Category Archives: Caveat emptor

Caveat emptor, Municipal

Concerned for Council’s P3 not for Citizens Pocketbooks or Wellbeing

Leave a comment

Note: An Addendum has been added to the end of this piece.

On November 19th the voters of Abbotsford will be voting Yes/No on using a P3 to finance, design and build an upgrade to Abbotsford’s water supply/infrastructure.

The use of a P3 has proven highly controversial and generated a great deal of opposition to private control of Abbotsford’s water supply and the higher cost to taxpayers of using a P3 to finance/design/construct the upgrade.

The large sign pictured is one of two that are erected at the corner of George Ferguson Way and Tretheway Street in Abbotsford, diagonally across the civic plaza and employee parking lots behind Abbotsford City Hall and was up as incumbent councillors were in the all candidates meeting (November 8th) denying the city was using intimidation and threats, or deceptive information to mislead voters to believe the vote on November 19th was about whether the water supply would be upgraded or not, in order to get voters to vote Yes to the P3.

The smaller sign sprouted on the corner of Clearbrook Road and Maclure Road on November 10th.

Given: that the November 19th in Abbotsford vote is only about whether or not to use a P3 to finance, design and build an upgrade to Abbotsford’s water supply/infrastructure and that the November 19th vote has NOTHING to do with whether Abbotsford needs to, or should, upgrade its water supply.

Then: the clear intent of this sign – “On November 19 Say YES to Water” – is to deceive voters into voting yes for Abbotsford’s Mayor and Council’s P3 proposal by misleading voters into believing the vote on November 19th is about whether or not to upgrade Abbotsford’s water supply/infrastructure.

And that: the appearance of the second, smaller sign makes clear that there is an organized attempt being made to deceive the voters of Abbotsford into believing that the P3 vote on November 19th is about whether Abbotsford’s water supply is upgraded/expanded and thus deceive voters into voting Yes to the P3 based on the false belief created about the purpose of the November 19th by this organized effort to deceive.

1. Who are the ‘concerned citizens ‘ who paid for these signs which are clearly designed to trick/deceive voters in Abbotsford into voting yes to the P3 by causing them to falsely believe that the November 19th vote is about whether or not to upgrade the water supply, when in truth the vote is only about whether to use a P3 to finance, design and build the upgrade?

2. How many more of these signs are posted around Abbotsford to deceive voters into voting yes to the P3 proposal put to referendum by Abbotsford’s Mayor and Council?

3. Can any group of ‘concerned citizens’ put up signs designed to trick and deceive voters into voting the way the ‘concerned citizens’ want them to vote during a municipal election and/or on referendum issues?

4. Or are the signs of these ‘concerned citizens’ being treated in a special manner because the signs refer people to the City’s site promoting the P3 and the signs are intended to deceive voters into voting Yes to the P3 proposal of Abbotsford’s Mayor and Council?

5. Does not the existence of these misleading signs bring the validity of a Yes vote and approval of the P3 into question as the signs will cause people to vote Yes based on false information?

6. If anyone can post misleading and/or deceptive signs or the ‘concerned citizens’ posting the signs are not required to identify themselves – do we not require the laws governing municipal elections to be changed to prevent the use of clear deception to bring about a desired result on a referendum or who is elected to civic office?

 Addendum:

The signs referred to in the story have suddenly been joined by numerous other signs that have appeared across Abbotsford. Given the cost the signs represent it is clear that someone (or several someone’s) is spending a great deal of money in an attempt to deceive voters into voting Yes to the P3 by creating the false belief that a yes vote is a vote to increase the water supply while a no vote is a vote against expanding Abbotsford’s water supply.

It appears someone (or several someone’s) is prepared to spend a great deal of money and go to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the mayor and council’s P3 plan is approved.

Which raises several new questions:

Who are these wealthy ‘concerned citizens’?

Why are they spending so much money to ensure mayor and council’s P3 passes?

What, if any, effect did these ‘concerned citizens’ and their deep pockets have on the decision to go with a P3 despite the overwhelming evidence it was the poorest choice to u for the upgrade?

 

Caveat emptor, Provincial

BC Liberal Attack Ad a Revealing Freudian Slip?

Leave a comment

 

Listening to the BC Liberal’s radio attack ad on BC Conservative leader John Cummins what struck me was the use of the phrase  “Just what we need,another unprincipled politician.”

According to Freud, slips of the tongue reveal a ‘source outside the speech’; a manifestation of the unconscious, guided by the super-ego and the rules of correct behaviour.

The use of the word ‘another’ is a rather damning Freudian slip of the tongue. The definition of Another: being one more or more of the same; further; additional.

The Liberal statement does not just say, or stop at saying, that Conservative leader John Cummins is unprincipled.

In the use of ‘another’ the Liberals are stating that BC politics already contains at least one unprincipled politician. Indeed the context and usage of ‘another’ in “Just what we need, another unprincipled politician.” suggests that BC politics is infested with ‘unprincipled politicians’.

In fact “Just what we need, another unprincipled politician.” can be read as a statement that all or nearly all of BC’s politicians are ‘unprincipled’.

Is the statement “Just what we need, another unprincipled politician.” a manifestation of an unconscious acknowledgement by the BC Liberals that the behaviour of the BC Liberals and the BC NDP has been, is and will continue to be ‘unprincipled’?

Is “Just what we need, another unprincipled politician.” an honest (being subconscious) statement that the only way out of the increasing quagmire BC is in is to turn out our current politicians with their unprincipled behaviour and to seek out new principled leadership and representation?

Caveat emptor, Finances, Issues, Provincial

Facts???? We’re the Government.

Leave a comment

The response (below) to my call for the provincial government to stop bedevilling British Columbians struggling to survive serious health challenges (and the poverty that so often goes with it) has me pondering whether the government pays attention to what you say or, spotting a few key words – Air Miles®, PharmaCare – reply using a rote response or form letter.

Nowhere in the reply were the facts or points I raised addressed.

Of course the reply didn’t contain any facts or evidence to support the government’s  assertion ‘the government was subsidizing the incentive programs’. Further, the government’s reasoning (more accurately what passes for reasoning in government and the bureaucracy) is based on multiple coulds.

Could. And based on the speculation of could, the government took a benefit from the seriously ill who practiced good fiscal management.

Although……basing policies on what government insists on believing, on the speculation of could, rather than facts, does explain the sad state of BC’s finances, healthcare, education, housing, deficit, debt, etc.

Those collecting points were maximizing the bang for the taxpayer buck. By collecting points they got the medications taxpayers paid for and through the collection of points they got $20 worth of food or gas to supplement their (inadequate) support (and if the politicians and bureaucrats feel it is adequate, I propose we set the salaries of MLA’s and bureaucrats at this ‘adequate’ level).

So, not only is the government’s incentive program policy not saving the taxpayers any money, it is wasting the cash value of the rewards that are no longer collected.

I also found myself wondering if, after the Bureaucratese of the reply had been slapped together, anyone had bother reading what had been written.

Take the lecture on the free market. While it might be suitable as an introduction to economics in middle school its simplistic view fails to capture the complexity of the free market as it functions in the real world.

Such as the difference in the economics of standalone pharmacies versus pharmacies contained within (or part of) a retail operation such as grocery stores or London Drugs; or the consequences of a pharmacy being part of a larger entity (Safeway) which has an incentive program that applies to the goods of the entire store.

So, we have government policy based on the speculation of could and economics and finances suitable to middle school but not for application in the real world.

Then we have this beauty:

” pharmacies set their drug prices and dispensing fees based on what they believe the market will bear – or more specifically on what they believe their customers will pay.”

“ While PharmaCare does not have the ability to “shop around” it does set maximum amounts for which government will pay.”

PharmaCare sets out what (the maximum) it will pay. Therefore the pharmacies have no need to base their prices on  “what they believe their customers will pay.” If the pharmacies know what PharmaCare will pay, then by the governments own assertion that is what the pharmacies will charge for medication for those on PharmaCare.

According to the government reply, the amount PharmaCare would have been paying when British Columbians in need were allowed to collect Air Miles® (or other incentive programs) was the maximum amount PharmaCare had set for each specific medication being taken.

According to the government reply, the amount PharmaCare is paying now that government  policy prevents the collection of Air Miles® etc is the maximum amount PharmaCare sets for each specific medication being taken.

So, according to the governments own rational it does not matter whether Air Miles® (or other incentive program points) are collected or not, knowing what the maximum amount PharmaCare will pay for any specific medication, means that (the maximum) is what pharmacies will charge.

By the governments own rational, changing the policy on incentive program points collection has not saved the taxpayers any money. Conversely the collection of incentive program points did not cost the taxpayers any money.

The effect of the change in policy is to fail to obtain the maximum bang for the taxpayer buck by not collecting the rewards that are available as a result of taxpayer dollars spent on medication.

And then::

“Rather than offering loyalty rewards, if a pharmacy sets its drug price or dispensing fee at a lower amount to attract customers, then customers, PharmaCare and all taxpayers will save money.”

Setting aside for the moment the fact that, according to the government’s own rational, the price charged to PharmaCare (loyalty rewards or no loyalty rewards) will be the maximum that PharmaCare has set out as the amount it will pay for a specific drug, consider the following points.

In the free market cutting prices to attract business leads to price wars. Incentive programs tend to be offered by large retail chains/organizations (such as Safeway Wal-Mart) who have the financial  wherewithal to win such a war.

When was the last time (if ever) you heard or read advertizing for pharmacies that was based on the prices for prescription drugs?

Even if a pharmacy does charge a lower unadvertised price how are people going to find it? Do you check around to find the lowest price ever time you get a prescription?

If you are on PharmaCare it makes sense to make an effort to fill your prescription somewhere you earn rewards that are useful to you or your survival. If you cannot collect rewards, are you not going to choose a pharmacy  based on convenience or cost savings realized by using that pharmacy?

Also affecting the decision as to which pharmacy to use – I always get my medication at the same place. They have my records and we have a year’s long relationship. As a safety measure I have no interest in going to a strange, unknown pharmacy. (I have had my pharmacy catch and correct what could have been a fatal error in medication prescribed).

Then there is the question of how people are suppose to check prices. Pharmacies do not quote prices over the phone – you have to go to the pharmacy. How reasonable is it to expect people living on extremely limited budgets to spend their gas budget driving from pharmacy to pharmacy to compare prices – particularly after you have taken away the $20 reward they used for gas at the end of the month? How reasonable is it to want people to compare prices  when market forces dictate that all pharmacies will be charging the same amount – the amount set out by PharmaCare.

I do not have the information to properly analyze how PharmaCare sets the maximum price it will pay for each medication it covers. However I would assume that PharmaCare behaves at least semi-rationally (I know – a dangerous assumption when referring to government). Meaning that PharmaCare would set its maximum rate based on the wholesale cost (the cost to pharmacies) of the specific medications.

Unless PharmaCare is allowing for a ridiculously large mark-ups (if it allows any mark-up at all), then pharmacies make little or no money on the mark-up over cost on filling PharmaCare prescriptions. Thus if PharmaCare is behaving in a fiscally responsible manner in setting the maximum it will pay for a specific medication, a pharmacy will need to charge the maximum PharmaCare will pay.

Once again,  incentive or no incentive program, the amount charged by a pharmacy is going to be the maximum amount PharmaCare has set out as what it will pay.

If the government has evidence to support its claim that the collection of points in incentive programs is costing taxpayers dollars they need to present that evidence.

Evidence based on facts, not the speculation of ‘could’ or fairy tales. Because, if the government of BC insists on making policy based on speculation and fairy tales, I want to know why the government hasn’t solved all its financial and service woes by having Rumpelstiltskin in the legislature basement spinning straw into gold?

The government needs to remember it is suppose to help, not persecute or hinder, the Wellness of citizens in need.

It should be maximizing the bang for the taxpayer buck, rather than wasting the rewards that accrue to the dollars taxpayers spend on medication by allowing the collection of reward/incentive points – points that cost the taxpayer not one additional cent.

Perhaps if the government ceased to waste time and resources chasing mirages of nonexistent savings or dreaming up ways or excuses to abuse British Columbians in need of help, the government COULD address major issues such as the rationing and cutbacks of healthcare.

Whether malice or maladroitness it is time the government ceased to tyrannize British Columbians suffering from serious health issues and a lack of personal resources by allowing them to collect Air Miles® (or participate in other incentive programs).

*************************************

Dear Mr. Breckenridge:

I am writing in response to your emails of July 11 and 18, 2011, regarding the restriction on incentive programs such as Air Miles®. I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Honourable Michael de Jong, QC, Minister of Health.

As you are aware, the British Columbia PharmaCare program is the publicly funded drug insurance program operated by the BC Ministry of Health. The purpose of the PharmaCare program is to assist British Columbians, particularly those with lower incomes, with the cost of eligible prescription drugs and designated medical supplies.

Community pharmacies in BC are retail enterprises that operate in a free market. A free market is defined as an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses. Like other retail businesses, pharmacies set their drug prices and dispensing fees based on what they believe the market will bear – or more specifically on what they believe their customers will pay.

There is a wide variation on what pharmacies in BC charge for prescription drugs. If people purchasing prescription drugs at the higher cost drug stores shopped around, they could save up to 25 percent on their annual drug bill.

For example, people taking commonly prescribed atorvastatin (generic Lipitor) 10 mg once daily could pay over $40 for a 30 day supply of the drug at the more expensive pharmacies in the province. The same amount of the same drug could cost less than $30 dollars at less expensive pharmacies. PharmaCare currently reimburses up to $31.56 for a 30 day supply.

Incentive programs encourage people to shop at a particular pharmacy or pharmacy chain by enticing them with such things as loyalty points, coupons, discounts, goods, rewards and similar schemes rather than with lower prices. Incentive programs cost retailers money, which they build into the price they charge consumers. Customers, particularly those where an insurer pays all or part of their drug costs, may become more concerned about the rewards they are receiving than the cost of the drug. Over time this can contribute to price escalation.

This new policy respects the right of pharmacies to offer incentive programs for customers, but takes government out of the business of subsidizing them.

PharmaCare is also a community pharmacy customer, spending as much as $1 billion annually on prescription drugs for its beneficiaries. While PharmaCare does not have the ability to “shop around” it does set maximum amounts for which government will pay.

While PharmaCare sets a maximum amount it will pay, not all pharmacies bill at the maximum amount. Rather than offering loyalty rewards, if a pharmacy sets its drug price or dispensing fee at a lower amount to attract customers, then customers, PharmaCare and all taxpayers will save money.

Please be aware that the restriction on inducements only affects the portion of a prescription paid by PharmaCare. You may still choose to get your prescription from a pharmacy that offers incentives so you can accrue points/rewards on the amount you pay out-of-pocket.

Further information on PharmaCare’s policy on inducements has been posted on the PharmaCare website. The Information can be viewed at:

http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/pharmacare/pdf/inducements.pdf.

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns, and trust that this explains the rationale for restricting incentive programs.

Sincerely,

Bob Nakagawa, B.Sc. (Pharm.), ACPR, FCSHP

Assistant Deputy

Caveat emptor, Federal

Terrorist – The eyes of the beholder?

Leave a comment

Prior to the atomic bomb era the deadly atomic weapon in Science Fiction was ‘nuclear dust’. Widespread death was caused by disbursing radioactive dust throughout the atmosphere bringing about death from radiation poisoning.

It wasn’t until nuclear science was driven by WWII to create the atomic bomb that the nuclear weapon of mass death and destruction became the atomic bomb  

Interestingly we’ve come somewhat full circle so that among the terrorist scenarios popular for movies (and undoubtedly among the nightmares of those charged with anti-terrorism) is terrorists using dirty bombs; bombs that are designed to vaporize radioactive material into dust form and disburse it into the air of a building, buildings or city.

As in the pre-1945 Science Fiction the radioactive particles are breathed in by the population causing radiation poisoning and death.

Depending on the concentration and radioactivity death can take hours, days, weeks, months or even years – as was the case with the soldiers used in the A bomb tests of the 40s and 50s who developed and died from cancers decades later.

Of course microscopic airborne particles do not have to be radioactive to cause illness, cancer and death.

Asbestos is banned in Canada and other developed nations because it’s microscopic fibres stay in the air/environment and cause asbestosis, cancer and death.

Indeed the deadly nature of asbestos is such that if you were to ship Quebec asbestos to the USA and disburse the micro fibres throughout buildings or cities it would be considered an act of terrorism.

Yet Mr Harper and his Conservatives are exporting asbestos abroad, killing people around the world.

Mr Harper has stated he sees nothing wrong with spreading asbestos’s deadly micro fibres and death to less developed nations around the world. Nor does it appear Mr Harper or his Conservatives will pay any penalty for this trading in death.   

Mr Harper has stated he sees nothing wrong with spreading asbestos’s deadly micro fibres and death to less developed nations around the world. Nor does it appear Mr Harper or his Conservatives will pay any penalty for this trading in death.

Yet you can be sure that if you or I were to take Quebec asbestos and disburse it’s micro fibres throughout the offices or homes of Mr Harper and his Conservatives, they would be screaming for you or I to be arrested and charged for assaulting (or attempting to kill them) with a deadly weapon – asbestos.

Reflecting the sad reality that in Canada, in the world as a whole, some are far more equal than others. Unfortunately those who are far more equal also are oft far more ethically challenged as well. With negative, even deadly, consequences for those who are not numbered among the political class, the wealthy, the connected or the privileged

Find yourself asking what’s wrong with today’s young people or complaining about the state of society these days?

What do you expect when we have made human life the cheapest commodity of the planet?

Caveat emptor, Federal, Finances, Provincial

Choice isn’t about HST or PST

Leave a comment

The author of a recent column on the HST stated “I’m sick of the lies…”, a sentiment I am sure many voters in BC and across Canada would echo. Although I am not sure why.

After all, for decades voters have been rewarding the politicians who have lied to them and told voters what they wanted to hear by electing them and punishing those who wanted to focus on important issues, who told the truth or told voters what they did not want to hear.

To put it in terms of animal husbandry – we have been selecting for and breeding politicians who lie.

So why is anyone surprised that politicians lie?

When you consider the list of issues and challenges voters don’t want or refuse to hear about, or think about and the list of issues and challenges voters ‘know all about’ – even though the evidence shows what they know is erroneous; the choices or priorities voters do not want to have to choose among or set; the things voters just plain don’t want to hear……..it is tough to talk about anything without either lying or eliciting the same response from voters that you get taking a stick to a hive of Africanized bees.

Voters want governments to provide all the services voters feel they are entitled to and/or want, they want them provided NOW – and they don’t want these services to cost them one penny more than they are paying now.

The provincial Liberal government should have said NO to funding anything but provincial infrastructure (i.e. the sea to sky highway upgrades) for the 2010 Winter Olympics. But then Vancouver would have not hosted the Olympics and then everyone (including the voters) would be blaming the Liberals and saying they should have funded the Olympics. And you can bet that if the Liberals had said NO, the NDP would have flipped and been demanding the Liberals fund the Olympics and raising the Liberals ‘losing’ the Olympics as an election issue.

And when the BC Liberals were unable to say no to the federal government’s HST compensation offer because they needed the $1.6 billion so badly to cover Olympic expenses and Olympic cost over runs. No one who supported the 2010 Winter Olympics should be complaining about the HST because the HST is part of the price of hosting the Winter Olympics.

And to layer financial irresponsibility on top of financial irresponsibility they was all the money wasted on throwing a one year anniversary celebration of the Olympics. Where were the taxpayers then? Oh ya, they were out partying.

About politicians the author also said “…. start performing on our behalf instead of using all their brain power on ways to get all our money.”

Politicians are not using all their brain power to get all our money. They are using all their brain power to keep getting re-elected and to form the government. In order to do this they must try to satisfy voters who want more, more, more. Voters who, if they do not get their way, throw a temper tantrum that would put any two year old to shame (as Mr Vander Zalm and the anti-HST forces are doing) and throw out the politicians who dared to suggest that there is such a thing as enough and replace them with politicians who promise voters whatever voters want and tell voters whatever it is they want to hear. You know, the politicians who lie to them.

So it is not that politicians are focused on getting as much money from voters pocketbooks as possible for the sake of getting the money. Rather politicians are focused on giving voters what they want , when they want it – as best they can – in order to get re-elected and remain the government.

It is simply that this course of action requires governments to maximize the amount of milk (cash) the government can get out of people to add to the funds they can borrow so they can give people what they want and are demanding and get re-elected.