Renegade

Tell me mirror and err, why do you think that it is the government's responsibility to provide free healthcare for its populace? Why is that not an individual's responsibility?

err, since you are here, how about answering the questions above?

We are saying somewhat similar things, except that loyality doesn't command much of a premium in some jobs because the labour is easily replacable. Where an employer invest in training etc, the wage will correspondingly rise to account for the increased value of that employee and lack of easy replacability. Yes and employers and the market will price labour according to the kind of skills the wish to attract and retain. By skills, I mean inn addition to skills required to perform the job, soft skills such as being consciencious of being punctual, reliable, etc.. , as required by the job.

I'm not down on it. It has potential to be great. I'm trying to save it from the leftist and communists.

And guess where the world renowned economist who thinks so much of the Canadian health system chose to live ---> USA

Let me understand what you mean by this. If a man chooses to stay in a profession and work vs a woman who decides to leave the workforce and nurture children, how does that make the man a winner? Each has chosen what they value more. How do you measure a winner in this context? Do you have some examples on what you mean?

Value of work very much does fluctate base upon it's replacability. Think of it this way, each individual is an entrepreur. The goods he has to sell is is labour. The market is employers looking to buy that labour. That labour is only worth what the market is willing to pay. If that labour pool is large relative to demand, then the labour has little value. The value of the labour is always relative.

Not everyone who post on this board are males. I am a girl. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My mistake and apologies. I fixed my post.

From this article: Toyota to build another car factory in Canada mirror, since you seem to attribute the choice of Canada by Toyota to healthcare, how do you explain that Toyota factories are sprouting many other places as well. Could it be that Toyota is coming to canada because of this: Federal Corporate Tax Rate Reductions

No, I acutally don't and I would love to hear figures. But I will say this, if we paid nothing in welfare and EI we would have no policing cost either.

For once, I agree with you.

This is all very nice, buying everyone an all-you-can-eat buffet of housing, clothing, food, healthcare, dentalcare, childcare, education, etc, except that it isn't the govenrment's tax dollars, it's MINE and every taxpayer who contributes. So, why shouldn't I be the one to decide how to spend it, afterall I earned it. Besides that, this utopia you paint has been tried in a couple of communist countries with disasterous consequences. Whether wealthy or not, I can't see how any of us want to travel down that path. I have to agree with you there, but if I was the one overhauling it I doubt you would like the end result.

So you only want people to have no choice for the things they need? If they don't need them, then you're ok that they have choice?

Well, at least you're consistant. Your solution however is to bring us down to the lowest common denominator and take away our right to choose, which is what people object to. Should one be able to buy a better car because one can afford it? Should one be able to buy a better food because one can afford it? Should one be able to buy a better childcare because one can afford it? By logical extension of your argument you would answer no to all of these. Do you see you are curtailing free choice?

Melanie, kimmy I'm surprised you even bother responding to the kind of nonsense posted above.

mirror, Since you are againt a choice for people paying for additional choices for healthcare, can I take it you would favour banning private schools as well?

The polarization around SSM is both facinating and bewildering. The reason for the emotionalism and polarization is because the traditional definition of marriage involved both a civil component and a moral or religious one. I can see the state's desire to define the terms and obligations of the civil contract between two individuals. For the most part on the posters in this thread concede that same-sex individuals should be free to engage in a civil-contract which carries the same responsibilities and obligations as opposite-sex couples. The difficulty comes with the word "marriage" as it carries with it, the connotation that this a relationship sanctioned by the state. IMO, while the state can define the terms of a civil contract between individuals, I can't see why the state should have to denote any positive or negative judgment of such a contract. Why should the state define what marriage is? Is that not a determination that an individual can make. Alternatively, an individual can ascribe to the beliefs of a church, and can accept the church's definition of marriage. Any individual is free to recognize any definition of marriage they so choose. They however, are not free to prevent others from entering by choice into a civil contract. The state should stay away from defining terms such as marriage, family, church, etc. Trying to do so results in an exclusionary society which can only result in conflict.

I will agree with you that the curb of civil rights has gone way too far. Much of it borne from the paranioa and ignorance which seems to have everyone in their grip.

mirror, you really are jumping to a conclusion in assuming it is discrimination, aren't you? The story doesn't describe in detail their suspicious behaviour was so it is impossible based on the informaition presented to determine it was discrimmination. I'll reserver judgment until I see more details on the story. Maybe it was discrimmination maybe it wasn't. Maybe it was just parnoia on the part of the passengers and the crew who are so hyped up over the London bombings that they make irrational assessments. If you point is that discrimmination exist, yes I agree it exists and the victimized groups are constantly changing. It reinforces my point that we should strive to eliminate discrimmination against ANY group.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mirror, was this in response to my post? How does this relate whether a business would choose to locate in Canada? BTW, where was the quote from? BTW, you may think that long-term that Costco will be around for a lot longer than Wal-mart, that remains to be seen, however past history seem to indicate that Wal-mart has been a lot more successful than Costco. Also they have completely different business models and target different markets.

Everyone, (and I really mean BOTH sides of this discussion) please let's take it down a notch in terms of the name calling and disparaging remarks. Personal attacks have no place in a debate and detract from the issues. I understand that it is easy to get passionate, but let's keep it civil shall we?

mirror, Since we have had universal health care for some time, maybe you'd care to explain why there has been an exodus of manufacturing jobs from Canada to the US and to other countries around the world. Maybe you can explain why companies are only now discovering that Canada has universal public health care, and why they didn't rush in some time ago.

Short of defining what is illegal behaviour, the government should not be regulating lawyers for exactly the reasons you have stated. The biggest downside of lawyers regulating lawyers seems to be the perception that they would "protect their own". I would assume that a regulatory body would very much care about such a perception and would institute sufficient transparency into its proceedings to mitigate such a concern.

sorry cybercoma, didn't mean to steal your thunder. Maybe I should just bite my lip and stick to post directed at me..

I'm going to stop picking on RB because it seems like we have enough posters addressing her position. So, I will rant for a bit.... It seems obvious to me that men and women are different. They are different not just genetically but also in their wants, needs and desires. Societal norms and infuence will sometimes accentuate those differences. There is strong evidence that even in the absence of environmental influence, in general, men and women will make different choices under similar circumstances. My point in this is that it is very misleading to use % participation rates in professions, etc, as evidence that one gender is being discrimminated against. As an example some women may find law too confrontational a profession for their liking, wheras men may find the confrontation exciting. Or a woman might choose to leave the profession to nurture children. In each case, who are we to say that choice is wrong and we should introduce practices and programs to reverse that trend? I agree with Melanie that there are soceital pressures which exert on women to take certain roles. More specificly attitudes do seem to exist that try to shame women if they return to work after having children. I have found that these attitudes exist in individuals rather in corporate culture. A corporation benefits from having an already trained employee return to the workforce so they are more likely to encourage this behaviour. I'm not sure what it takes to change individual attitudes, but encouragingly, with time attitudes seem to become more enlightned. I readily acknowledge that much of what I have said above is generalizations. Some women will make choices and have priorities which are different than most women. The same is true for men. I have always advocated that the individual's choices must be respected. Our methods of measuring discrimmination seem to be oblivious to the fact that there are real differences between men and women.