H1N1 Wait times in Ontario

The H1N1 vaccine is now open, in Ontario, to the general public; some clinics report no wait times, other clinics are reporting over 2 hour wait times. This comes after a suspended roll-out of the vaccine due to a shortage. The H1N1 vaccine is in overwhelming demand.
My question is why a demand? This vaccine has not been properly tested, it is new, and therefore potential side effects may still be unknown. There are a reported 36 cases of adverse side effects, including death as a result from the vaccine. Are people taking this into consideration as they line up in clinics hours before it even opens?
Furthermore, before you get the shot, you must sign a waiver that if you do get sick or have an adverse reaction to the shot, you cannot sue. How legitimate is the shot? Why have the vaccine producers been given blanket immunity shielding them from any adverse reaction lawsuits? David Butler-Jones, Canada's Chief Health Officer is quoted saying “The benefit of immunization, the prevention of serious illness and death far outweigh any theoretical risk associated with being immunized.” I disagree.
The H1N1 vaccine is not the only option. Be careful, wash your hands frequently, and cover your mouth when you cough, carry hand-sanitizer with you, stay home if you feel ill, drink plenty of fluids and get some rest. There is no need to inject unnatural substances into your body, or create an extra burden (by increasing the vaccine demand) on the already over-stressed health system. More people have died from the seasonal flu than H1N1, but the media is creating a monster of this year's flu season that has much of the general population running to the nearest clinic demanding protection against the flu.
I am still waiting for the stampede to ensue. Or maybe there are a great number of people that will not get the vaccine because they too have questions. Either way, I’m not getting the shot.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/adverse-reactions-seen-in-36-canadians-after-h1n1-shot-official/article1366564/

Ontario welcomes HST

HST is said to cost the average person $800-$1000 per year. As a student and a tax payer, I do not look forward to the extra charge. Every summer I save all of my money for tuition, rent, books and groceries – and I count on OSAP – this proposed HST will make my living situation even more difficult. I do not drink coffee, nor do I get a newspaper subscription, so these 'exemptions' don't really apply to me.
When I first heard of the new Harmonized Sales Tax, I supported the idea, because not only would it provide money to fund our deficit, but also because it will make us, as consumers, re-evaluate our consumption habits. Then I did some research and found out that businesses will be the big winners, as the combined tax reduces their costs by a total of $6.9-billion in Ontario per year. The tax burden will shift from businesses to consumers as we will now be paying levies on a broad range of goods and services - now it means tax on gasoline, haircuts, and restaurant meals. In case big business interests are secured, this seals the deal. Why is the shift onto consumers? Business can afford to take the hit. They do not need to pay their CEO and executives monstrous amounts of income, with their added yearly bonuses. But instead, the government decides to protect their interests (and 'their' as in the elite select FEW) and hurt the MANY.
This does not seem like a very democratic decision to me. Yes I understand that the government needs to make money to pay the deficit, but why consider business interests over the average person? Why is their vote worth more? I understand that the government is only as powerful as its capitalist economy, but then why is this tax put to the consumer, who funds the economy? In case it wasn’t hard enough its about to get tougher.

July 1, 2010 can't come soon enough.

Ontario law displaces 47 families

Ontario landowner law is the cause of the displacement of 47 low-income families in the Niagara Area. These families live in Green Oaks Mobile Home Park - adjacent to and owned by Marineland. Marineland is expanding its empire and thus wants to convert the park grounds into maintenance buildings within the next year. This means that the 47 families will be evicted in August 2010, as they do not own the land where their homes lay, rather they lease it from the landowner.
Ontario law allows landowners in this situation to terminate leases AT ANY TIME as long as they intend to convert the property to non-residential use. Under the Residential Tenancies Act, mobile home tenants are entitled to no more than 12 months notice and a one time payment of $3000 should the homeowner choose to relocate their buildings. A couple problems here: the majority of mobile homes were never designed to be moved. Furthermore, $3000 falls short of the amount it will cost (if possible) to move a mobile home; uprooting and transporting a mobile home can run excess of $10 000 - this cost is too prohibitive to consider as the families consist of many seniors and fixed income individuals.
Moreover, many of the families still carry mortgages on their homes, so not only are they losing their homes and the equity held within, but they are still responsible for the requisite debt. Ontario law does little to protect mobile home owners. A question to consider is if the landowner chooses to convert their property for non-residential use, shouldn't they be responsible to cover the costs of those displaced? Why does Ontario landowner law make it harder for citizens with little financial security to live and prosper?
Furthermore, how many more people have been affected by this law? This is a case that I found in the local newspaper - it was not even mentioned on TV, the Radio - that is appalling considering the severity of the issue! The residents of Green Oaks have appealed to both the municipal and provincial governments without success - if no one in government speaks up for these people, they will be homeless within the year.

Who really loves Marineland now?

Green License Plates

In hopes of progressing the green movement in Ontario, the province is set to introduce 'green' license plates for drivers who operate plug-in hybrids and battery powered electric vehicles. Many benefits will be associated with these green plates, including travelling in HOV lanes with only one passenger, using recharge stations free of charge at GO stations and other provincially owned parking lots, and access to special parking at private companies, such as some Wal-Mart’s and the University of Toronto.
This move to promote eco-friendly cars is a band aid solution to the global problems of climate change and consumption patterns. How many people can afford these cars? How many of these cars will be on the roads in 10 years? Does this policy help the average person? I'm a little hesitant to answer in a positive light... The price of hybrids is very high and the structural support for these vehicles is non-existent. Have you seen any gas stations that have the capacity to recharge electric cars? Are parking lots in malls equipped to charge cars while people shop?
What about transport trucks, are they ever going to go green? So we make hybrid cars, but the trucks on the roads go unaccounted for, as long as someone's doing something to reduce emissions, right?
These questions are beside the point. My real frustration with this policy is that it completely misses the point. This doesn't reduce the number of cars on the road, nor does it make a difference in our consumption patterns. This policy is a waste of government money. Why not invest in rail and make Ontario mobile by rail? Take for instance the Region of Niagara - it has the infrastructure set up for rail, but it just sits there. Invest in public transit, and thus change people's consumption habits. Rail can transport people and products without such a harsh impact on the environment, and it can help to combat the sense of urgency of people's lifestyles.




http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/11/02/ontario-green-licence-plates642.html#socialcomments

Hypocritical Lawsuit?

The Ontario government is suing big tobacco companies for $50 Billion seeking damages for "past, present and on-going healthcare costs linked to tobacco-related illnesses". The lawsuit is the first under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. The Ontario Attorney General believes "that tax payers should be compensated for the costs that they have paid."

Does anyone else find this a little hypocritical? Doesn't the province of Ontario collect over $1Billion annually from the sale of tobacco products and then turn around and sue the companies for selling a LEGAL product? If its so harmful, and so taxing on our health system - why not ban it outright?

The government ruled out banning tobacco a long time ago, claiming education and progressive restrictions were the smarter way to go. The government now needs to decide if allowing the selling of tobacco is worth the extra health care costs. Ontario health system spends $1.6 B annually on tobacco-related illnesses, resulting in about 36 deaths per day. Yes there would probably be a huge black market for tobacco ...but at least it would get it out of sight potential tobacco-addicts and temptations.

But why stop at tobacco companies - why not sue producers of alcohol, or casinos, or McDonald's, Taco Bell, Burger King - there are many health risks associated with those. Is this the way of the future? Will this lawsuit set precedent in terms of corporate social responsibility?

Or another question - what happens with the money, if by chance Ontario wins? Is it put into a general fund?? Or specific for tobacco-related cases? Or will it be put towards programs to reduce use and combat addictions? As a taxpayer I want some satisfaction that this money is being well spent.

Caplan a scapegoat?

From the recent findings from the Ontario Auditor General, Jim McCarter has labelled the e-health initiative as no value for the 1billion tax-payer dollars spent. Millions in untendered contracts and consultant fees has plagued the company and it is obvious that electronic health records are not in the near future for Ontario. How sad and embarrassing - the province lost 7 years and $1B of taxpayer money. Are there more people to blame?
David Caplan stepped down earlier this week as Ontario Minister of Health; before the audit was publicized. But it should be pointed out that money was being mishandled well before Caplan got thrown under the bus. E-heath emerged in 2002, under George Smitherton as Ontario Minister of Health. Where is he now? He's Deputy Premier and running for Mayor of Toronto.... It seems as though Caplan stepped into this mess, and Smitherton should resign as well. Only if ministerial responsibility really existed... Apparently accountability only goes so far in Ontario legislature... Until then, what about McGuinty? - he should've known where and how money was being spent.

What about Sarah Kramer and Alan Hudson? Consultants - extraordinare who sat on the e-Health board, whose bank accounts are lined with hard-working tax-payer monies.

Will the blame game ever sort out who is truly at fault? It is important anymore? The money in contracts cannot be repaid. Sadly Ontario and its taxpayers must take on the burden of terrible management skills experienced at E-health and the Ontario Ministry of health. The future of e-Health has some serious scrutiny to work with. Let's hope my grandchildren are benefited with electronic health records...