Renegade

Another non-answer. If you're not going to answer the question, just say so. I didn't ask what the government offers, I asked what YOUR position was. You have not provided any reason why programs are not separable, so then ASSUMING it is, what is your position regarding opting out. Please think about this and answer, and stop avoiding the question.

"lesser ambitious"? is that leftspeak for "lazy"? Hmm, I'll have to add that to my leftictionary. Another way to enhance the incentive to work without raising the minimium wage, is to cut the welfare benefits!

That's really a non-answer. What I asked was what makes the package indivisible and immutable?

So I guess in your own way, you're admitting your orignal analogy was unrepresentative. So let's disect your new analogy: I'm following you so far. Who is asking mom to lend the $8? Not I. If I can't afford the $8 on my own, I wait for mom's pie. So your ok that I go to the USA and buy it. So why can't I buy it in my local bakery (as in your original scenario) WOAH!! Who is asking mom for a refund? Not I. All I want to do is go to the local bakery and plunk down my $8 and buy a pie. How does that stop mom from doing what she was originally going to do for everyone else anyway?

Obviously. But since YOU consider them both necessary public services, why distinguish how they are funded? So, you are finally admitting you are in support of paying for going to a private hospital with private funds. Gee, doesn't that sounds like two-tier healthcare?

I have no idea the motivations of why people work at Walmart, and frankly, err, neither do you. Everything you've posted is supposition, without any evidence. Walmart is free to offer whatever wage it chooses, and people are free to accept or decline it based upon their individual circumstances. If Walmart is the only one that will hire them, then they have failed by not making themselves very marketable.

So is your reason for not allowing them to opt out because you think they will want tax write-offs? If there were no tax write-offs would you then support them opting out? I'm not following your logic on why benefits need to be an "all-or-none" package. Sure there are some which have fixed setup costs, but others are for the most part variable. BTW, I'm not just talking medical care, I'm including welfare, Old Age, etc. If it is such a benefit as you say, why not make it voluntary?

So err, would you support a social saftey net in which someone could opt-out of? By this I mean they would not pay that portion of their tax which supports the saftey net, and also would not be eligible to receive no saftey net benefits?

Gee, that's going to a bit of a surprise to H. Lee Scott Jr, President and CEO of Walmart who has spent 25 years at Walmart.

Of course they want security. Do I blame them? No not at all. It only makes sense for them to ask for it to protect overpaid jobs. Do I think that they are entitled to job guarantees at our expense? No not at all.

Let's explain it this way... You want a pie... You could go to the bakery and buy the pie, or you could get your mom to make it..... If your mom pays the same amount for her eggs and flour as the bakery does, and because you are a nice guy, you pay your mom for her time making the pie.... Which one is going to cost you more.... I'm not sure you'll get this one so I'll tell you... The bakery wants to make a profit... so they charge a few extra bucks. Now if you pay the bakery $8 for the pie, or you pay your mom $5 for the pie, which one is going to cost you more.... Now if you take the money out of your wallet to pay for the pie, one of your choices is going to leave you more money to buy whipped cream or whatever else you may need or want. Now, if you were to take this analogy and apply it to a health-care system, and you have to pay a profit to the private health-care provider, which one will take more out of the provincial wallet.... leaving less money for other people's health care services..... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There is a real problem with your analogy. You are assuming that you have the choice of either paying the bakery or your mom. In our system, funding for healthcare is taken forcibly via taxes. So to relate it to your analogy, you are forced to pay your mom $5 regardless of if you care for her pie or not. But let's say that you got a bonus at work and you had an additional $8 in your wallet. Let's further say that you didn't care much for your mom's pie and that she was too busy to make it right away so you had to wait. Why shouldn't you be able to take your $8, walk to the bakery and buy your pie (as a side effect you are saving your mom some effort)

So err, what is the moral distinction between allowing private schools in the scenario you describe above and allowing medical care that is FULLY paid for by the recepiant?

Till you pointed it out I didn't even notice. Must be my subconscious taking over. I'm going to add it as a new word to my lexicon. The leading cause of dissolution of relationships is due to disagreement over financial issues. Yes, in some (sometimes unhealthy) relationships, earning capacity is used as leverage to obtain power. Equaly in some relationships, withholding sex is also used as leverage to obtain power. Do you not think that it is the responsibility of the man and woman as part of deciding to have a child, need to work out a mutually acceptable division of responsibilites?

You have stated that the choices are unequal for men and women and that men usually end up the winner. I have pointed to the scenario which illustrates the largest divergence in choice between men and women and illustrated why it is not a case of a man being a winner. If you have a alternative scenario to discuss, point it out. Sure you can have a symmetrical relation between men and women where each both work and share childcare. How does that make the man the winner and the woman the loser? I agree that attitudes have changed and for both men and women role definitions in a household are more flexible than they used to be. Roles and responsibiliteis should partitioned to the mutal agreement of the couple. That doesn't necessarily mean an equal division of labour. As I have previously said, these are individual arrangments to be worked out and there is no "one formula fits all". Ok I'll agree that most men prefer not to assume the household duties. I also know that many women, given the choice between working and household duties would choose to stay home and perform the household and childcare duties. And so what if men answered that their preference is that their spouse stayed home? Its about valid a preference as saying most women prefer the man to be the primary financial provider. My point is that if they do assume traditional roles of men as father and provider and women as homemaker, this is a choice which has been mutually agreed to by BOTH parties. The woman has equal say in the relationship and if she assumes duties it is by her preference or acquiesce. If the burden of child care or house duties unwillingly falls on her, and that conflicts with committments to work, isn't that in issue she should take up with her spouse? Who better than the couple itself is free to decide the divisions of labour and evaluate the consequences that ensue? Or is your argument that the a woman has these responsibilites shoved on her, and she has no say in the relationship to change it? Let's not forget that its the parents who make the CHOICE to have children. Are they not the ones to assume the consequences of that choice, including the financial burden, the increased labour, arranging for childcare etc? So what if a low percentage of men take advantage? What exactly does that show? Obviously men don't have the choice to give birth to a child, but all other choices are available to both men and women, and they choose it based upon the differences between men and women as I described earlier, and their own individual circumstances. A marriage contract does not dictate that childcare and household duties are the exclusive domain of women, and that the provider role is the exclusive domain of men. If you have some evidence that roles are not the product of the free choice within the couple, then present it. The division of responsibilites is the domain of the couple and so is the dependance or independance to employment. Your kidding right? The way I interpret what you are saying is that men can easily return to work because it is considered "natural" for them to do so, and the same is not true of women. So a man will be welcomed back to work and a woman shunned? If that's not what you mean, then please elaborate. I know of no employer who provides any greater obstacles to women than men returning to the workplace. I'd like to see what evidence you have of this because in our world as it is today, I see no indication of this.

Who is forcing them to stay home? Certainly they are making the choice of their own free will. When they make the choice they surely understand the hurdles they overcome to get back into the labour force. If a man decides to stay hom and away from the labour market, he faces the same obstacles. If I decide to trek around the world for 2 years and my skills degrade, would you not expect me to bear the consequences of that decision? So what? That is by private agreement between the couple. The couple is free to decide that it is the man who stays home, or that neither stays home. In any case, I would assume that there would have been appreciation on the part of the partner staying home for the one who is subsidizing the cost of that decision, not resentment at having been suported. You have some evidence that it is men who initiate divorce more than women? In the divorced couples I know, virtually always, the initiator has been the women. Courts have an extreme bias toward awarding custody toward women. A woman either has to agree to joint physical custody or not want it at all before it is awarded to the man. The non-custodial party, is forced to make considerable child support payments. So, it's hardly like the single divorced mothers are going at it alone. I'm not sure where you get your stats, but let me ask this are the "single males" you quote are divorced single fathers, or the single male population in general? Further have you looked at their income after payments like spousal support and child support? Post the source of your figures, because without backup they can be completely misrepresentative. The only significant barrier which you have pointed to between men and wormen, is that overwhelming that women have the responsibility to rear the children. But, did they not undertake this responsbility of their own free will? No one forced them become parents, and endure the sacrifices being a parent entails. If your point is that in a couple the women shoulders more of the burdern of being a parent, then the man. In general I agree with you, but that is a private arrangement that needs to be addressed between the couple. I fail to see why society in general should be forced to give women privileges, to compensate for what is essentially a private dispute between the couple. This is just a bit of a rant. I have consistently said that if women (or men) of colour, lesbians, aboriginals, and others who are discrimminated against, it should be addressed by eliminating that descrimination. It its just as bad to try and redress it by implementing reverse discrimmination. I have seen many workplaces in Canada and I have found discrimmination to be rare.

Fine, you don't want to use the LCBO, show me other evidence that the majority of people in low-wage jobs cannot by their own actions improve their skills, experience, or take some measure to improve their wage situation. My experience is that many of the people in low wage situations are students, pensioners, have other priorities other than their job, or simply lack the will or desire to change their situation. Of course choices are limited. It woudl be foolish to pretend anyone can do any job in the world. There are many filters on you choices of jobs and occupations. Some you control and some you do not. The factors which are dependant on you alone far outweigh those of your social situation in terms of your power to earn. Sure there are seniors in Walmart, how do you know they are there because they are desperate? Maybe they are there because they would be bored silly staying home. Many immigrants come to this country prepared to undertake the hardships required in order to succeed. A low-wage job is just a transitory phase for many as the gather the resources to move ahead in life. They prove my point. If you have evidence that the majority of the low-wage population is "captive" and has no option for self-improvement, show it, for I have seen no evidence to that effect.

Huh ??? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Let me try again. You have previously said that you think that a "necessary" industry such as automobile insurance should be publicly owned. Presumably if it were up to you, you would pay a clerk in the public automobile insurance industry the same high wages you advocate for the LCBO. My question is what about the clerks in the "luxury" industries (such as automobile). Don't they deserve the same high wages? Why not make them public too? So let me get this straight. If it wern't already public, you would be an advocate for it to stay private, but since it is public, you want it to stay that way. And if as you state, that the government doesn't see any merit in privitazation, why is it do you think that the LCBO employees are going on strike?

So Melanie, how does that make the woman the loser? Knowing full well that there is no salary, pension, workers comp, EI, CPP, etc, the woman who stayed home still chose to stay home, because that option gave her non-monatary benefits which to her outweighed the monatary benefits the workpalace offered. If a man chose to stay home his options would be no different.

Do us all a favour, and next time you are at the LCBO do a poll of the clerks and see how many of them because they are "stuck in the low wage cycle, a cycle which perpetuates poverty and want.". Better still wait till they are on strike and ask them on the picket line, so the taxpayer doesn't have to pay for their time while they tell you that "sure they could have gone to college, but why bother when you can get these cushy LCBO jobs". Acceptable is whatever each person decides he or she will accept. People make their own tradeoffs, some decide that they prefer less stress over more wages, others will decide more workplace flexibility is better than more wages. If they decide an acceptable job is one that pays them enough to scrape by each month, who are you to call that job "crap"? Want to know why the low-wage jobs at McDonalds are filled with students? Because the jobs meet their need.

The market does provide choices but people do need to plan to exercise those choices. (eg education, skills training, geographic relocation). When someone takes a low-wage job because they have "no choice", they only have "no choice" in the short term. They have the choices the market offers in the long term. Of course there are factors beyond anyones control which limit individual choices. I'd like to be a model, but my looks may not be good enough to allow me that choice. Eveyone has limiting factors which affect their choices. So what. We still all make choices based upon what is available. It would be hard to believe that with the vast number of choices available someone cannot find an acceptable one.

Yes, of course labour=people but that is irrelevant for the economics of the situation. Why is it do you think that people are replaced by machines when the economics warrant it? It is because whether it is labour or it is capital it is simply input into the means of production, and many times they are interchangable. Harsh? Yes, but also reality. Why is it do you think that people take jobs out of necessity? Because they have no choice. So why is it that they have no choice, when there are a million occupations at all different wage scales and skill levels? Think about it. People taking a job out of necessity is a behaviour wihich is EXACTLY what the market dictates. I looked up the definition of "indentured servitude": In our economic system where is the "unbreakable contract". Certainly not between the worker and the employer. It has been repeated over and over that the worker is free to terminate his employment and choose to work elsewhere. The fact that he does not, shows that he is willingly exchanging labour for pay. I looked up the definition of wage-slave as well. There are a couple of definitions. I believe the one which you mean is: Workers in our society are not bound to who they work for, are free to educate themselves to undertake the occupation of their choosing, and are free to relocate to take a job, so how exactly does that make them wage-slaves?

yes, and if your sick or injured, don't go to the hospital in Canada either, you'd just be contributing to longer wait times for eveyone else.

Martin's just being equal opportunity. Since he's already kissed ass for Belinda and Jack, it's about time he did the same for Carolyn. Afterall even the NDP won't touch her.

So let me get this straight mirror, you are willing to let people travel to the US for a medical procedure that they would pay for with their own funds, but you are against them doing so in a closer location in Canada? It would seem that the only difference between what you would allow and what you wouldn't is the convienience of how far one would need to travel to obtain the private medical procedure. Doesn't that seem like a ludicrious distinction to make?

So do you think they can start repaying the equalization payments now?