Editor, The Record:

Bigger is not always better, yet every so-called answer to citizens' fears about closure of actual hospitals, the ER or other medical services now in existence, gets the same political double-speak in reply: No, we are not closing the ER, but but health authorities are reviewing the systems in order to give citizens the best service.

Of course it may be more technically efficient to give service in a larger medical centre, but this is offset by the problems to be endured by all the patients who have to continually travel long distances to get to there. Such problems include undue suffering from the longer travelling time, whether by ambulance or private car, or certainly additional sustained pain for those who need ongoing treatment and would find it difficult to travel routinely to a "larger centre" and in some cases, death. Since governments allow ongoing development in many areas, then other essential services must also be there.

This larger-centre, cost-cutting technique is also used by governnment when they close smaller local schools and expect it is no problem for all the students to bus or carpool to a larger centre, which not only costs families more time, money and fossil fuel to get there, but students become unidentifiable in the large populations of huge schools. This also does not provide a better learning environment for either the student or the teacher, although the method does save financially when used on assembly lines or factory farms but, as the sentiment expressed in the familiar song, humans want to go "where everybody knows your name."

The whole issue in many of these cost-cutting plans is that government is once again shifting their problem to the citizens, who have paid a high percentage of their earnings in taxes on an ongoing basis so that government can provide essential services. We have seen reports of some cost-cutting efforts by government by eliminating non-essential services, grants and funds provided to various groups, and the odd improvement in the way things are done in government offices.

One wonders why such standards are not always in place to provide the best use of their budgets, instead of using so much of our tax money on lax procedures or to buy favour? They should also look to cutting down on the many extraneous "authorities" and sub-groups doing work ministries should be doing — ie: health authorities, TransLink, etc. — whose CEOs and their sub-bureaucracies draw enormous amounts of tax money to maintain their very existence.

Some good advice also for governments: save for a rainy day. Instead of spending all income, put aside that portion which will be required for necessities and upkeep in relation to an ongoing larger population, or when the weather turns bad. That is the good plan, not cutting essential services or imposing additional taxes because you mis-managed or frittered away much of your budget for years.

Lila Rauh

Mission