Rovik

Hi there. Just to let you know, this forum tends to be dominated by right wing Conservative supporters so take many of the posts with a grain of salt. Look at the issues and decide which party fits you the best. Be careful of the promises each party makes and do some research.

People here range from one political end of the spectrum to another and naturally will have different views on different policies but to tell someone "to bite me" is pretty low. I disagree with many on the forum but I won't put them down in such a way even in the guise of humour. I respect anyone here who have their views even if they have completely different from my own and I hope the reverse is true as well.

Yes, and it has happened under the Liberal's watch though they try to say that they are staunch defenders of public healthcare. Hospitals will push for the highest price they can get...it's often about the money and the greed that is the result of it...pure and simple. For example, it's a common practice for dental clinics to charge more to patients with insurance (insurance companies pay for it and may even charge higher premiums to recoup some of the money) than if the patient paid directly with cash.

Precisely, provided that fee charged by the private clinic met the fee list of the provincial health insurance scheme.Few if anyone buys health services the way they buy milk or eggs. Health servicves are almost always bought through an insurance scheme. In the US, these schemes are private. In Canada, we have managed to create provincial government schemes that offer universal coverage. Who actually provides the health service is another story completely. I believe almost all abortion clinics in Canada are private for-profit. To my knowledge, and I suspect for obvious reasons, there is no problem with waiting lists. What happens if the fee charged by the private clinic is higher than the fee list of the provinical health insurance schemes. Well than, it would be only the affluent who would be able to afford it. Here's quotes from the NDP web site that can expain the danger better than I can "Studies show that American-style private health care leads to more deaths, costs more money and reduces accessibility. European-style private care that substitutes for publicly provided services is used by less than 20% of people in Germany, Sweden and other European Union countries, and includes prohibitions against doctors working in both systems. And privatization does not even save governments money. In the United States, the private delivery model is so expensive that the governments there spend more per capita providing health care than do the governments in Canada – while leaving many Americans outside of hospital doors looking in. It’s creeping privatization. And the Liberals have stood back and allowed it to happen. In some cases, Liberals have helped it happen. It’s now at the point where far too many Canadians are going without treatment rather than pay from their own pocket. According to a 2004 survey conducted in five countries, 17% of Canadian respondents said they had gone without the care they needed in the previous year because of cost. An unfortunate and regrettable Supreme Court ruling has upped the stakes on this issue dramatically. In the wake of that decision, several provinces have put the federal government on notice that they intend to set Canada’s public, singlepayer health system aside and open the door to parallel, private, for-profit systems designed to permit a few to buy their way to head of the line. The federal Liberal government has yet to respond to this decision, which many feel is the most direct assault on public health care yet. " Here's the link to the whole article. Link

So you are telling me that if I needed a hip replacement, and would have to wait 14 months at a public hospital but at the same time, there was a private clinic nearby that did the same thing but charged $10000 for the operation and I could get it done in 2 weeks, I could go to the private clinic and get the govt to pay for the operation??? Is this what Harper and Klein are proposing?

The issue with private clinics are the ones in which the government doesn't pay on your behalf but you pay out of your own pockets such as the one tht Paul Martin goes to. The Quebec govt. doesn't pay the clinic for services rendered, it comes out of Paul Martin's own pocket and it's not cheap. Anyone in Ontario can go to the clinic that Leyton went to because it's covered under Ontario's healthcare system but this is not the case with clinics like the one Paul Martin use and the fear is that there will be much more clinics opening like this (and they are) and they will be raiding the public system for the best doctors because they can pay doctors more. Therefore, you would have a two-tier system. One in which richer people can go to these private clinics and pay for the higher-quality services, while everyone else (who can't afford the fees) will using the public healthcare and often with longer wait times and lower quality service.

SO when the CPCs say that some economic group backs up their budget numbers, I shouldn't believe that as well, yet many Conservative supporters do just that. Perhaps they should heed your advice as well. I believe the reporter noted this for its irony and you must admit it is interesting how things have turned out 15 years later.

Why would the CTV say this in their news article unless it was true. Unless you are suggesting that the CTV article is lying in this regard.

Many people, even economists believe the GST cut is worst than the income tax cut. Click the link for more info Link A GST cut would have very little impact on a low incomer. Here's an interesting quote from the article about GST..."It's a political back flip for both. The Conservatives, whose predecessors imposed the GST over political and public anger in 1991, now want to cut it. The Liberals, who in 1993 promised to eliminate the GST, now defend it." I didn't say the CPC was bad, I think they're wrong and I'm more concerned about the social conservatives than the fiscal conservatives. I'm more concerned about the fact that Harper will revisit the SSM decision and the influence of the religious right (the Stockwell Days and the like) on Conservative's policy making. Fiscally, the CPCs and the Liberals are pretty close and not all of their fiscal policies are bad. What do you mean voters like me? I'm think the Liberal ads are wrong and will backfire on them. I don't intend to let them scare me from changing my vote. And I agree with you, the Liberals are arrogant. I think you have me mistakenly pegged me as a Liberal supporter but I'm not and therefore am not part of the "small, and shrinking minority." as you say I am.

Not a flip-flop, a simple typo. Are you saying "The Conservatives say despite just finding out about the charges, they will stand by their man and won't pull him out of the race." (-quote from CTV news story) was a typo as well????? If it was, it was quite the typo

Perhaps a better analogy would be Harper having his hands in a low incomer's pocket, taking the money and than putting the money into a pocket of a corporate CEO. He's going to raise low incomers' tax rate and wants to decrease corporate taxes.

Thanks for pointing out the typo I had made. Wouldn't want people to think I was taking about ethnics when I really meant ethics...good thing I'm not a candidate, just imagine the scandal that typo might have produced

Going by the initial media story, the Conservatives did say they were standing by him, looks like they have changed their minds, they flip-flopped on their original stand on the candidate. Basically, Harper knew he had no other option but to flip-flop, for he knew that if they didn't, many people would question them on ethnics just as the Conservatives questioned the ethnics of the Liberals (which I agree is questionable and shakey at best.)

The difference is this; Robinson paid for his crime as by the court's orders and hasn't be trying to hide that fact. This guy has been hiding this info and by that alone seems very suspicious. The Conservatives won't be pulling him out going by what the article sasy. Quote from CTV article, "The Conservatives say despite just finding out about the charges, they will stand by their man and won't pull him out of the race."

You're right, a person is innocent until proven guilty but what would make me mad (if I was Harper) was the fact that this guy hide the information from everyone, knowing full well the chaos it would create if the guy did win and was found guilty. Harper, by doing nothing, could be seen as condoning the candidate's actions and it may lose him many votes because of it.

BC Conservative candidate Derek Zeisman (running in the British Columbia Southern Interior riding) has been charged with smuggling but kept this secret, even to his own party. Click the link to the CTV for details. Link And it seems that Harper is standing by him. I wonder what Conservative supporters, who were quick to pounce on Layton's handling of Svend Robinson, have to say about this??? Anyhow, it looks like a NDP pickup here as they were running neck and neck with the Conservatives (in the riding) before this news broke.

Hmmmm...an overzealous Liberal I see. The NDP is pushing mandatory sentences only with gun crimes not all crime, that's quite a distinction so I can't see them losing many too the Liberals and in fact, the NDP could gain some soft Conservative support (who would never vote for the corrupt Liberals) with this stance.

I don't think the Conservatives will win any seats in Quebec. They will end up getting more votes but at the expense of the Liberals and perhaps even helping the BQ win a couple more seats.

I have to admit, these are especially NEGATIVE ads and there are three possible scenarios (in my opinion): 1. Voters will be pissed at Liberals for their extreme negativity and will gravitate toward either the NDP or the Conservatives. 2. The ads will scare voters away from the Conservatives and will gravitate toward either the NDP or Liberals. 3. Voters will not like how the Liberals have gone so negative but at the same time will second guess Harper and his Conservatives and gravitate toward the NDP. That's my take, I'm hoping for option #3 but who knows what will happen.

It seems no one could or would answer my original question if 100% of the donors were listed anywhere for Harper's leadership cmapaign. Well it seems they weren't and some not listed include major donors. I looked for this info and found it on the Liberal site and as much as I loathe to post any link to the Liberal site, in this case I will because it answers my question. Link

Only if the undisclosed donors are signficant. We don't really need to know about everyone who donated $25 to his campaign. Well, quoted from the cbc article was this "...But Conservatives promised a final tally would be published in December, and would show more of the same.... " So did this happen...yes or no?...and if it didn't. why wasn't it?

The CBC link mentions that not all donors were disclosed. Did they disclose all (100%) of the donors after? And if not, than Harper told a half-lie.

My take: Martin anxious Harper evasive Leyton focused Duceppe cantankerous

The Conservatives would reverse the tax cut given to low income earners this year. Yet, they are pushing for corporate tax cuts. Two things here. First, it's funny how they are keeping this under wraps and not bringing it up in the campaign and secondly, it seems that the Conservatives would rather give tax cuts to corporations rather than low income earners. Would this be a taste of things to come if they came into power. Scary..... Here's a link to the story: Link

True that is what equalization is for, but with the current formulas there is still not enough money for provinces like Newfoundland to match the healthcare systems of Alberta and that includes matching doctors' and other health professionals' salaries in both provinces. This is too prevent doctors from leaving the poorer provinces for better money in the richer provinces creating doctor shortages. Equalization must be increased for this too happen. The federal govt., when it gives out money to the provinces for healthcare, must get a promise from the different provinces that the money will indeed go the healthcare and not used as a slush fund for whatever the provincial govt deems the money should go towards. This to me would be almost a pseudo-standard.