It's considered rude to criticize parties one has been invited to, but since democracies only thrive when points of view are expressed with clarity, here is one clear thought: the recent Health Summit held in Calgary was a failure. Recommendations included covering all drug costs, free ambulance rides, eliminating private health care, and "lots of hugs" to name just a few.

While I'm a big fan of Leo Buscaglia's "hug a friend or loved one" approach to life, but the fact that such recommendations were given as serious policy advice illustrates the perfect silliness of some of the summit questions. The summit did not fail because of a lack of good intentions. Nor is the query "How much money should be spent on health care " not important. It is. Truth is though, that question cannot be answered by anyone.

To illustrate why, imagine if Alberta held a "retirement summit", where delegates debated how much money Albertans would require after age 65; who should be cut off from their pension and at what age; how many trips to Florida should be allowed; and whether retirees should be allowed motorhomes.

Imagine as well that foes of "two-tier retirement" were out in force, and argued that despite Canada Pension Plan benefits, other Canadians with bulging RRSP portfolios should not be allowed to spend privately saved pension money in their golden years.

Of course, such anti-choice, anti-private health care rhetoric is the key reason the summit floundered. Politicians, pundits, and others repeatedly tell Canadians the choice is between that 'awful' American system south of the border or the 'best health care in the world.' This simplistic, black and white approach, much in evidence at the summit, guaranteed other models were not seriously examined. That's too bad, since they do exist.

For example, Singapore has a system of medical savings accounts, where citizens must stash away money for present and future health care needs. Money from such accounts is used as a deductible when illness strikes, and a combination of private and public insurance serves as a guard against bankruptcy due to a catastrophic illness. Besides providing an incentive not to abuse the system, such individual accounts also ensure that every Singaporean will receive decent health care, since every person puts aside money for that specific purpose.

Compare that to Canada, which funds present health care needs through current tax dollars. That's fine as long the average age of the population does not rise, but it is rising in Canada. And because 68 percent of health care costs happen after age 65, health care costs will rise dramatically over the next three decades as the percentage of the population that requires health care grows.

Figuring out the 'right' amount to spend, how, and where to spend it, is answerable only by giving Canadians choices, i.e. - a combination of public and private insurance, internal competition among providers, and perhaps medical savings accounts to provide for looming demographic shifts.

Some of those changes require amendments to the Canada Health Act, though not to the pillar of universal health care. On the issue of private care, Canadians must have the fundamental right to spend their after-tax dollars where they see fit respected. And as long as user fees are not introduced, Alberta need not battle Ottawa one inch to let Albertans spend their after-tax money here on extra private healthcare instead of flying south for treatment. Besides, money now routed to the United States could instead be spent in Alberta in a flourishing, choice-based health care system.

Open minds and true health care choices were mostly absent at the Health Summit. One hopes that is not the case around the provincial cabinet table.