Voters compassionate, pragmatic
British Columbians want to do the right thing for all citizens, but they want the evidence to back the changes
We brought together 30 people from 18 different communities across B. C. for a conversation about the issues important to British Columbians including health care, resource extraction, transportation and education.
What actions should a new government take after the election on the things that matter most to British Columbians? All of the participants were identified serendipitously last summer by Dean Broughton, Chief News Editor — Digital. They were almost a perfect split between men and women and were clustered in three groups: rural B. C., communities in the Lower Mainland and Vancouver. They were also representative of B. C. in ethnic composition, Aboriginal voices were there and a spectrum of income groups.
Each participant received a workbook giving facts about each of the issues and posing three questions in each. We met together as one big group on a conference call to explain the agenda, the process and the rules for engagement. This was a dialogue, not a debate. We were looking for places where we could agree, places where we agreed to disagree and maybe even some new approaches to the problems posed in each of the four areas.
Vancouver Sun columnist Stephen Hume was a “fly on the wall” and listened throughout. He described the dialogue as a “dinner conversation with people you like.”
We asked participants to think like a voter, a taxpayer and a patient. The questions were tough and every participant responded.
Question 1: Should British Columbians be expected to pay more in MSP monthly premiums to cover the burgeoning cost of health care?
Question 2: What measures can the government do to address the shortage of family doctors?
Question 3: Medical imaging provides early detection that saves lives. When you are budgeting for health you are putting a dollar value on human lives. What is the value of a human life?
In discussion, five themes emerged that described the deeply held values of the panel and they were: social justice, transparency, efficiency, innovation and evidence.
There was a remarkable unanimity on what really mattered. How each of us might get there differed slightly, but in the main, there was agreement.
Social Justice
On thinking about social justice, participants did not want anyone denied health care because they could not afford it. They were worried that if
Panelists were keen to see new solutions to old problems as long as the solutions were backed by evidence. They don’t want to see the same old tired responses to problems that did not work in the first place.
MSP premiums rose that some people would not be able to pay, and that went strongly against their values.
Transparency
Thinking like a taxpayer, participants wanted to know where the money goes. They were opposed to shell games where money came in to fund health care and then was disbursed through general revenue. Show me where the money goes was the sentiment. It was like a warning bell to decision makers: If you want our support, show us the books. The tone was
not angry, it was closer to, “We are all in this together, and if you want our support, then we need to know so that we can work together.”
Efficiency
Voters wanted to ensure that they were getting value for money. They certainly saw the interconnection between a myriad of issues affecting health care. They wanted to rout out waste and focus on the best outcomes – they wanted innovative solutions based on evidence ( more on these two areas below). Panelists were not averse to paying more for health care. They winced at the thought of money being poured down the drain.
Innovation
Panelists were keen to see new solutions to old problems as long as the solutions were backed by evidence. They don’t want to see the same old tired responses to problems that did not work in the first place. They were open to new approaches and had some suggestions about directions to take. Diversification of care options to increasing remuneration and debt forgiveness for doctors in exchange for
working in rural communities were all part of the mix that was considered. While voters were ready for new approaches, they wanted evidence to back it up. They are willing to try new solutions — just be sure that the innovations are carefully thought through before implementing.
Evidence
Participants wanted to see the evidence — research, statistics and a compelling case that the changes contemplated were supported by evidence. They were not prepared to go in a particular direction without having had the benefit of the research to support the direction. In many ways this demand for the evidence is wrapped around all of the other themes. Will this hurt low- income people? Is this approach clearly accountable? Is it effective? Does it use our resources wisely? British Columbians want us to move in the right direction, and they will not accept any direction without the research to back it up.