119

David Dodge’s plea


 

The former governor of the Bank of Canada has released a new report calling for an adult discussion of the approaching health care crunch. Mr. Dodge made a similar plea to the Liberal conference in Montreal last year.


 

David Dodge’s plea

  1. Preston Manning beat David Dodge to the punch by aobut 6 or 7 years in calling for a non-ideolofical debate on the future of helath care. But Manning, of course, was never invited to a Liberal policy conference… so Wherry was not likely paying attention.

  2. Preston Manning beat David Dodge to the punch by aobut 6 or 7 years in calling for a non-ideolofical debate on the future of helath care. But Manning, of course, was never invited to a Liberal policy conference… so Wherry was not likely paying attention.

    • If invited, would he have attended?

      • Don't you mean "could"

        • I think only Harper Conservatives invite people and then don't let them attend.

  3. Has there ever been a call for "health care discussion" preceded by a loaded adjective that didn't call for more two teir health care? Just wondering.

  4. Has there ever been a call for "health care discussion" preceded by a loaded adjective that didn't call for more two teir health care? Just wondering.

    • That's because no one is having an adult converstion yet. We really need to discuss health care in a new, open and rational way.

  5. Translation to Mike's query above:

    The "adult conversation" must only include the "progressive" total government run option. Or in other words, how much more government money we put into it. The notion of Canadians being given the option of paying for any services (we can buy a thousand litres of vodka, but I'd be a criminal if I paid to have my mom's hip replaced) is unthinkable.

  6. Translation to Mike's query above:

    The "adult conversation" must only include the "progressive" total government run option. Or in other words, how much more government money we put into it. The notion of Canadians being given the option of paying for any services (we can buy a thousand litres of vodka, but I'd be a criminal if I paid to have my mom's hip replaced) is unthinkable.

    • Really? You'd be a criminal if you paid to have your mom's hipe replaced? I must be misinformed, so correct me if I am wrong.

      To practise medicine in Canada one must be a member of your provincial regulatory college . A doctor will bill through the healthcare system of the province. Or you can practise medicine privately. As far as I know, and again, correct me if I'm wrong, you can pay for your mom's hip replacement, nothing illegal about that, but you can't buy private insurance coverage for services offered by the provincial healthcare system. You can buy insurance for service not offered by the provincial healthcare system, i.e., dental, etc. I have paid privately for medical services in the past.

      • Pinko commie! You're contradicting the narrative!

    • I take 'adult conversation' to mean that all players should enter into the discussion with all options on the table. We have an aging population which is going to put a strain on our system, and our system is already under strain. I think the only ground rule should be that universal access to health care can't be compromised. Other than that… check your partisan and ideological baggage at the door and let's come up with something that works.

      • I'm not sure that "universal access to health care" should be a ground rule. I think there should be universal access to some health care, but I don't have a problem with the idea that very wealthy people (of whom I am not one) can use their money to buy better health care. You may disagree with this but I think it should be part of an adult conversation.

        Although the chances of our political leaders having an adult conversation about anything are slim to none …

        • I can assure you that very wealthy people buy better health care privately in Canada. With cash. Legally.

          • OK, I never said they didn't. I was just trying to get at that "universal health care" doesn't necessarily mean universal access to the same health care for everyone.

      • That's what it means in actual English. When used to describe health care it means a discussion where the speaker's support of two-tier health-care must be accepted as the only viable option.

        Are there any examples of the above not being the case?

  7. Really? You'd be a criminal if you paid to have your mom's hipe replaced? I must be misinformed, so correct me if I am wrong.

    To practise medicine in Canada one must be a member of your provincial regulatory college . A doctor will bill through the healthcare system of the province. Or you can practise medicine privately. As far as I know, and again, correct me if I'm wrong, you can pay for your mom's hip replacement, nothing illegal about that, but you can't buy private insurance coverage for services offered by the provincial healthcare system. You can buy insurance for service not offered by the provincial healthcare system, i.e., dental, etc. I have paid privately for medical services in the past.

  8. If invited, would he have attended?

  9. Pinko commie! You're contradicting the narrative!

  10. If any 'adult discussion' begins with talk of switching to the American system, it's dead in the water.

  11. If any 'adult discussion' begins with talk of switching to the American system, it's dead in the water.

    • I think an adult conversation has to begin without preconceived notions, especially these two:

      Canada's system is the best in the world.

      and

      There is nothing good about the American system.

      We should be keeping an open mind and look at the positives and negatives of a variety of systems and adapt what we discover to fit our needs in Canada. The conversation has to stop being emotional and start being rational. What to do we want to pay for health care and what do we want to cover?

      • The ONLY thing such a discussion can begin with is a confirmation of universality, because Canadians won't give that up no matter how much we talk.

    • Has anyone ever seriously suggested switching to the American system? To me this seems the to be one the first things people say when they want to avoid having any sort of useful discussion about the health care system.

      • It's usually the first thing that comes up whenever anybody mentions the topic. Has a political leader ever championed the idea? No, that would be suicide.

        • But I don't know of anyone who would seriously suggest using the American health care model. It usually seems to be brought up as a scare tactic for people who don't want to change anything at all about the Canadian health care model.

          • Yes, and it works. So until we can find a positive solution, it won't be talked about at all.

          • Hmm, In that case it doesn't appear to me that you want to see a productive discussion that might result to changes in our health care system.

          • How are you proposing a positive solution be found without talking about it at all? Pull it out of a hat?

          • Propose positive solutions first and foremost….goodness knows the subject has been studied to death.

          • Sorry. I thought proposing solutions would be labeled having a conversation. Sort of discuss ideas in order to arrive at some positive solution.

            Any and all solutions proposed would need further discussion but you can't start by saying we won't talk about health care all without being offered a positive solution that hasn't been talked about yet.

  12. I take 'adult conversation' to mean that all players should enter into the discussion with all options on the table. We have an aging population which is going to put a strain on our system, and our system is already under strain. I think the only ground rule should be that universal access to health care can't be compromised. Other than that… check your partisan and ideological baggage at the door and let's come up with something that works.

  13. I think an adult conversation has to begin without preconceived notions, especially these two:

    Canada's system is the best in the world.

    and

    There is nothing good about the American system.

    We should be keeping an open mind and look at the positives and negatives of a variety of systems and adapt what we discover to fit our needs in Canada. The conversation has to stop being emotional and start being rational. What to do we want to pay for health care and what do we want to cover?

  14. Don't you mean "could"

  15. The ONLY thing such a discussion can begin with is a confirmation of universality, because Canadians won't give that up no matter how much we talk.

  16. I'm not sure that "universal access to health care" should be a ground rule. I think there should be universal access to some health care, but I don't have a problem with the idea that very wealthy people (of whom I am not one) can use their money to buy better health care. You may disagree with this but I think it should be part of an adult conversation.

    Although the chances of our political leaders having an adult conversation about anything are slim to none …

  17. I suggest we talk to the reasonable adults in France and Germany who have comparatively brilliant healthcare systems. I will never forget the day I read the American libertarian Matt Welch talking about France’s healthcare as far superior to the U.S’s. Of course his problem with the american system is that it combines problems of government and private systems, not that it’s a free market which it really isn’t in a lot of ways.

  18. Has anyone ever seriously suggested switching to the American system? To me this seems the to be one the first things people say when they want to avoid having any sort of useful discussion about the health care system.

  19. I suggest we talk to the reasonable adults in France and Germany who have comparatively brilliant healthcare systems. I will never forget the day I read the American libertarian Matt Welch talking about France’s healthcare as far superior to the U.S’s. Of course his problem with the american system is that it combines problems of government and private systems, not that it’s a free market which it really isn’t in a lot of ways.

    • Absolutely agree. We could learn much from looking at France's system. I don't know too much about Germany but we should be looking everywhere for what works and what doesn't.

  20. That's fine. People just have to recognize that what they want has to be paid for – by taxpayers because there isn't any else.

  21. That's what it means in actual English. When used to describe health care it means a discussion where the speaker's support of two-tier health-care must be accepted as the only viable option.

    Are there any examples of the above not being the case?

  22. People have been aware of that since day one, and are quite happy with the idea.

  23. People have been aware of that since day one, and are quite happy with the idea.

    • I disagree, I've not head a lot of calls for increasing taxes to address doctor shortages, wait times, etc, etc. It seems to me that people think they already pay enough but the service should be infinitely better.

      The goal of an adult conversation would be how to address these, and many other issues, in an affordable manner. That really should be possible without fear mongering about an American style system for loss of universality.

      • It should be possible, but it's not.

        It's the third rail in Canadian politics.

        • Well that's a defeatist position right from the get go.

          So what do we do? Continue to run an expensive, inferior system because we are incapable of discussing alternatives?

          • No, it's realistic.

            Canadians like the system we have, they just want shorter wait times.

            And the only way we can have that is if there are more doctors.

          • So contribute to an adult conversation about how that is going to happen.

            If we did get more doctors will that solve wait times? No, because we would need more hospital space, more nurses, more money.

            I read recently that new surgeons were unable to get jobs. So there is a case of more doctors but no improvement for anyone.

            We need a serious discussion not political truisms.

          • The system will need more nurses, space and so on anyway….because our population numbers are going up.

            More doctors would certainly reduce wait time.

            But until we step on the societies for physicians and surgeons so they eliminate their job protection tactics, we won't get them.

            We have thousands of doctors available….but they haven't been 'accepted' by the societies.

          • See? The beginnings of a converstion! No mention of American syle system or loss of universality involved.

          • I have said this same thing repeatedly….and politicians know the problem exists….but until Canadians are guaranteed it doesn't mean a switch to the American system, and guaranteed universality….they won't discuss health care.

  24. It's usually the first thing that comes up whenever anybody mentions the topic. Has a political leader ever championed the idea? No, that would be suicide.

  25. It's quite possible that Canada could learn things from Europe on how to deliver health care more efficiently. Any government should be open to new ideas, especially given the cost of health care and the looming demographic crunch.

    But "adult conversation about health care" sounds suspiciously like "Poorer people should just have to learn to make do with poorer quality health care, because wealthier taxpayers aren't willing to pay for it." Is there any other possible interpretation of this?

  26. It's quite possible that Canada could learn things from Europe on how to deliver health care more efficiently. Any government should be open to new ideas, especially given the cost of health care and the looming demographic crunch.

    But "adult conversation about health care" sounds suspiciously like "Poorer people should just have to learn to make do with poorer quality health care, because wealthier taxpayers aren't willing to pay for it." Is there any other possible interpretation of this?

    • The one thing we have to stop talking about if we are going to have an adult conversation is this Rich Man–Poor Man talk.

      If Health costs continue at the rate they are and our economy is crippled as a result, then it will be the poor who will be left with nothing.

      It is not a matter of poorer quality health care—-it may soon be the survival of a government run health care system.

      I understand your wish to idealistic but this is not 1962—Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan–take a long look at the numbers and graphs in the Report.

  27. I disagree, I've not head a lot of calls for increasing taxes to address doctor shortages, wait times, etc, etc. It seems to me that people think they already pay enough but the service should be infinitely better.

    The goal of an adult conversation would be how to address these, and many other issues, in an affordable manner. That really should be possible without fear mongering about an American style system for loss of universality.

  28. Absolutely agree. We could learn much from looking at France's system. I don't know too much about Germany but we should be looking everywhere for what works and what doesn't.

  29. I think only Harper Conservatives invite people and then don't let them attend.

  30. I can assure you that very wealthy people buy better health care privately in Canada. With cash. Legally.

  31. But I don't know of anyone who would seriously suggest using the American health care model. It usually seems to be brought up as a scare tactic for people who don't want to change anything at all about the Canadian health care model.

  32. gbs……that aging population is not going " to put a strain on our system "—-it`s going to blow our system right out of the water.

    I know we are not supposed to be talking about important issues like Healthcare during an Election, but I do admire Dodge and Manning and John Tory for reminding us this Tsunami is barreling down on us and we better have some serious conversations quickly before serious decisions are forced on us.

    There are tons of reasons why Universal Healthcare will become the issue of our times, but the one scary graph ( in a sea of scary graphs and numbers ) that stood out for me was the one about Healthcare Expenditures in relation to GDP. That serious upturn in that red line on the graph on Page 5 of the Report will mean that very soon governments will have to make difficult decisions about not only Health Care , but taxes,and pensions and new bridges, and MP`s salaries ( oh, they should be safe ).

  33. It should be possible, but it's not.

    It's the third rail in Canadian politics.

  34. Is there any other possible interpretation of this?

    ***

    Linguistically yes. In terms of the Canadian health care debate – no.

  35. Yes, and it works. So until we can find a positive solution, it won't be talked about at all.

  36. That's because no one is having an adult converstion yet. We really need to discuss health care in a new, open and rational way.

  37. Great. Paul Martin's Brain speaks and says stuff.
    We want US top-line services as brought to us by US tv bumph and we want
    it at European costs. And lets all talk about it like we know what we're talking
    about. And, like health care services can be separated from everything else a
    society does.

  38. Great. Paul Martin's Brain speaks and says stuff.
    We want US top-line services as brought to us by US tv bumph and we want
    it at European costs. And lets all talk about it like we know what we're talking
    about. And, like health care services can be separated from everything else a
    society does.

  39. I know that the wealthiest persons in Canada can be quite happy with socialized medicine. I worked for a billionnaire who preferred socialized medicine – for most things.

    We need to go back and look at the initial premise of medicare. I remember when there wasn't any medicare. The way it was sold to us was that no Canadian should have to sell their house because they were sick. More services should be delisted to leave room to the private health insurance business. If legislative adjustements need to be done to permit this, let's put them on the table.

  40. I know that the wealthiest persons in Canada can be quite happy with socialized medicine. I worked for a billionnaire who preferred socialized medicine – for most things.

    We need to go back and look at the initial premise of medicare. I remember when there wasn't any medicare. The way it was sold to us was that no Canadian should have to sell their house because they were sick. More services should be delisted to leave room to the private health insurance business. If legislative adjustements need to be done to permit this, let's put them on the table.

    • That makes a lot of sense to me. Something I like a lot is how Whole Foods does their employees health insurance:

      Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums … for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees' Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.

      Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan's costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.

      I think any delisting should be accompanied by this kind of a system for all Canadians with the entire deductible covered for low incomes, maintaining universality.

    • Exactly. We could start by delisting non-critical emergency room visits.

      • Unfortunately any system which requires patients to be able to diagnose the severity of their own problem before they choose a remedy is flawed. All too often you'll get people whose problems could have been detected and cured earlier if they'd gone to the emergency room when it was smaller, rather than worrying about it being too small and therefore something they'd have to pay for.

  41. Well that's a defeatist position right from the get go.

    So what do we do? Continue to run an expensive, inferior system because we are incapable of discussing alternatives?

  42. The one thing we have to stop talking about if we are going to have an adult conversation is this Rich Man–Poor Man talk.

    If Health costs continue at the rate they are and our economy is crippled as a result, then it will be the poor who will be left with nothing.

    It is not a matter of poorer quality health care—-it may soon be the survival of a government run health care system.

    I understand your wish to idealistic but this is not 1962—Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan–take a long look at the numbers and graphs in the Report.

  43. Further, when socialized medicine was introduced, medicine wasn't as 'big'. There was considerably fewer forms of treatment for illnesses. Heck, some 'illnesses' we have today didn't even exist then. You had a headache, in my family we didn't use aspirins we went for a walk. Now we have an incredible amount of pharmaceuticals and treatments for a growing number of ilnesses.

    We're giving tax credits right, left and center to middle class families who register their kids in sports – and we promise them same for arts class, etc. As someone once said, if Ottawa can give it, it can take it away. We already don't pay for universal dental care, vision care, and others forms of treatment. We should consider more delisting.

  44. Further, when socialized medicine was introduced, medicine wasn't as 'big'. There was considerably fewer forms of treatment for illnesses. Heck, some 'illnesses' we have today didn't even exist then. You had a headache, in my family we didn't use aspirins we went for a walk. Now we have an incredible amount of pharmaceuticals and treatments for a growing number of ilnesses.

    We're giving tax credits right, left and center to middle class families who register their kids in sports – and we promise them same for arts class, etc. As someone once said, if Ottawa can give it, it can take it away. We already don't pay for universal dental care, vision care, and others forms of treatment. We should consider more delisting.

    • It's certainly worth considering on a case by case basis.

      On the other hand, hopefully advances in medicine will allow certain treatments to become even cheaper, or newer more efficient methods devised!

      • hopefully advances in medicine will allow certain treatments to become even cheaper, or newer more efficient methods devised!

        Competition for patients who pay their own money has given us exactly that for laser eye surgery. Universal, public single-payer is quite the deterrent to "cheap and efficient."

  45. No, it's realistic.

    Canadians like the system we have, they just want shorter wait times.

    And the only way we can have that is if there are more doctors.

  46. OK, I never said they didn't. I was just trying to get at that "universal health care" doesn't necessarily mean universal access to the same health care for everyone.

  47. What I think of is how Tommy Douglas was motivated to create universal health care because he had to suffer through a problem for a long time before someone donated the money so his family could pay for the medical bill. All these years later and it seems like the system we have because of that has created a situation where everybody has to wait. It makes me wonder if Tommy would think this is good enough.

    Everyone who can't afford to go to the States has to make do with poorer quality healthcare because we don't want to be American. But if being Canadian means having great health care then all we are accomplishing is being not-American. (…continued)

  48. From what I understand the basic difference between Britain and Canada with very complete government control and France and Germany is that their health care is publicly paid for but more or less open between publicly run and privately run hospitals and clinics. You can buy private insurance in Germany (I don't know about France) and about 10% of people do. Apparently in Germany you will see specialized clinics in little strip malls right in the middle of other businesses so it's a lot more dynamic. I don't think we're likely to see really good gains in how smartly hospitals work from government appointed panels. Something that could be easily tried would be 'charter' hospitals. Charter schools seem to work primarily because they have no bureaucratic oversight since they are funded from exactly the same source. I believe the trick is to create the conditions for innovation.

  49. Hmm, In that case it doesn't appear to me that you want to see a productive discussion that might result to changes in our health care system.

  50. What I think of is how Tommy Douglas was motivated to create universal health care because he had to suffer through a problem for a long time before someone donated the money so his family could pay for the medical bill. All these years later and it seems like the system we have because of that has created a situation where everybody has to wait. It makes me wonder if Tommy would think this is good enough.

    Everyone who can't afford to go to the States has to make do with poorer quality healthcare because we don't want to be American. But if being Canadian means having great health care then all we are accomplishing is being not-American. (…continued)

  51. From what I understand the basic difference between Britain and Canada with very complete government control and France and Germany is that their health care is publicly paid for but more or less open between publicly run and privately run hospitals and clinics. You can buy private insurance in Germany (I don't know about France) and about 10% of people do. Apparently in Germany you will see specialized clinics in little strip malls right in the middle of other businesses so it's a lot more dynamic. I don't think we're likely to see really good gains in how smartly hospitals work from government appointed panels. Something that could be easily tried would be 'charter' hospitals. Charter schools seem to work primarily because they have no bureaucratic oversight since they are funded from exactly the same source. I believe the trick is to create the conditions for innovation.

  52. And so you've begun…..

    I have pointed out that Canadians won't discuss it at all as long as there is any hint of either moving to the American system, or removing universality.

    You respond by blaming me for this.

    NOT the way to go about it.

  53. So contribute to an adult conversation about how that is going to happen.

    If we did get more doctors will that solve wait times? No, because we would need more hospital space, more nurses, more money.

    I read recently that new surgeons were unable to get jobs. So there is a case of more doctors but no improvement for anyone.

    We need a serious discussion not political truisms.

  54. How are you proposing a positive solution be found without talking about it at all? Pull it out of a hat?

  55. That makes a lot of sense to me. Something I like a lot is how Whole Foods does their employees health insurance:

    Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums … for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees' Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.

    Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan's costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.

    I think any delisting should be accompanied by this kind of a system for all Canadians with the entire deductible covered for low incomes, maintaining universality.

  56. I'm really confused (honestly). It might help if you stop using "we" and "Canadians" as I'm really not sure if you are giving your opinion or what you think the opinion of Canadians is.

    To sum up – if we want to have a productive conversation about health care I think we should be willing to discuss anything. I also think we shouldn't start by listing all of the things that we won't talk about (American health care, universal health care and so on). You appeared to be doing that (listing all of the things we shouldn't talk about) so I suggested that if you wanted to start off by scaring people about American health care then you didn't really want a productive conversation.

    If you weren't trying to poison the well (by talking about American health care) then I misinterpreted what you were saying.

  57. I'm really confused (honestly). It might help if you stop using "we" and "Canadians" as I'm really not sure if you are giving your opinion or what you think the opinion of Canadians is.

    To sum up – if we want to have a productive conversation about health care I think we should be willing to discuss anything. I also think we shouldn't start by listing all of the things that we won't talk about (American health care, universal health care and so on). You appeared to be doing that (listing all of the things we shouldn't talk about) so I suggested that if you wanted to start off by scaring people about American health care then you didn't really want a productive conversation.

    If you weren't trying to poison the well (by talking about American health care) then I misinterpreted what you were saying.

    • Well we may NEED to have a conversation, and you may WANT to have a conversation about it….but you have to recognize there are some things Canadians just won't budge on.

      • How do you know this?

        • LOL because it's been the norm since the program began.

          Canadians loved it when it came in, they've embraced it every step of the way, and it's now part of the Canadian identity….that people brag about.

  58. Exactly. We could start by delisting non-critical emergency room visits.

  59. The system will need more nurses, space and so on anyway….because our population numbers are going up.

    More doctors would certainly reduce wait time.

    But until we step on the societies for physicians and surgeons so they eliminate their job protection tactics, we won't get them.

    We have thousands of doctors available….but they haven't been 'accepted' by the societies.

  60. See? The beginnings of a converstion! No mention of American syle system or loss of universality involved.

  61. Well we may NEED to have a conversation, and you may WANT to have a conversation about it….but you have to recognize there are some things Canadians just won't budge on.

  62. Propose positive solutions first and foremost….goodness knows the subject has been studied to death.

  63. Sorry. I thought proposing solutions would be labeled having a conversation. Sort of discuss ideas in order to arrive at some positive solution.

    Any and all solutions proposed would need further discussion but you can't start by saying we won't talk about health care all without being offered a positive solution that hasn't been talked about yet.

  64. How do you know this?

  65. I have said this same thing repeatedly….and politicians know the problem exists….but until Canadians are guaranteed it doesn't mean a switch to the American system, and guaranteed universality….they won't discuss health care.

  66. Canadians should be having this discussion and politicians should be listening. We don't need a guarantee to discuss anything. The outcome of the discussions will determine what style of health care system Canadians want. If we don't want American style that would be clear.

    If we refuse to have any discussion the likelihood of getting something we don't want is far greater. Canadians need to be proactive and not reactive about health care.

  67. Probably…but it's unlikely to happen.

  68. Probably…but it's unlikely to happen.

  69. LOL because it's been the norm since the program began.

    Canadians loved it when it came in, they've embraced it every step of the way, and it's now part of the Canadian identity….that people brag about.

  70. Read the Romanow report?

  71. chet, you have made that claim before. Could you point out where in the criminal code this charge you refer to is?

  72. Unfortunately any system which requires patients to be able to diagnose the severity of their own problem before they choose a remedy is flawed. All too often you'll get people whose problems could have been detected and cured earlier if they'd gone to the emergency room when it was smaller, rather than worrying about it being too small and therefore something they'd have to pay for.

  73. It's certainly worth considering on a case by case basis.

    On the other hand, hopefully advances in medicine will allow certain treatments to become even cheaper, or newer more efficient methods devised!

  74. hopefully advances in medicine will allow certain treatments to become even cheaper, or newer more efficient methods devised!

    Competition for patients who pay their own money has given us exactly that for laser eye surgery. Universal, public single-payer is quite the deterrent to "cheap and efficient."

  75. The guy who closed rural hospitals in Saskatchewan? Is that they guy you figure has the solutions?

    Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.

  76. The guy who closed rural hospitals in Saskatchewan? Is that they guy you figure has the solutions?

    Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Sign in to comment.