Page 1


qt 1 enaissance :0 1. st4 & IR io Oranbe, ,Austin erbring fine foot ant buffet lunges from 11 a.m. Aionbag -aturbag Oreakfast! buffet Stgle mibniglit 1:30 i. m. , 7.1.ffribau & *aturbag \(Quickest lunrb in toion onbau-,:.1’ribau riguffet 11=1 1 I WI I P CP NM I 1 .1 I I I 1 I I IC MI= I I I I MIM t 1 1 NI 1 . I I I I =I 1 P I LI I I= MI I I OM I I I I 111 1. I I MIN I IL I ml 11 I I 1 I I I I I I I 1.IM ill ,’ I I I I I for Good Government, League for Concerted Action, Association for Sensible Disarmament, Association of Political Activists, Association for Fair Press and dozens more, all of which channel their funds directly to the Republican Party. It is rumored in Washington that the Republicans employed a man whose sole function was the concoction of names for such organizations. Nader claims in his suit that since the increase in the milk price support level from $4.66 to $4.93, the prices paid to farmers have increased by 3 percent to 4 percent over the prices prevailing in the comparable period in 1970. According to the suit, on March 12, 1971, Secretary Hardin announced that he had decided not to increase the milk price support level above $4.66 for the year April 1, 1971-March 31, 1972. On March 25, 1971, he announced that he had reversed his previous decision and would increase the price level to $4.93. His reasons for this reversal were announced as increases in dairy farmers’ costs, including the cost of feed. Nader’s brief says that the secretary had received no new information or evidence bearing upon dairy farmers’ costs, including the costs of feed, between March 12 and March 25, 1971. On March 23, 1971, persons associated with AMPI, MAD, and DI met with President Nixon and Secretary Hardin at the White House and urged an increase in the support price of milk, says Nader. Between March 22, 1971, and the filing of Nader’s suit, ADEPT, SPACE, and TAPE have contributed a total of $322,500 to political committees of the Republican Party. FRANCIE BARNARD Ms. Barnard writes for the El Paso Times Phoenix. Health care in Canada By Laura Burns Calgary, Alberta One’s first impression of this Canadian province is that it is a northerly version of Texas. Cowboy boots and stetsons abound, and the economic hierarchy differs mainly in that grain replaces cotton in that trinity whose other members are oil and cattle. But, of course, this is on the surface. Although Canada and the United States are probably as much alike as it is possible for two different countries to be, there are important political, economic and social differences. A person living here finds them affecting his daily life. One who has moved from the United States receives a profound impression of difference the first time he visits the doctor and is sent no bill. In Texas, my husband and I had medical insurance probably equivalent to that of the average prudent couple. We got it when we were fairly young and we paid a rate of approximately $18 per month for major medical expenses. It covered \(less the operations and serious illnesses, including semiprivate hospital accommodations. It did not cover maternity care or complications of pregnancy: that would have cost more. Nor did it cover any type of psychiatric treatment. Burns is a native of Houston. 10 The Texas Observer APERSON WHO has been a resident of Alberta for three months is eligible for its medicare plan \(which extends its coverage up to three months For $5.75 per month, office visits, inoculations and laboratory tests are covered, as well as hospital treatment \(with accommodations. Maternity and psychiatric care are included in the Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan. There is no difference in rates for older people and there is no “qualifying” according to income, credit rating or state of health. Although welfare recipients and old-age pensioners do not contribute to the plan, they receive coverage. Alberta Blue Cross, at $1.65 per month, provides us with semiprivate and private rooms in the hospital, ambulance services, drugs in the hospital and a percentage of other prescription drugs, appliances, home nursing care, naturopathic services, clinical psychological services and dental care needed because of accidental injury. Not everything is covered in these policies, of course. Cosmetic surgery is not covered, nor is routine dental work though some places of employment offer dental policies. You have to buy your own glasses. And, in general, the hospitals I’ve seen here are not quite so plush as those in the United States. If a hospitalized patient wants a TV set in his room or a box of Kleenex on his nightstand he is directly out of pocket for it. The Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan is one of the federal-provincial plans existing throughout Canada. With variations, similar plans operate all over the country, This is not socialized medicine, but a form of socialized insurance. Doctors must pay their own overhead costs, such as office rental and salaries of office nurses. Physicians comprise the professional group with the highest per-capita income in Canada. They are not salaried except under conditions similar to those in the United States \(public mental hospitals, for between the provincial government and the medical associations, for the services they perform for the patient. Usually, they get paid quicker and more regularly than their American counterparts. Specialists sometimes charge fees in addition to those set by medicare, the cost of which is borne by the patient. \(In an urban area, it generally is easy to find another specialist ONE RESULT of Canada’s health program is that there are no charity clinics and no public hospitals for the poor. One does not hear much about “fashionable” practitioners, such terminology comes to seem, to one who lives in Canada a while, as anachronistic as the social distinctions in a Trollope novel. Thought there has been some grumbling about the “coercive” nature of the plan, the stronger political pressures have been for extending coverage further. The Canadian Senate poverty committee recently urged coverage of dental services and prescription drugs under government plans. THE CANADIAN experience shows that the cost to the individual being