The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

Ian Oliver Publisher Robert Glasbey Advertising Director Norman Alexander Editor Geoff Hill Circulation Director _ i. Teri Casas Office Manager Tim Coles Production Manager The last thing Ontarians would like to see is a system mirroring the U.S. system where there is a hierarchy of hospitals depending on the user‘s ability to pay and the quality of their own health insurance plan. But the province has simply got to get its act together. The continuing problem with Ontario‘s health cards is a classic example of a bureaucracy trying to put in place a system that was obviously deeply flawed and no one seems to want to correct the situation. The province will also have to make some very tough decisions on those who will be eligible for health care if they voluntarily spend a large portion of the year outside of the country. Why should these people, who are helping support a foreign economy, have the right to come back to Ontario for medical care when they have little stake in the country‘s econâ€" omy? Certainly there has to be a complete reâ€"thinking of how services are delivered. If it is more efficient to contract out services, so be it. Too often when services are not only paid for but operated by government, they get sloppy, lazy and are not as readlly able to determine where money can be better spent. We‘ve little doubt that most Ontario taxpayers, who are already shelling out about 35% of their taxes on health care, would be willing to pay nomiâ€" nal additional fees if they discouraged those who abuse the system...and there are many of the latter. As taxpayers and health care consumers, we must bear some responsiâ€" bility for our own health and that of a system that is among the best in the world. But times change, the economy changes and society changes. We must somehow blend the philosophical concept of universal health care with the pragmatism of business. Failure to blend these two cultures will result in the system‘s collapse. At a time when other countries are looking to Canada‘s system as a health model, that would be a bitter pill to swalâ€" low. But one aspect of the report is way off base. Dr. Hugh Scully, author of the report, complains that government is shifting the cost for medical care increasingly to employers and those using the medical system. Welcome to the 1990s Dr. Scully. Long gone are the days when the cash rolled into Queen‘s Park and Ottawa, only to be doled out lavishly on new hospitals, equipment and personnel. The fact is that the entire medical system must begin to work smarter and to be more innovative in how they provide medical services. It‘s as simple as that. Of course this is only part of the drug problem. One man writing to the Beaver recently complained that more than half the cost of an alreadyâ€" expensive drug, was for a dispensing fee and this fee increased with the number of times the prescription was renewed. Little wonder why our drug costs are going through the roof. _ Unfortunately, we are today reaping the bitter harvest of that largesse and things aren‘t going to get any better. care system enjoyed by Ontarians and all Canadians if we aren‘t to head down the slippery slope of American cashâ€"only medicare. Physicians at the annual convention of the Canadian Medical Association this past week have blasted government for not keeping up to speed with what has to be done to maintain a viable and costâ€"effective medical system. S ome very fundamental changes will have to be made to the health A 119 page report on health care funding in the country came down hard on the high cost of drugs that won‘t get any better because of the fedâ€" eral government‘s move to extend patent protection for pharmaceutical firms, to 20 years. Bitter medicine 467 Speers Road, Oakville, Ont. L6K 354 845â€"3824 Fax: 845â€"3085 Classified Advertising: 845â€"2809 Circulation: 845â€"9742 or 845â€"9743 and Friday, at 467 , Publishing â€"Pickering \QUESTION OF THE WEEK Do you think euthanasia should be legal in some circumstances? Give us your opinion on this topic by calling 845â€"5585, box 5012. All callers are allowed 45 seconds to respond and must provide their name, address and phone number for verificaâ€" tion. A sampling of the best answers will be published in the next Weekend ediâ€" tion of the Oakville Beaver. Well, sorry Ms. Grundy, but ‘the chair‘ is what I park ‘the bum‘ in. And as for gender fuzzification, I think it‘s just another ploy for lawyers and politicians and other paper spewing windbags who pay their mortgages by muddying up the water the rest of us have to swim through. The English language is a marvellous creation â€" a bottomâ€" less quiver full of razorâ€"sharp adjectival arrows honed and edged for every imaginable tarâ€" get. We have so many glorious words â€" masculine and femiâ€" nine. Why would anyone want to neutralize them? It‘s all the rage, you know. Shepherds and shepherdesses are verboten. The term in ‘herdâ€" person.‘ You‘re not even supâ€" posed to say ‘chairwoman‘ or ‘chairman‘ any more. The offiâ€" cially laundered and approved phrase is ‘chairperson‘ â€" or simâ€" ply ‘the chair.‘ rite me off as a sinâ€" gular bore if you F want, but I am subâ€" limely uninterested in "genderâ€" neutral" language. The scary thing about these selfâ€"appointed language gelders is that they just might win. If we don‘t use words we lose them. If you don‘t believe me, ‘Gendering‘ of the language enough to give you hives We even kept the mistakes Dame Juliana made. She insistâ€" .ed. that the correct term for a There was a time when we cared a great deal more about words. Back in the 15th century a language maven by the name of Dame Juliana Berners pubâ€" lished a tome called The Book of St. Albans. It was a small book â€" a manual really, consistâ€" ing of 164 specific terms for groups of things. We can thank Dame Juliana for a ‘pride‘ of lions and a ‘litter‘ of puppies; for a ‘swarm‘ of bees‘ and a ‘flock‘ of sheep. It was this book which first differentiated between geese on the ground (‘gaggle‘) and geese in the air (‘skein‘). For the past 500 years, thanks to The Book of St. Albans, English speakers have referred to ‘slates‘ of candidates and ‘herds‘ of elephants. go ask your kids what a ‘throtâ€" tle,‘ a ‘treadle,‘ or ‘Wellingtons‘ are. Sure, you know â€" but I bet they don‘t. Some of her descriptions are pure poetry. How better to describe a mass of locusts than a plague? And birds â€" How about: A bouquet of pheasants? A murder of crows? A parliament of owls? A brood of hens? An exaltation of larks? Dame Juliana didn‘t deal exclusively in animal codificaâ€" tion. She also gave us: A sentence of judges An impatience of wives A boast of soldiers An impertinence of peddlers A drift of fishermen An eloquence of lawyers Too bad Dame Juliana‘s not around today. We‘ve got some brand new groups that just cry out for codification. How about: A sleaze of politicians? A rant of evangelists? An ooze of salesmen? An eternity of columnists â€" especially ones with (a swarm of) bees in their bonnets about words? group of fish was ‘school.‘ Actually, it was a misspelling of ‘shoal,‘ but as nobody spelled very well in the 15th century, Dame Juliana‘s word was as good as anybody‘s and better than most.