. But, when a private interest undertakes to provide this service, the implications are clear. Staff and wages must be cut, along with support services, in order to show a profit. Families are called upon to provide more financial assistance for their loved ones. If private providers don’t like the profit margins, they contract out the service, perhaps to a more ruthless provider, and quality of care deteriorates.
But Mr. Maxwell says the aging population is just another market to be tapped, and enterprising business interests should be free to tap it. Profit is king, and a savvy entrepreneur can always turn a profit. Costs can always be cut.
Neglect in private facilities in Ontario has been reported recently. Bedsores have been photographed. Families have complained. Appeals to the government have had limited effect. What can be done when the Health Ministry has handed off all authority to the private sector? Public care is not perfect, but it is accountable. Union or non-union, we deserve no less.
Marilynn Green, Gibsons
