JerrySeinfeld

I am from Alberta. I have never heard of this "third candidate" fellow, but have for years been espousing "positive separation" for Quebec (and maybe Alberta). Instead of the tired "get the hell out we don't want you" from the rest of Canada or the "please please please stay with us" ROC or the bitter sovereignty from inside Quebec, why not celebrate our irreconcilable differences and live side by side as neighbours. Quebec has been a huge cash drain on Canada for a long time with respect to a national biliqual policy that is completely unnecessary in the rest of the country, a net taker in terms of federal transfers (sure, so are the maritimes, but they're tiny), and a general drag on Canada's investment climate (big money hates uncertainty). As well, Quebec DOES have a distinct society with much culture worth protecting. French people are quirky I'd hate to see a massive english wave erase that endearing "je ne sais quoi" (I HAD to, sorry) that sets Quebec apart. As Canadians (and Quebeckers) we should simply accept that our attempted union has failed, and that we can still enjoy the benefits of living side by side without having to quibble over language or constitution. Whoever thought we could actually let a powerful central government dictate to a diverse group of provinces was mental. We should all have a much more loose relationship, such as in the USA with each state.

I'll rephrase your question slightly to be certain of my meaning: Why would privately purchased healthcare not generate welfare maximizing levels of healthcare? Phrased this way, you see how two of my three main contentions are the answer to that: -controlled demand is more resource-efficient (health care is a 'natural monopsony'), and -the benefits of having healthy citizens are externalities in the individual's value calculation, but not external to a civic value calculation (the public goods thing). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Your rephrasing is what I meant, thanks for the precision.Health care is not a "natural" monopsony but it could be a legal monopsony. (A natural monopsony is the labour market in a one-company town. The Supreme Court decision is evidence that doctors have potentially other employers.) In the case of health care, is a legal monopsony more efficient (resource efficient) than a free market solution? I'd say no but your idea raises a good question. In whose interest is this legal monopsony? I'd say lazy and incompetent health practioners. [Think about it. They get guaranteed employment on favourable terms paid for by someone else. I too would love to have the exclusive contract to clean the swimming pool of the ex-wife of a rich Los Angeles lawyer.] As to your "healthy citizen externality" idea, it makes sense for infectious diseases. But what about cigarette smoking? What do I care if someone in Blanc-Sablon goes through a pack and a half of Player's every day? I'm not going to suffer second-hand smoke. If anything, I'm in favour of smokers. They pay into a pension scheme and will likely never draw from it. [Most medical expenses occur in the last four weeks of life regardless of the cause of death. Whether old age or cancer, they're going to incur medical costs. But pension costs are a different matter.] Frankly, I don't know exactly what you mean by this "healthy citizen externality" idea. Are you personally prepared to pay money to someone else to be healthy? And your third main contention? I shouldn't be allowed to sell sticks of enriched uranium or cars with brakes that fail at random.Cars with no brakes are subject to civil law and liability. While the State regulates such contracts, the best protection comes from civil suits.[sticks of uranium? Giggle. Longish anecdote ahead. Since I'm in Moscow now, I'm reminded of a guy who showed me a container of a "secret metal liquid" and wondered what it was worth. It turned out to be mercury and I told him that it's worth about $100. I guessed that mercury goes for a couple of bucks a kilo. I told him not to let his kids play with it and then his wife told him to get rid of the container... anyway. Sticks of uranium. Right.] At issue here is what constitutes a "legally enforceable contract". Well, you can't sue somebody because you gave them money but they didn't follow through on the agreed assassination. And you can't sue somebody because they promised to give you a million dollars on your 18th birthday and then they didn't. IOW, it is not obvious what constitutes a contract. Sweal wants to forbid certain certain contracts because he argues such forbiddance will be in the greater public interest. Contract law is all about that precise issue. What contracts should not be allowed? Sweal's idea to forbid private health contracts on grounds of public interest is arbitrary and specious. Silly beyond words. Thank God we get an intelligent (original?) post. The critical issue with health care is not whether it is a public good or a private good, it is the insurance aspect of its purchase. No one buys health care the way they buy milk, or chicken. Almost everyone buys health care through an insurance scheme. IOW, we buy health care the same way we buy car repairs. There is regular maintenance (sometimes insured through a warranty) coupled with catastrophic accident insurance. This insurance aspect of health care is the whole story.With that said, Seinfeld, supply and demand still apply. Queues are the signal that prices are too low. Lengthening queues are the signal of government price regulation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It IS an original post, and thanks. But there is the concept of "price/demand" elasticity to consider. In economic terms, Health care is "perfectly price inelastic". ie. no matter what the cost, people will continue to demand it. At least on the "catostrophic" side of the equation. Raising the price won't drop demand.

This is getting just stupid. Argus, it is a basic element of econimics that when more purchasers compete for the same supply, price goes up. And how are we increasing purchasers? The guy who needs medical treatment needs it whether he has to wait six months or not. There is no increase in purchasers. What we're trying to do is increase the number of suppliers. With more suppliers and competition comes lower prices. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Its much more complicated than how you guys are trying to boil it down to supply and demand. There are two types of "private" medicine. Providers and insurers. Right now we have virtually no private insurers and somewhere around 30% of our providers are private. So the debate could be: should we allow more than just the single insurer (medicare)? or...should we increase the amount of private PROVIDERS (ie private surgical clinics and hospitals)...etc...or BOTH. The demand in any variation of the above is the same. "Price" is really COST. Which costs more? It depends. Markets aren't the only determinants of price in a single payer system. Anyone who has dealth with a government agency knows about the rampant inefficiencies, which are obviously a "non market" determinant of cost. SO perhaps allowing competition among providers (ie. private hospitals) WITHIN a single payer (medicare) system would allow for competition and less inefficiency ergo lower costs to the overall system. Its way to complicated to simply draw a supply demand graph, otherwise my econ 101 prof would've single handedly solved the health care problem years ago

That's a false and digraceful accusation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Have you been watching Gomery? Yet still the Libs top the polls. Explain that to me. Obviously Canadians would rather elect a theif than an honest politician.

I agree. Women tend to choose "balance" over long hours and commutes. Women tend to balance family, closeness to home, time off, etc. equally when choosing careers which is why generally women earn less money en masse. Men tend to work longer hours, longer commutes and travel away from home to earn the "big bucks". I suppose it depends upon whether we want our politicians to be workaholics dedicated to the profession, or balanced, happy individuals.

mcqueen, no one is foisting anything on you. No one is telling you that you should be in a same sex marriage. How does it harm you for others to be in one? And do you recognize that your position harms them? Your faith doesn't have to change, but when you expect others to live by the dictates of your faith and not their own beliefs, you are foisting your faith on them. Also, marriage is not a solely religious term, many people are married by justices of the peace, or even Elvis. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm a lawyer and I'm all for gay marriage: next comes gay divorce. 50% rate if they're anything like straight couples lol.

No kidding. I mean, first it was the Chinese. Then women. Now this outrage. My god, what do these minorities think this is? A democracy? I've pointed out before the argument that the word marriage has always meant "man and woman" is circular. As I said then: Also: I was on a roll that day. What is the legal definition of a partnership between two emotionally and sexually affiliated individuals of the same gender called? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> LOL! Definitions are not "arguments". It is not circular to define a word. If the argument were "circular" as you say, there would be no need for legislation to change the definition. As far as "what a gay union" is called, heck, call it whatever you want, just don't call it what it isn't: marriage!

"Schools of government"? "Professional Politicians"? ugh. That's just what we need. A school dedicated to the cancer on this world we refer to as "government". I say it again: ugh!

Why do gays want to marry? "Marriage" is and always has been defined as the union of a man and a woman. If you want to change the definition of words, why don't we also change the definition of the word "heterosexual" to also include people who have sex with people of the same sex? It's the same thing. I have no problem with gay people. I just don't understand why any self respecting gay person would want to try to act not-gay. By definition, the gay lifestyle is a different lifestyle. Gay people should celebrate that and embrace their own definitions and traditions instead of attempting to hijack existing traditions.

I don't know, how old is the woman? If she's between 20-35, bet the man 'cause mat-leave is sure to follow lol.

I believe they used to tint pistachios for some sort of trade reason, designating them as an imported nut or something...today some companies just stick with it because people are used to it.

I appologize for having to ask you to spell this out for me (it is getting somewhat late, and my mind shuts down in the evenings), but how does this relate to the UofC and the UofT? I think the UofC is great school, but certainly "prestige" would be found higher at the UofT. I'm a huge believer in self-education, being that where you go to school (at the University level, anyway) doesn't really matter much if you actually have a desire to learn - but wouldn't "most" Canadians (even us Westerners) think that a "better" - relatively speaking - education could be got at UofT, a cheaper school? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> U of T may be a better school by some standards and that is probably attributed to a whole lot of factors other than funding. What I am getting at is that the Alberta Government MAY (I don't know for sure) ideologically be more accepting of higher tuition fees due to the long term benefits most students recieve from getting a post sec ed.

I agree completely. I've been to Louisiana a few times and there is certainly a uniqueness about it. Though I think government help would enhance the life there (sorry, I just had to get that in). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It may be true. But personally I have always found government supported ideas carry some degree of hollowness about them. At least we know what we see in Louisiana is the real deal.

Well, Alberta's school system is doing great when it comes to standardized tests (which is a discussion for a different topic!) - but that's likely due in spite of Tory rule as opposed to because of it. Think of how much better our schools could be if they were funded better. I'm not talking about simply throwing money at a problem here - but money would certainly make things better. As far as Post-Secondary education, why on earth is the UofT cheaper than the UofC? I'm not really trying to turn this into a thread about education funding. But it is one example of where the Tory rule hasn't brought us greatness. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well in terms of UofT versus U of C there may be some ideology at play here. Many true conservatives believe that the long term rewards of a post secondary education justify the short term costs and that students should bear that cost in exchange for better long term income.

louisiana was once french, i guess in southern usa, its more about immigration than a real culture. Once immigrant scolarize and integrate usa, they adopt the american culture, they don't have choice if they want good job and to be part of the american way of life. For sample in quebec, adult immigrants choose at 55% english for scholarisation for cegep and university, once they get good education they often leave to go stay in ontario, they never truly integrate the quebec society except if they choose french education. Its also harder to find good english jobs or at least its easyer outside quebec. Nation building is something powerfull, its the researched "way of living" wich bring evryone toghether, evryone to one big culture. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> louisiana still has a strong french culture...WITHOUT government help

Fair enough, but my original point was meant to counter a post that stated "every other party has run every other province into the ground" which hasn't really been the case in Alberta. Take a look at what a few decades of Tory rule have brought us. Nothing but greatness. I wish Canadians could see that obvious fact. And the NDs would have tried to spend their way out ot the doldrums in the mid-90's which means we certainly wouldn't be sitting on the huge surplus we are today.

You know, in the USA there are many different cultures that flourish without a federal mandate. Take a look at the American southwest with the preponderance of Latinos. If a culture warrants it, then that culture will survive. Many of you may have noticed that a lot of TV shows and sportscasts on American networks are now available in Spanish as well as English. This is not a government thing, it's a natural free enterprise thing. There are many distinct cultures in Canada, we should celebrate them all, without governments telling us how to do it.

The reason for my question is that it seems like every time someone suggests something about abortion, same sex marriage or health care in this country that DOESN'T follow the Liberal agenda, that person is thrown to the wolves and told to shut up, called names etc. That doesn't sound like a society that is condusive to the honest and free discussion of issues.

Harper is an Academic. In their very fabric, academics have great ideas with little people skills! Canadians are much more comfortable with theifs and liars at the helm. And somehow, and honest academic is "scary". Go figure.

Imagine if you had substituted the word "Indians" in place of rednecks? It would be offensive wouldn't it? Hmmm. Your statement sounds a bit like an intolerant generalisation. But wait, aren't only rednecks capable of those? So poll question: 1. Is your generalist comment accidentally exactly redneck type of comment? or 2. Is it not only rednecks, but others as well who are capable of vast generalisations?

You bring up a good point about cost of living. Since Alberta has the lowest tax rate in the country (11% flat tax), in addition to no sales tax, our cost of living relative to other "have" provinces such as ontario is relatively low. In addition, your stat about "99% of the wealth in the hands of 1%" is baseless. You obviously haven't been to Alberta recently. It is BOOMING. People aren't migrating out here from the maritimes because they're WORSE off. There is a shortage of tradespeople out here. Therefore it's not uncommon to see a welder or boilermaker making $80-100k. And if you want to get technical, look up Median income (a more telling stat) by province. I'm sure you'll find, again, that Alberta leads the way. Alberta rocks, live with it.

Your Scenario Two is wildly speculative. The real situattion is more like everybody gets 7/10 now, but people who can afford (in special situations) to pay for 9/10 want that privilege even though it means the base level for everyone will shrink to 4/10.

Actually, if her ultimate goal was to become PM, I would argue her recent behavior has ensured that will never happen. Selling her vote did buy her a quick cabinet post, but no Lib in their right mind will ever let her become leader. So: Never to be leader of the Libs and never to be leader of the Cons, her goal of reaching the pinnacles of power in the country have been squashed by her own impatient ambition. That's not winning.

That would have been a rather clever remark if the people getting hurt most from the flooding didn't happen to (on the whole) be the people least benefitting from the oil money. Granted, while I'm happy about the economic position my province is in, I'd rather have the NDP in control. A lot of the NDP's proposed changes help the middle class as well as the poor. Education funding, for example, really helps everyone. As there are some Albertans on here, I'm sure you'll be able to note that, for example, Calgary has an enormous "working poor" problem. Being that a staggering number of homeless people actually have full-time jobs! The Tories haven't done much about that for quite a few years. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What is your definition of a "staggering amount"? Alberta has the highest GDP per capita and lowest unemployment rate in the country. That means the average income here is higher than anywhere else in the country, and more people have jobs here than anywhere else in the country. Look it up. So if your suggestion is that "life sucks in Alberta", it simply sucks more elsewhere :0

Yea, life is real hard out here in Alberta. Keep telling yourselves that. This is a great, innovative, beautiful, hard working, honest and, yes, rich, province. And why does everyone try to pick on Stephen Harper for being from Alberta? Heaven forbid the rest of the country "suffer" the wonderful standard of living we have here.