JerrySeinfeld

I think you read into my post things that were not there!!! I did not say one word about there being anything wrong with Harper spending time with his son! I think it is great he is spending time with his son. It would even be greater if he would take his son to the parade if just for an hour to show him there are people that are different than his father. Then let the kid decide in later life if he wants to be a bigot like his father and treat people different because of it. Or he just might not become a bigot and be more accepting of people and not condemn them just because they have different views!! HELLO! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Stephen Harper's son is 7 years old. Would you start giving your child education about gey sex at age 7? HELLO???!!! Another Liberal governement policy is born....I can see it now <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sure would if it helped stop him being a bigot!!!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Harper isn't a bigot.

BBC Fast Company(?) Center for Bioethics Ohio State University <{POST_SNAPBACK}> These don't surprise me as I believe I stated earlier in this thread: women TEND (not always) to seek out more balance in their careers whereas men TEND to be more driven in their jobs at the expense of other areas of their lives. I stress the word TEND as in generally -- there are always exceptions.

I think you read into my post things that were not there!!! I did not say one word about there being anything wrong with Harper spending time with his son! I think it is great he is spending time with his son. It would even be greater if he would take his son to the parade if just for an hour to show him there are people that are different than his father. Then let the kid decide in later life if he wants to be a bigot like his father and treat people different because of it. Or he just might not become a bigot and be more accepting of people and not condemn them just because they have different views!! HELLO! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Stephen Harper's son is 7 years old. Would you start giving your child education about gey sex at age 7? HELLO???!!! Another Liberal governement policy is born....I can see it now

Do you know what a straw man argument is? It is a logical fallacy and you just committed it big time. The idea is, you build up somebody else's position (usually making it sound really weak) then tear it back down and criticize the very position that you yourself created and ASSUMED was held by your adversary. None of what you have said about Harper is true, it's only what you SUPPOSE. And being a lefty, your supposition about his intentions is almost certainly biased. Nice try. Only a lefty would get angry at a father for hanging with his son instead of going to a parade. HaHAHAAAAHAHAHA! Look at this piece of idiocy or mendacity. Jerry gives a pedantic (and manque) rant on strawmen, then turns right around and does a blindingly obvious one of his own. Jerry, did you not NOTICE Netherland's very first sentence, or did you not CARE that your reply was completely misplaced? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sweal, your negativity has surpassed being merely a little bit annoying and moved on to being simply boring and tiresome. Get back to me when you have a point. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Missed that one too? My point is that your technique is sleazy and your content is wrong. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My point is that only a lefty could find a way to fault a man for spending time with his own son. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But who did that? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Look back, Harper was called "Pathetic" for hanging out with his son. Also in one of the first posts a Layton supporter suggested Harper is a "@%^@$(&*" for hanging out with his son instead of going to a parade.

Which means nothing in isolation. If we are getting value for our money, doesn't it make sense to pay these taxes? I certainly concede that a discussion of whether we are getting value for our money is worthwhile, but it seems to me that conservatives approach that question, if at all, with preset conclusions in their minds. 1-We all know that federal and provincial taxes pay for much more than health care alone. 2-Maybe we do have the best health care system in the world. Do you want to have a serious discussion on that? Obviously your hospital is poorly adminstered, or your provincial government is not overseeing them properly, or nurses don't care about people anymore, or the doctor on duty was drunk, or the federal government is not transfering enough money for health care, or you needed complex treatment which required planning and thought, or ... You could be perfectly right. It does not address the problems inherent in two-tier care. 1-It would not mean more supply, it would mean re-directed supply. 2-A couple of hundred dollars a month for every Canadian would be about $72 billion a year. In 2001, at an estimated 9% GDP the cost of healthcare under the current system amounted to about $85 billion. cite By these figures you in effect suggest that market discipline could produce a savings of 13billion per year. (Or alternatively you don't suggest that and simply want better care for yourself.) Obviously, I would doubt such saving are to be found, but let's leave that aside for the moment. What if the government stopped paying for or managing health care and just bought a $2400 policy for every Canadian each year? Would that suit you? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You are looking at everything from a governemtn perspective. It's much MUCH more complex than that. First of all, Supply could easily increase under a private system. Firms could enter or exit the parket any time they want depending upon whether they believe they're model would be profitable. Right now governments apportion tax dollars to hospitals and that sets the supply. So first of all, as demand for services increases or decreases, the free market would adjust supply accordingly insetad of counting on a major health authority to try to predict and react to various market conditions and changes (which is probably why I ended up waiting for 6 hours). Also, private care would be in a competitive environment. I am not only a patient, I am a paying customer. As a result, providing me with the type of shoddy care I recieved form the PUBLIC hospital could cost the private clinic customers and business. Therefore the treatment would be pleasant and forthcoming, instead of delayed and rude (our current system). As well, you need to realize that exploring alternatives means private provision in either the INSURANCE aspect of health care, or the PROVIDER aspect. There could also be some kind of combination. So simply buying a policy for everyone would be trying to fix a complex problem with a blunt instrument (or like trying to do surgery with a jackhammer). That's what's wrong with government programs to begin with. Garbage in-Garbage out. If you start with a simple (incorrect) premise that everyone has the same medical insurance needs, you will come out with a poor system that doesn't serve the community properly and people end up strapped to spinal boards for hours. Many people may not want to buy full coverage. Like auto insurance, alot of people buy PLPD. SOme people are willing to take on a larger deductible. IE. If a wealthy person has loads of cash on hand, he may be willing to risk having to write a big cheque if it will cut his premiums in half. Again, it's far far more complex than a government mind could every consider, which is why the government shouldn't be doing it all, which is why people in this country end up lying in hallways in pain waiting for treatment like they did in communist russia.

Not bad.

I am trying to stick tot the issue here so won't dignify that last part with an answer.

Do you know what a straw man argument is? It is a logical fallacy and you just committed it big time. The idea is, you build up somebody else's position (usually making it sound really weak) then tear it back down and criticize the very position that you yourself created and ASSUMED was held by your adversary. None of what you have said about Harper is true, it's only what you SUPPOSE. And being a lefty, your supposition about his intentions is almost certainly biased. Nice try. Only a lefty would get angry at a father for hanging with his son instead of going to a parade. HaHAHAAAAHAHAHA! Look at this piece of idiocy or mendacity. Jerry gives a pedantic (and manque) rant on strawmen, then turns right around and does a blindingly obvious one of his own. Jerry, did you not NOTICE Netherland's very first sentence, or did you not CARE that your reply was completely misplaced? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sweal, your negativity has surpassed being merely a little bit annoying and moved on to being simply boring and tiresome. Get back to me when you have a point. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Missed that one too? My point is that your technique is sleazy and your content is wrong. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My point is that only a lefty could find a way to fault a man for spending time with his own son.

Thousands every month for health care? You're not credible. Your aspersion there is disingenuous. He chose it from experience, not 'conveniently'. Why can't you debate fairly, I wonder? Ideology probably. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I pay thousands every month in taxes retard. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What's with the insults here. I want an apology. You SAID you paid for health care. NOW you say you meant taxes. Am I supposed to think you mean what you say, or am I supposed to make up for myself what you mean? Or maybe your viciousness comes from being caught on your sleazy spin? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sorry. In this country we pay close to half of our income to our government. HALF!!! For some of us this means several thousand dollars EVERY MONTH. We are told by our government that this is well worth it because we have the best health care system in the world. My point is this: My government assures me that our system is the best and it justifies the thousands I pay in taxes every month, yet I get in a serious car accident and spend over 6 hours strapped to a spinal board waiting for treatment in the local hospital ER (YES I live in a big city). To me that is an unacceptible situation for a potentially very serious injury. Personally I'd rather have lower taxes, have a market healthcare system which would mean more supply and pay for my own health insurance to the tune of a couple of hundred dollars a month (at most) and get into the ER right away. Cheers.

Welfare is not Robin Hood. Since we live in a democracy, taxation is not theft. The policing distinction fails because welfare is exactly an effort by government to provide a value which would be underprovided by the market. I.e. food and shelter to the impoverished. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I suppose I have no problem with the government confiscating a little bit of my money so that poor people get by and for essential services. Many people would rather make their own choices about where their money is spent. So Rather than paying a big chunk of their incomes into a pool and letting the government decide where it gets spent, they'd rather do it themselves on most fronts. Most industrialized societies DO agree on some services they'd rather not deal with on an individual basis: policing, water treatment, sewage, roads... I don't mind some governement intervention for some services but I suppose each society has a value system determine what they consider "essential" and how important equality is. Personally I think equality is a crock. People aren't equal, nor should they recieve equal $$$ if their contribution doesn't warrant it. Class is GODD, not bad. The question for Canadians is: what level of intervention do we accept.

Do you know what a straw man argument is? It is a logical fallacy and you just committed it big time. The idea is, you build up somebody else's position (usually making it sound really weak) then tear it back down and criticize the very position that you yourself created and ASSUMED was held by your adversary. None of what you have said about Harper is true, it's only what you SUPPOSE. And being a lefty, your supposition about his intentions is almost certainly biased. Nice try. Only a lefty would get angry at a father for hanging with his son instead of going to a parade. HaHAHAAAAHAHAHA! Look at this piece of idiocy or mendacity. Jerry gives a pedantic (and manque) rant on strawmen, then turns right around and does a blindingly obvious one of his own. Jerry, did you not NOTICE Netherland's very first sentence, or did you not CARE that your reply was completely misplaced? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sweal, your negativity has surpassed being merely a little bit annoying and moved on to being simply boring and tiresome. Get back to me when you have a point.

Perfect post, Kimmy. The Libs (or the LEFT, anyway) will find a way to demonize Harper no matter what he does, which makes any argument they make about him questionable at best.

Thousands every month for health care? You're not credible. Your aspersion there is disingenuous. He chose it from experience, not 'conveniently'. Why can't you debate fairly, I wonder? Ideology probably. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I pay thousands every month in taxes retard.

I keep asking for evidence and you guys come back with rhetoric, suppositions and anecdotes. And yes, the SCC clearly ....I repeat: CLEARLy states in it's ruling that, despite attempt after attempt, witness after witness brought forth by the government there was no evidence to suggest that the private system would harm the public system. DO I HAVE to cut and paste it for you again? BTW the ruling is "flawed" in your opinion- unfortunately for the lefties, you are not a supreme court justice.

They probably never polled those folks who are bankrupt from medical bills. They may not be dying in the streets, but they're paying dearly for medical care. Not everyone has insurance down there, and the many that do still pay plenty over and above what their insurance covers for basic medical care. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not true, not true and not true. You lefties need to quit reciting Liberal attack campaigns and stick to the facts. I spend a lot of time in the US and love to engage taxi drivers about the "evils" of their system. Many of these fellows have no health insurance and simply go to the county hospital for treatment and have nad no problem with that. Insurance is a matter of choice in the US and many choose not to buy it. Secondly, most people in the US don't even PAY there own insurance premiums; their employers do. But I am no longer going to debate this because I am not in favor of the US system. My main point is that Canada's needs some serious improvement. As a country the costs of medicare are quickly rising as the population ages. That combined with a much smaller tax base as the boomers retire and we are in for a serious crisis. We basically have two choices: increase the tax rate to pay for this upcoming bubble (no thanks) or explore innovative ways to provide health care into the future ;; like private ones. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I wasn't lying in my original post and I object to your insinuation. I have family down there and they pay dearly for medical costs OVER AND ABOVE THEIR INSURANCE. Do you honestly think that there isn't anyone who has gone bankrupt over medical costs? Believe what you want to I guess. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There are serious problems in the US system which is why I don't favor copying it. I have family in the US too, in fact my brother is a surgeon down there. He and three of his colleagues perform "pro-bono" procedures routinely of the patient can't pay. The other ONE surgeon of this type (in the city) does not. My point is that it's just a myth that the US system is a nightmare.

You miss the point. Private care is about IMPROVING the syetm. Why is it so hard for people to accept that. Look back at the original poll question. Those obsessed with "fairness" or "equality" are doing so at the expense of this child's health. Who cares if someone else gets quicker treament in a private system? It ultimately makes the line shorter for the welfare mom's child. Ultimately isn't it more important to get this kid onto the operating table as soon as possible? Yet the lefties would rather see the welfare mom's child suffer extensively in the name of "fairness".

It's quite common knowledge that the WHO is left leaning when it comes to policy. Where you been? As far as Ideology: you just can't handle the idea that someone as non-ideological as myself might actually see some merit in (OH MY GOD) some privatization. The fact that you loathe the word so much is telling, whereas I am simply open minded to the concept without shutting my eyes (YOU). And the Supreme Court agrees with me. The court clearly states in its ruling that there is no empirical evidence that suggests a paralell private system would hurt the public system in ANY WAY.

Well I live in Canada. And I pay the government thousands every month for a system that made me wait FOR OVER 6 HOURS in the emergency room strapped to a spinal board waiting for xrays and ct scan on my head and neck. What a disgrace. You have conveniently chosen an anecdotal example of the worst health care system in all of europe. BTW I'm not sure about UK, but most employers pay their employees premiums in the USA.

Well I live in Canada. And I pay the government thousands every month for a system that made me wait in the emergency room strapped to a spinal board waiting for xrays and ct scan on my head and neck. What a disgrace. You have conveniently chosen an anecdotal example of the worst health care system in all of europe. BTW I'm not sure about UK, but most employers pay their employees premiums in the USA.

You're forgetting that hte single mom making minimum wage is getting a welfare cheque from the government, not to mention publicly funded foodstamps (health insurance) to help her buy groceries. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Which is still not enough for her to afford the surcharge all the cashiers are now charging (although I'd like to know how she can have a job and get a welfare cheque at the same time?) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What the heck? You guys kill me. You really do buy into all that hocus pocus don't you. oooooh the evils of private care. Never mind we're the only industrialized country left not accepting it. Even Sweden has private elements. I swear the Libs and their attack ads sure have you fooled. You haven't provided any evidence for this. And the Supreme Court agrees with me: that there has been no empirical evidence brought forth that suggests the public system would be harmed in ANY WAY by a parallel private system.

Do you know what a straw man argument is? It is a logical fallacy and you just committed it big time. The idea is, you build up somebody else's position (usually making it sound really weak) then tear it back down and criticize the very position that you yourself created and ASSUMED was held by your adversary. None of what you have said about Harper is true, it's only what you SUPPOSE. And being a lefty, your supposition about his intentions is almost certainly biased. Nice try. Only a lefty would get angry at a father for hanging with his son instead of going to a parade.

See now THAT is something I could get on side with. People buy their own private insurance but after a meanstest if they can't afford it, it would be guaranteed by the government.

Nope. You missed it. First of all, there is nothing to say that doctor's fees would be any higher in a private hospital. The 10% surcharge is meant to represnt someone paying the fee out of their own (or through the use of private insurance). It doesn't mean the fee is actually higher. So tell me, where is the benefit in a doctor going to work for a private clinic if his fee is the same at a public one? Also, your example doesn't hold water as it has not been the experience in the many european countries that have parallel private systems. Never mind the fact that it is completely baseless and relying on massive assumptions. Which is exactly why theSupreme Court refuse to accept those very same scare tactics as valid arguments.

Rarely have a point? What pathetic bullshit. Grow up and stop lying to bolster your ego in the face of your lack of reasoning ability. Your simple example is stupid. Either you lack the education and intelligence to see that it is a reductionist farce, or you know it is, but see fit to excrete it anyway. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I am sure there is a POINT related to this discussion somewhere in there. Stick to the issues Sweal. Emotion might work in a Liberal negative campaign tactic but doesn't carry any weight in a political discussion forum.

What does make him a bastard is using his children publicly to improve his image. It borders on exploitation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What the heck are you talking about? What color is the sky in your world?