From: daniel@redwood.ppc.ubc.ca (Daniel Ouellet)
Subject: Re: Opting Out
Organization: University of B.C. Pulp & Paper Centre
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:46:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.013055.13787@mikejag.wimsey.bc.ca>, brent@mikejag.wimsey.bc.ca (Brent Kennedy) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep24.154244.19157@unixg.ubc.ca> daniel@redwood.ppc.ubc.ca (Daniel Ouellet) writes:
|> >In article <1992Sep24.015509.4243@mikejag.wimsey.bc.ca>, brent@mikejag.wimsey.bc.ca (Brent Kennedy) writes:
|> >|> 
|> >|>  Please realize that this is exactly what the government is presently
|> >|> doing to physicians.  Last year the 'claw-back'  was approx.  $5000 per
|> >|> physician.  How would you like your employer to ask for part of your salary
|> >|> back at the end of the year??
|> >
|> >On the other hand, why would you expect your employer not to have a say on your salary ?
|> 
|> Well there are several problems with this argument.  First, doctors are
|> suppose to be self employed, for the most part, in this country.  There are
|> those that are on salary to a hospital or clinic, but most are self employed
|> on a fee for service basis.  As many people have compared, this has some

Boy, I sure made you steam with that one-liner, but that wasn't my intent.
Well, O.K., but so what if doctors are self employed ? This isn't the only example of a government
controled fee structure.  BC Tel is a private company but their rates are controled.
  
|> similarities to the present system with ICBC.  The body shops are not
|> "employees" of the government, but simply recieve payments from an insurance
|> company that happens to be run by the government.  Secondly, and by far more
|> important, you have missed a major part of the point of this problem if you
|> think the docotors are arguing that the government should have no say in their
|> salary.  You are paid a definite amount of money. Your employer has no right
|> to take money away from you at the end of the year because the employess
|> worked too many hours.  Does ICBC simply stop paying body shops at the end of

I can understand that doctors are frustrated by the cap, but I have yet to hear of a better way to
control the increasing costs of health care. If your solution is simply to increase taxes then I don't think
we will be able to maintain our present health care system and other social programs very long. On the
issue that government is taking money away from M.D.'s, we can look at things from a different
perspective. To my knowledge, the cap doesn't represent a cut in salary. Now I do agree that the way
this thing was introduced by the government is very, very clumsy and I would certainly not like to be
put in the situation of our M.D.'s. It seems to me that a more thoughtful way to control expenses on that
matter would be to introduce a "decreasing fee" system. For example, doctors would be paid $0.90 for
every dollar they bill over $100,000, $0.80/dollar above $150,000, etc. Of course, this is more tedious
to administer, which may explain why our bureaucrats came up with the proposed cap :^) . Now before I
get flamed on this idea, please understand that I don't pretend this is the ideal way of solving the
problem. I just tought of it as a constructive way to contribute to this debate. 

|> the year because there are too many claims??  No, they just raise all of our
|> premiums.  Is Medicare more important than ICBC??  I certainly thought it was.
|> The doctors asked for a third party binding arbitration settlement, and the
|> government refused.  How can you refuse third party arbitration??  This gives

The issue is not that much to control M.D.'s salaries, but rather to control the cost of health care. Why
would you go to arbitration, asking a single individual to take position for or against a political decision
made by a democratically elected government ? 

|> both parties a say in the settlement.  On top of that you have a government
|> that took a legally negotiated pension plan and simply declared it

"legally negociated" ? Isn't this the pension plan that was refused to them by our former Socred
Finance Minister for lack of funds, and then finally granted to them after a meeting with Van Der Zalm ?
Machiavelli was darn right when he said that people forget  (and I could add that they forget very fast).

|> non-existent.  No they didn't simply tear up the agreement, they actually
|> brought in a piece of the most fould legislation to ever cross the floor of
|> the legislature.  This new bill of theirs actually stated that the pension
|> plan "...is deemed to have never existed."  How can you say something never

I wouldn't steam too much on this one. It is probably just legal gibberish that is necessary to eliminate
the pension plan altogether without having to keep and administer the contributions that had already
been made to it. 

|> existed when thousands of people have copies of the agreement signed by both
|> parties??  Even the head of hte BC Federation of Labour called it one of the
|> most disgusting moves a government had ever made.  If it had been tried
|> against a union there would have been an immediate wild-cat strike.
|> Of course an employer should have a say in an employees salary, but doctors
|> are not "employees" of the government.  In addition, having a say in one's
|> salary, does not mean an employer should be able to take back money that one
|> has already earned under the agreed upon contract.
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> -- 
|> #     Brent Kennedy	      | The disease of "Trauma" is responsible for   #
|> #                             | more years of potential life lost than any   #
|> # brent@mikejag.wimsey.bc.ca  | other disease, yet it's also the most        #
|> #		              | preventable, does that make any sense??      #

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Ouellet, Research Associate
Pulp and Paper Centre, University of British Columbia
2385 East Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4
Tel:(604)822-8240   Fax:(604)822-8563   Email: daniel@ppc.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: bc.general