JerrySeinfeld

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}> Argus, I swear it you are the most sensible person on this blog. You are the true definition of the "muddling through conservative" which is what I aspire to. Andrew Coyne comes to mind. The beauty of this type of conservatism is that we take issues one at a time. Drop the ideology...what makes sense is what matters, not where you place yourself on the spectrum. Canadians, more so than americans, tend to be obsessed with ideology. Instead of attacking issues on a logical "what makes sense here" basis,, Canadians tend to look at issues and decide whether or not their ideology agrees or disagrees. Perhaps it's our educational system. I know that in Alberta our Social Studies high school courses teach people about ideology and the diploma exams force students to take a position on "socialism versus capitalism:...maybe that's why people in Canada seem so obsessed with taking sides...just a thought

Three judges of the SCC ruled something like that on the the evidence before them. One: The decision we are discussing did not provide any decision under the Candian Charter. Two: In my opinion the judges who found against the government position made a wrong decision. It happens. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sweal I have a newsflash for you. Courts tend to pass judgement on the EVIDENCE BEFORE THEM. The rub? The entire government of Quebec and all of their witnesses couldn't come up with satisfactory emprirical evidence to prove their ideological claims. It is telling when an entire government with all of it's power and legal teams can't find the evidence to one man and his doctor's desire to get the tr

Hah, well I believe that marriage is as much of a right as is having children. In other words it's up to the governments discression. There is no argument other than religious against gay marriage. Marriage is already a joke with over 50% of marriages ending in divorce, to argue that it would destroy marriage to allow gay marriage is silly. Marriage is defined by the society it is practiced in. Some societies allow for multiple wives or husbands, so what is wrong with a society that allows gay marriage? There is no economic or scientific argument you can make that has any validity against gay marriage. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There doesn't have to be an argument. You touched on it: when or if a society is ready to accept gay marriage, then the laws will reflect that. The question is whether we as a society are prepared to accept it. There is no argument as to why I can't have sex with and marry a pig, but that doesn't mean we are prepared to accept it as a part of our fabric as a society. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Obviously we are or there would be more outrage at the fact that this will likely pass next week, not to mention gay marriage has been allowed in most provinces already by courts decisions. If a majority of people don't have a problem with it then it is acceptable to society. I don't care about traditionalists and religious conservatives who are against gay marriage, they are a minority in Canada. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You don't care about minorities? It may well be that we are ready. But I would've bet the farm it would pass in an OREGON (very lefty) referendum but it didn't. Just because Canadians don't fight it vigorously doens't mean it is accepted. It MIGHT be, but Canadians don't fight very many things vigorously so its not a great test.

Says you, not the courts. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Say the courts. Um...where you been? This is what the entire fabric of the case was about. The reason the government was taken to court was because the patient was dnied the right of life liberty and security of person by being forced to wait over a year in the public system for a hip replacement. Even lower courts which upheld the ban on private care ruled that the law violated the constitution, but upheld the ban anyway to "protect" the public system.

Jerry, seemingly you haven't been here long enough to notice the extesive arguments I make. Anyway, no offence, but I'm not about to change my style now to suit you. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There you did it again...fair enough it's just easier to debate if you quote a bit more of the other person...

Let's be plain here. Stephen Harper, like the Supreme Court of Canada, would prefer more private involvement in Canadian health care. Stephen Harper, like four justices on the Court, understand that the only way to sustain health care for all Canadians into the future is to change our system. Paul Martin believes that he can solve all these problems and help Canada if he gets a majority government. If he lies to get the majority, Paul Martin believes that Canada is better served. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not sure aht the supreme court "prefers". The ruling stated that if the public can acces private care if they can't get timely delivery from the public system. Otherwise I agree with alot of what you said.

Hah, well I believe that marriage is as much of a right as is having children. In other words it's up to the governments discression. There is no argument other than religious against gay marriage. Marriage is already a joke with over 50% of marriages ending in divorce, to argue that it would destroy marriage to allow gay marriage is silly. Marriage is defined by the society it is practiced in. Some societies allow for multiple wives or husbands, so what is wrong with a society that allows gay marriage? There is no economic or scientific argument you can make that has any validity against gay marriage. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There doesn't have to be an argument. You touched on it: when or if a society is ready to accept gay marriage, then the laws will reflect that. The question is whether we as a society are prepared to accept it. There is no argument as to why I can't have sex with and marry a pig, but that doesn't mean we are prepared to accept it as a part of our fabric as a society.

oh ya

To preface my comments: I am a small c conservative. Now: WHAT??!!! Religion is the cause of more deaths in this world than all other factors combined. Religion is causing people to drive planes into buildings and cling to ridiculous dogma about who should and shouldn't be married. Religion should be OUTLAWED!~!

Seinfeld, should the rights of a minority be decided by majority vote? Think what that means.Civilized countries have thought this idea through. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As much a Pauly has tried to make it into one, it is not a human rights issue. Marriage is not a human right, ask Amnesty. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> One organization doesn't have a monopoly on what is or isn't a human right. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Neither do you, gays or Paul Martin. And I'd say Amnesty is certainly more of an authority on it that you, Paul Martin of shacked-up gay people.

In other words, Harper's "new position on health care" is based on the raw expediency of wanting to get elected. If it was not a 'nonstarter', he'd prefer two tier healthcare. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's a straw man logical fallacy: Avoid suppositions and stick to the facts. If that were a strawman it would be a logical fallacy, but it is not a strawman. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You are putting words in Harpers mouth. That is straw man. And by the way!!!!....let me quote you here: "Harper's "new position on health care" is based on the raw expediency of wanting to get elected" What makes this any different from Paul Martin, the dude responsible for slashing health transfers, then campaign under the banner of Canada's champion for medicare? He did it to get elected and it worked. Shame on the voters' short term memories.

Seinfeld, should the rights of a minority be decided by majority vote? Think what that means.Civilized countries have thought this idea through. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As much a Pauly has tried to make it into one, it is not a human rights issue. Marriage is not a human right, ask Amnesty.

One of three judgements says threis no emprical evidence for SOME of the contentions before them. But they cannot change the fact that empirical evidnece was presented. All they can do is reject the evidence. Did you read the "dissenting" opinion? Did you review the material filed in the court? Did you read the decisions of the courts below, and the evidence filed there? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the claims are unfounded and without empirical evidence. What part of that don't you understand? It's amazing that somehow, even when Libs LOSE in court, they still turn it around as if their opinion is the RIGHT one and that no one, not even the Supreme Court of Canada can suggest otherwise. Deal with it Sweal. Private care is coming and we'll all be the better for it. Smile this is a GOOD thing

You mean "as the Martin government is providing". <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Is it a free vote? I wasn't aware. If so, then I am with Martin on this one. See how easy it is to drop your partisan colours and see the world for what it is?

In other words, Harper's "new position on health care" is based on the raw expediency of wanting to get elected. If it was not a 'nonstarter', he'd prefer two tier healthcare. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's a straw man logical fallacy: Avoid suppositions and stick to the facts.

Canada's health system as it exists today is in an unsustainable situation. But that certainly doesn't mean it needs to be gutted. It is NOT somebody elses money. It's OUR money, spent by us, for us, by OUR government. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, it's Alberta's money, being spent by Ontario's government Sweal, you seem pretty sharp, but could I ask you to stop quoting little phrases and then cracking back on them? It makes it hard to understand what you're discussing, plus it might be more constructive to actually MAKE and argument instead of cutting up other people's ALL the time.

Sweal, the REALITY is the lefties can't find any proof for their wild claims that private care will ruin the public system. It's quite comical to see a lefty bash the court, the very same court that they applaud on issues of SSM. Man you lefties take it tough when you lose...

You keep making claims that are at odds with reality. The government brought forth many witnesses who supported its claims with empirical evidence. True, about half the judges weren't convinced by that evidence, but so what? Not in the least. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You obviously haven't read the ruling. The court actually cites the witnesses, their claims and the FACT that no empircal evidence was brought forht to supprt those claims. I beg you, please: show me this famous empirical evidence or direct meto where I can find it??? You're just mad because someone important (the court) finally said what used to be unheard of in this country: there's nothing wrong with private care. Man, that's gonna be a tough slug for Paul Martin and the crew next campaign. Stating things that are completely at odds with reality.

I am pro SSM so I am the wrong one to ask. I am just here for the debate. I luv to question conventional wisdom. More Canadians should do the same. This country's government just continuously railroads things thru and we just take it. We are an annoyingly passive society and I think it's healthy to shake up the debate. Good question, though. The simple answer is that society's laws tend to reflect societal values and as those values change over time, so too the laws will tend to change. It's partly the reason we have a jury system. Many times in history, juries have set case law by refusing to convict someone who has blatantly broken the "law" and hence the law changes. Some societies see polygamy as normal. And their laws reflect that. The change in laws is a very gradual process that happens over time as values change. The question before us is this: "Are we ready to accept same sex unions as marriages". The right thing to do is have a free vote on this issue in parlaiment, as Stephen Harper is demanding. Presumably the house members will vote to represent their constituents and we will once and for all have the answer as to whether we are ready as a society to do what only two other countries on the globe have done.

I can tell you my tax freedom day falls alot later than April 30. ,Who cares about the "average". We should all look at our own situations and determine if we are getting value for the high taxes we pay. I know for a fact that I'd rather pay $50-300 / month for health insurance and recieve immediate treatment than send thousands to Ottawa for our shoddy line-up health care system.

I think you misunderstand the basis of my objection. I'm well aware of the decision. It just does not amount to what you claimed about it. First, it is not a 'clear ruling', as the court split 3 to 3 to 1. The passage you quoted is a decision of at most 3 judges. Second, the court is incapable of making a finding that it would not hurt he public system. The furthest the court can go is to say that the evidence before them in the case does not establish the harm. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, evidence brought forth by: Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of New Brunswick, Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Augustin Roy, Senator Michael Kirby, Senator Marjory Lebreton, Senator Catherine Callbeck, Senator Joan Cook, Senator Jane Cordy, Senator Joyce Fairbairn, Senator Wilbert Keon, Senator Lucie Pépin, Senator Brenda Robertson and Senator Douglas Roche, Canadian Medical Association and Canadian Orthopaedic Association, Canadian Labour Congress, Charter Committee on Poverty Issues and Canadian Health Coalition, Cambie Surgeries Corp., False Creek Surgical Centre Inc., Delbrook Surgical Centre Inc., Okanagan Plastic Surgery Centre Inc., Specialty MRI Clinics Inc., Fraser Valley MRI Ltd., Image One MRI Clinic Inc., McCallum Surgical Centre Ltd., 4111044 Canada Inc., South Fraser Surgical Centre Inc., Victoria Surgery Ltd., Kamloops Surgery Centre Ltd., Valley Cosmetic Surgery Associates Inc., Surgical Centres Inc., British Columbia Orthopaedic Association and British Columbia Anesthesiologists Society And by the way that's exactly my point you raised: The government couldn't find one witness to support it's claim with empirical eveidence. BTW SWEAL you seem pretty sharp, I'd have thought it above you to nitpick. Yes, evidence brought forth by: Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of New Brunswick, Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Augustin Roy, Senator Michael Kirby, Senator Marjory Lebreton, Senator Catherine Callbeck, Senator Joan Cook, Senator Jane Cordy, Senator Joyce Fairbairn, Senator Wilbert Keon, Senator Lucie Pépin, Senator Brenda Robertson and Senator Douglas Roche, Canadian Medical Association and Canadian Orthopaedic Association, Canadian Labour Congress, Charter Committee on Poverty Issues and Canadian Health Coalition, Cambie Surgeries Corp., False Creek Surgical Centre Inc., Delbrook Surgical Centre Inc., Okanagan Plastic Surgery Centre Inc., Specialty MRI Clinics Inc., Fraser Valley MRI Ltd., Image One MRI Clinic Inc., McCallum Surgical Centre Ltd., 4111044 Canada Inc., South Fraser Surgical Centre Inc., Victoria Surgery Ltd., Kamloops Surgery Centre Ltd., Valley Cosmetic Surgery Associates Inc., Surgical Centres Inc., British Columbia Orthopaedic Association and British Columbia Anesthesiologists Society You seem pretty sharp, Sweal. I would've thought it above you to nitpick. The ruling is CLEAR.

What is absurd is that comment. It would be absurd to enact laws changing the definition of heterosexual because the word has no legal status. By contrast, changing the LEGAL definition of marriage is an appropriately legal exercise. You claim to be a lawyer, but I frankly doubt it if you need to be instructed on this basic sort of thing. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I spoke as a lawyer in a quote meant to be a joke about same sex divorce. "I am lawyer and I'm all for SSM...we'll make a killing!!!" I am NOT a lawyer thank god. Gay people can't get married: they're GAY!

Is that really the best you can muster? That's not a reason. By this logic if someone asks you why a dog barks you would answer 'because it barks'. Why is the sky blue? You'd answer 'because the sky is blue.' Try again. I'll even help. Why should it matter to the state what gender someone's partner is? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You answered your own question. You are asking why it's different. Because it is. Think about it.

Could you please refer me to the studies which have proven with emprical evidence that a parallel private system would harm the public system? I'd like to see that. Also: this is a human rights issue. People have the right to timely delivery of service, or, more succinctly..."Life liberty and security of person" in the charter. It's unconstitutional for a government to force people to wait in pain in long lineups for healthcare. We all have the basic human right to seek care elsewhere. Lineups...rationing...sounds alot like communist russia.

which studies?