JerrySeinfeld

For no reason should the public system ever be cancelled, let's make that perfectly clear right now. As a moral and responsible nation critical care for citizens should be provided for us. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree.

Careful now, the Liberal fearmongers would have you believe that the cashier from the first line is going to close his/her checkout and all we're going to be left with is two registers charging a 10% surcharge. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually even in that scenario there would still be way more registers open (more than one private provider and insurer) and they would be competing against eachother squeezing that 10% charge down. But there is no way the government is going to abandon the public system. That's a "slippery slope" logical fallacy. Think about it: if the people of Canada today are in fear that even a small amount of private is evil, what makes you think we're all gonna wake up one day and say "to hell with it, let's cancel the public system"

Oh yah. But a poll based on the idea that everybody gets treated like billionaires is super-realistic, right? Are you the only guy allowed to post hypotheticals around here? You said that if people didn't like your crappy poll, they should go post their own, but Jerry does so and you have a hissy-fit. -k <{POST_SNAPBACK}> We need more votes here. SO far there is a clear winner. Kimmy does it again! Sweal rarely has a point other than trying to quash debate by saying anything other than HIS ideas are ridiculous. Let me explain with a simple analogy so Sweal can get in on this debate with the rest of us. There is a line up to buy groceries. there are 10 people waiting. Now, another check-out person opens up a till and says: "I can help someone over here but there is a 10% surcharge". Three people jump over to that line because they don't mind paying the extra 10%. Now the old line only has 7 people in it. THAT is what we're talking about here, Sweal. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Socialism: 1. A system designed for people who would rather be miserable but equal. 2. What you vote for if you're on the bottom income tier. 3. A system obsessed with money money and money. If something isn't right, raise tax and throw more money at it.

Imagine the nerve! Spending time with his SON!!!!! WHat a bastard! That's what this country has come to? A man spends Sunday with his son and Jumpin' Jack Flash and the rest of the left is appaled!!!

Citing a WHO report is like refrring to Romanow and expecting objectivity. Ain't gonna happen. They're both lefty groups. Now if you'd stop rewriting your diploma exam on ideology and the evils of capitalism and snap back to reality you'd see that our system is in serious disrepair at the hands of the sitting prime minister and we need some non-ideological minds to fix it for good.

Huh? you think that's what I am suggesting? Let me be clearer: The government of Quebec has the resources to make a STELLAR case in defending the public system and still couldn't convince the court. Again I say it: ONE man with a hip problem single handedly brought down the myth that private care is evil and there isn't a darn thing the lefties can do about it. Just get used to it, folks: The health care system in the country is about to get alot better no matter how hard you try to keep it in it's miserable state.

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.

Those rankings are incredibly biased by the way. And actually it is People in Canada, Eureka, who have been educated from the cradle to fear the nightmare of "Privatization." You really need to get some perspective. Other than regurgitating Liberal campagn ads I'd prefer to hear actual facts. Our system of rationing and lineups is pathetically similar to the grocery stores in soviet russia.

The racism practised in the US is much more overt than it is in Canada. Generally I would say that about many things in the US. Americans tend to be very open about things Canadians wouldn't discuss in public. It doesn't make it right (of course), but it DOES allow for upfront communication about touchy issues. Canada has racism all over the place, but as a country we like to have a reputation of being tolerant and inclusive so we bury our hatred deep deep down where the rest of the world can't see it. I would argue that aboriginal people in this country have been treated almost as badly as african americans have been treated in the US. And the marginalization continues. Everyone has heard people in this country make terrible jokes about drunk indians etc. It's just under our breath. In the southern US the hatred is there but it's more apparent due to their history. I read an article written by a journalist from the LA times who was one of only two journlists covering that mississipi murder trial way back in the sixties. Her basic point was that the south has changed dramatically from back then. Sure, there is still some racism, but it's far far far less than a few decades ago. Perhaps this swift improvement comes from the more candid dialogue they have about this issue in the US. In Canada, our racism just continues to fester under the surface and everyone pretends its not there.

I actually saw it later after reflecting on what you'd said, but frankly I was distracted by the black Jewish midget homosexuals. On Kim Campbell, I believe she's returned to academia, hasn't she? On resistance to female leaders: I once read a theory that we spend all our childhoods rebelling against our mothers-- "Kimmy, stop banging those pots together." "Kimmy, you take the garden-hose out of your little brother's mouth right now." "Kimmy, it's bedtime." "Kimmy, turn off that god-awful racket." "Kimmy, you be home by 10:00 or you're grounded." "Kimmy, you are NOT going to school dressed like that." Our mothers are our first authority figures when we're small children, they were the ones who set boundaries for us, and pushing against those boundaries is something we do as we grow up. And when we're adults and some other woman in a position of authority is trying to assert authority over us, it reminds us of our mothers setting boundaries or giving orders... and we find ourselves pushing against their authority, as we did when we were growing up. It's a theory I read once. I don't know if there's anything to it. But I do recall reading that both men and women respond less favorably to female leaders than male leaders. I dunno. -k <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "Banging those pots together"? lol you are a classic Kimmy. I don't agree with that theory, though. Fathers do the same thing. In fact, I read another theory that is completely the opposite of that -- that being that men in couple situations tend to apologize more during disputes than women do because little boys are always taught boundaries whereas little girls are encouraged more. So girls grow up to be women with a much more confident sense that what they are doing is right, whereas boys grow up into men that tend to question whether or not what they are doing is right because they've always been told "stop doing that!!...behave yourself!!!" Blah blah this is way off topic.

All this mythology about people "dying on gurneys due to lack of coverage" bullshit about private care is absurd. The US with it's private system: it's against the law not to treat someone even if they don't have coverage. If someone shows up and needs care with no coverage, a private hospital will treat them until they are stabilized, then move them to another public hospital that will take them. This is the WORST case scenario. You know, it's funny when Americans are polled on whether they'd like to keep their current system or have a universal system like ours, they overwhelmingly support keeping their current system. Now if that system is such a nightmare, then why would this be the case? Not that's I'd like to mirror their system, but this mythology about people dying in the streets because of private care are a load of crap. If anything, people under our current system are dying on waiting lists.

Your entire pots is left wing rhetoric propaganda. You haven't cited any evidence which is why the Supreme Court of Canada shot down those very same claims. Are you aware the government with all of it's resources, legal power couldn't convince the Supreme Court that a parallel private system would harm the public system in any way? ONE man with a hip problem was able to topple the entire facade of public care and the government couldn't stop it. This to me is telling about how ridiculous your argument is.

What colour is the sky in your world? Did you see the Liberal attack ads last election? "EITHER vote for us OR you will end up with a terrible, american style health care system." MY either/or is logical. EITHER we have some degree of private insurance OR we don't. It's a fair question.

Oh yah. But a poll based on the idea that everybody gets treated like billionaires is super-realistic, right? Are you the only guy allowed to post hypotheticals around here? You said that if people didn't like your crappy poll, they should go post their own, but Jerry does so and you have a hissy-fit. -k <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Kimmy does it again! Sweal rarely has a point other than trying to quash debate by saying anything other than HIS ideas are ridiculous. Let me explain with a simple analogy so Sweal can get in on this debate with the rest of us. There is a line up to buy groceries. there are 10 people waiting. Now, another check-out person opens up a till and says: "I can help someone over here but there is a 10% surcharge". Three people jump over to that line because they don't mind paying the extra 10%. Now the old line only has 7 people in it. THAT is what we're talking about here, Sweal.

BOO-YAH! -k <{POST_SNAPBACK}> lol.....you ROCK kimmy! going out to a sweet Alberta bar to celebrate out centential talk soon peeps...

There you go again. How do you get "prime healthcare" out of the question you asked? As I keep saying-- your preference for "Option B" and condemnation of "Option A" is based on the assumption that "Option B" provides awesome healthcare for your kids and "Option A" provides shitty healthcare for your kids. If that's what you actually wanted to ask, then why didn't you ask "Do you want awesome healthcare for your kids, or shitty healthcare for your kids?" if it was your intention to determine whether people want awesome healthcare or shitty healthcare? And what have the rich got to do with either? And reading the question, why would anybody assume that giving my kids healthcare equal to the healthcare the rich are getting would mean giving my kids better healthcare? Come on! Hello, this is Canada! There's no fucking way that would happen! The only way my kids will get healthcare equal to that which Belinda.ca's kids and Martin's grandkids receive is if Belinda.ca's kids and Martin's grandkids are forced to go through months of waiting-lists too. You'd have to be on crack to think our universal public healthcare will ever be funded enough to treat your kids and my kids like Belinda.ca's kids can get treated if she opens up her checkbook. Instead of daydreaming about that, why don't we just say "fuck it" and go make our own billion dollars? It'd be easier. Spiderman, unless Batman found a way to outfox him. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You just hate Batman because he's a rich, white conservative. Hater. -k <{POST_SNAPBACK}> GO KIMMY! You're hilarious in a good way. Go GIRL!!!!

So which way di dyou vote?

So? Let's hear what people have to say on this.

tru dat.

I am not convinced. Neither is the supreme Court. I have yet to see government do ANYTHING more efficiently than private enterprise. What I DO know is that I live in a country with a public system that is lacking. Let me ask this question. What is more imprtant to YOU: timely delivery of care of equality? I should start a new poll on that very question.

So which is he, honest or pandering? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Touche. Harper should stick to his guns. He's a smart guy with smart politics. I read a really good article about polls. It basically said: YES the Cons are down in the polls, but they are a few mere tweaks away from being just what Canadians want. The SSM thing is off base. Abortion is just a smokescreen from the Libs, it's not a big issue for the Cons. But this whole so-con thing is a smokescreen by the Libs and it's working like a charm. Let's face it. Most Canadians favor lower taxes. I'd bet most Canadians would be OK with some sort of private health if it meant better and quicker treatment. And most Canadians want honest, non-corrupt government officials. Most Canadians want democratic reform, whether it's an elected / equal senate or free votes in parlaiment. These are all things the CPC stands for. Judging by the past year and some, the Libs have mopped the floor with the Cons in terms of spin. But the Cons actually DO have policies that appeal to many many Canadians (depsite what PM would have you believe). And the Libs are winnning the war based upon their attention to very marginal issues like abortoin and SSM. I think if the Cons gave up on these issues,they'd be a much more appealing party than the corrupt, listless Libs.

NICE POST! I was actually doing the math and based upon the 1% assumption, we are probably talking about a few hundred gay marriage ceremonies every year. It IS such a smokescreen. As a small c conservative I'd like to see the CPC drop this issue and start talking about things that matter to Canadians. Health care...taxes...taxes...and yes...TAXES. We pay alot of money every year to this central government. We work hard to take care of the ones we love and close to HALF of our money goes to Ottawa. We'd like to ensure that this money is actually being confiscated for a good reason. My mother is very VERY ill,yet the public system continually asks her to wait for treatment. It makes me sick that people in this country would rather see people die than to comprimise their ideology of equal health care. Harper et al are falling right into the Liberal trap: small time social issue are dominating over the issues sthat really matter.

I can't see where you're going with this example. Do you want people who suffer from illnesses to have to pay exorbitant amounts into medicare? Should someone suffering from cancer have to sell their house to help pay for the treatment? This is one of the worst elements of the American system, and not one I want to immitate.That being said, I find such things as the blanket prescription coverage of all seniors to be something which should be changed. I freely acknowledge the value of paying for seniors' prescriptions given that many of them use so many the cost would be exorbitant. But why is it my uncle (pretty spry and healthy, who has a hell of a lot more money than I do, can go and get a prescription for nothing while I have to pay for mine? Because he's a senior? Oh. Sorry. Doesn't wash. We need some kind of means test which measures a senior's ability to pay against the prescription bills he'd have to pay for. That would save the system untold millions. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're right, we shouldn't have an American system. We should continue to have public coverage as well as private coverage. I pay a minimal amount into public coverage for necessities and my employer (or myself through discretion) should pay a sum into a private plan that suits my lifestyle. People should take more responsibility for their own decisions and actions. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> hear hear!!! I thought you were a lefty eureka?

This is a smal excerpt from the last conference of International Health Care Providers which includes the insurers. It just might help you understand, Jerry, that there is a wealth of empirical evidence to show the deleterious effects of private care. The studies you want are, as I have already written, Romanow, Kirby and Mazankiwski. All three wanted ony one tier with the latter two trying to find an increased role for their corporate friends that was not a parallel system. Besides those, there was a report in the Toronto Star not long ago from, possibly the WHO, though I ma not sure of that. The report stated without equivocation that nowhere that there was a private system along with the public did care not deteriorate in the public system. The European systems that do have private, or two-tier care are all experiencing difficulty in maintaining the public. Britain, for examplem has recently thrown a huge amount of money into the public system to try to make up the loss and the deteriation of their system. You really should be a little more circumspect before you crow. I am told by former debating opponents that crow does not taste very good. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I appreciate the contribution but your personal comments about my debating style are unnecessary. I am willing to accept that private health care alternatives are no panacea; all systems have their drawbacks -- yes even ours. My main contention is that we shouldn't sut down debate on the issue and close our eyes to possibilities that might actually improve ourr system just because we are ideologically opposed to privatization. I could address the issue that the US system is unique due to the litigous nature of that society and the costs that lawsuits bear to the system but I won't go there. I will readily concede that the US system is not something I'd be prepare to copy here in Canada. I'd also point out that the UK system, from what I have read, is the least enviable in Euraope, and that countries like Freance have a much more enviable system (yes -- with a private component) And although the supreme court of Canada has not seen any evidence of it, I will even concede that there is a possibility that the public system could weaken with the introduction of Private insurance. I suppose there is some element of ideology involved here, but my belief is that I am OK with some people getting quicker care than others if it means the average wait times would drop. I think your average poor mother of three cancer victim would be happy to get surgery a couple of months earlier even if she knew some rich SOB from West Van was getting his surgery right away because he's rich. The whole "equal but this bad" mentality isn't for me.