Renegade

Wait a min now. Didn't you state this: And I have indeed proved you wrong! and then you said this: and yet again you have been shown wrong. So now you justify MacKenzie action because it was a Christian church????? Wasn't your original premis that Harper shoudl be condemned for "mixed signals are being sent to Canadians relating to the 'separation of church and state'.??? You don't find it a bit hypocritical and racist that you now laud MacKenzie for that same behaviour when the only differentiation is the denomination of the church? Even if we accept your response at face value, why then is it wrong for Harper to acknowledge the efforts of Hindus "to work hand in hand with government to create the successful society" just as Mckenzie did? I'm going to guess that you don't believe that Hindus have played any part in creating a successful society. Ah so first, no other prime minister had done so, and when you've been proved wrong, those prime ministers too had an "error in judgment". Gosh they weren't even Liberal. So the "majority White English speaking Christian Canadians" are the ones that pay "all the bills, right??? I can prove you wrong on this too if you'd like to be further embarrassed.

Sure it does. Do you think your life doesn't depend upon how well your mechanic fixes your brakes? In any case it is irrelevant to the question asked. Regardless of if your life depends upon it or not, as a consumer you want and demand better customer service. Sure ok, but first, only a very very small number of interactions with the healthcare industry result in death of the patient. In the bulk of the interactions the patients survive and do indeed have the option to "make a better choice next time". Second, it is not necessary for the patient to have the option to "make a better choice next time". Reputation and brand are key differentiators in many industries. If a house builder has a poor reputation for quality and service, he will have a problem attracting new customers even if his previous customers are no longer a potential market. OK. so how do you propose to have your police, fire, ambulance...etc, grant superior customer service. I can give you many examples of very bad customer service from those institutions from those very institutions, despite the fact that "your life depends on it". (Do some research if you are interested in the NY police system in the early 90s). Yes of course. But as I have said before, profit or some equally compelling incentive is necessary IN ORDER TO SAVE LIVES not replace saving lives.

If I want to balk, who should I be voting for to save me from the plague of taxation? Why do you think this conflict exist only in healthcare? Any other customer service industry also can reduce cost by providing reduced customer service. If the relationship that less customer care = more profit, why is healtcare unique in that relationship?

duplicate post.

You mean something like this: FIRST BAPTIST CHURCHor this: link

There is supposed to be some funding formula which determines how much each school board gets, though I don't know the details. It is based upon property value, just as property taxes are. Edit: this may provide what you are looking for: Student-Focused Funding

It is funded provincially however, it is collected municipally on behalf of the Province of Ontario.

Not sure this is exactly correct. Toronto’s renter households – key factsI agree though that by population there are a larger number of people who are homeowners as many renter householder are singles and many homeowners are families.

No, nothing in the stories indicate it is the Hindus bragging about the dollar value of the building. It is simply the media who have reported it. I suspect the dollar value is low and has been kept low due to the uncompensated work of volunteers. First, I didn't restrict the behaviour to Canadian PMs. I said politicians. Second, I'll do even better. I will show you that politicians much more powerful than Harper routinely participate in religious ceremonies and even seem to endorse religious scripture. All of this without much fuss from the public at large. President Bush Hosts Iftaar Dinner President Commemorates Eid al-Fitr Even PM Chretien welcomed Pope John-Paul when he came to Toronto in 2002. How do you know they are excluding the "will of Canadians" when below you admit that you don't even know what the "will of Canadians" is (" Who knows what the 'will of Canadians is',") Of course, and you are free to call your MP and feed them your views, as intolerant as they may be, and if you are not satisified with your MP's response or actions you are free not to support them on election day. If enough of your majority friends agree with you, your riding can have a new MP. Like it or not, that's how it works. You have stated this over and over at nausem but offer zero proof. No, of course you can't have any such evidence. Did it occur to you that the reason you don't have any evidience is because none exist. At least you have admitted that you do not know what the "will of Canadians" is. It seems to me hollow that you complain that the will of the majority is not being followed when you don't even know what it is. Ah yes, the conspiracy theories abound. So if I understand your position, all government parties are colluding to keep white Christian Canadians down, and you have no evidence to prove this because their dictatorship is holding you down, and you can't even ask if you position is reasonable because the forum to ask has been taken over by racist and bigoted minorities with faulty logic. Yep, makes perfect sense to me now.

No, what I said was you needed an incentive. Profit is one such incentive. You seem to be proposing building a healthcare system where the primary incentive is altruism. If so then I suggest the pool of available healthcare professionals would be much smaller and I can't see how you could provide sufficient resources to provide adequate care.IOW, I'm not saying the profit is the only possible incentive, but you need to provide an alternative and I highly doubt altruism is suffient.

You assume that over people's lifetime everyone contrbutes equally and everyone benefits equally. This is not true. If I have never contributed or contributed very little and I consume healthcare, I am essentially demanding that someone else pay for it. To be blunt, society has an already built scoring system for people it values and it doesn't require individual decision-making. Its called money. Society rewards those it considers valuable and penalizes those it does not. If moralty were taken out of the equation, the simplest route for society to focus its healthcare resources on those it values is to give healthcare access to those who have money. You neglect to mention that maybe those dollars can be returned to those who pay. Simply you saying so, doesn't make it so. Experience has shown that any organization must have an incentive which is aligned with its goal. Organizations which provide superior service, whether patient care or resturant service, do so because that is the means to their incentive, profit. If you take away the incentive without providing a substitute, you will be guranteed at best, mediocre service.

It is always stunning to me to see the level of entitlement many seniors display. That attitude manifests itself as intense lobbying and high-levels of political action when there is even the slightest threat to a benefit which may affect seniors. Most of the social infrastructure programs which seniors collect on today and have collected for many years have been funded through debt financing. That enormous debt has been the "gift" that seniors have left the current working generation. Seniors as a group, today consume a disproportionate amount of the social expenditures and yet have a disproportionate amount of wealth relative to the rest of the population. The only reason the rest of the polulation tolerates it is because they gleefully wait for their turn so that they too can feed at the trough. What the masses haven't considered is that the feeding frenzy can't last forever.

Sure. Please provide the list of buildings you consider "significant religious buildings". So you in your roundthebout way are saying that the CHP is radical? Funny they seem to have positions on issues pretty similar to yours CHP Platform There is only one poll that matters and that is the one that takes place on election day. The fact that the Cons or Libs have been in voted in for EVERY election in memory is sufficient backup for my statement. BS. Canadians always have a choice. No party exactly fits the views of any individual voter. As individuals we are forced t make a choice of whichever is the best fit. The Great Christian Majority is no different than the rest of the voters in that regard. I see, so you admit intolerance but defend it by saying intolerance is warranted. You do not show EVER any evidence of what the "will of Canadians" is, you simply assume the will of Canadians is he same as your own, and somehow they have been bamboozled into voting aginst their will. Ignored my challenge, didnt you? I don't blame you. If I were you I wouldn't like the answer either.

No. I believe everyone has the right to access healthcare, but someone makes a decision on who has access to free or subsidized healthcare. Some do, but in my view, no one has the individual "right" to healthcare for which they demand someone else pay for. I'm all for removing individual evaluation from the process and letting "nature" takes its course, but would you or the rest of society really have the stomach for it? Letting nature takes its course means letting the old and weak die and concentrating resources on the strong and healthy. (in essence, survival of the fittest) There is no point in creating a universal health care system. I would advocate for an efficient healthcare system, not necessarily a universal one. How does one balk? Refuse to pay taxes and get thrown in jail? In our system today the government has the power to extract whatever they wish so there is very little option to balk.

Toronto has for years gone with its begging bowl to provincial and federal governments. Unfortunately those govenments have constantly caved and conceded to Toronto's demands. Toronto has recently been given additional tax power to tax motor vehicle registration, alcohol, and real-estate transactions. It is amusing to me to watch the jousting for and aginst these taxes. I have always wondered why Toronto couldn't just raise property taxes and meet its own funding needs. Afterall it has the lowest property tax rates among the surrounding communities. GTA Tax Comparison

I'm not suggesting that the government should get involved in changing private sector pensions, however income programs such as OAS which kick in at 65 are within government control. I agree with you that it is fraught with political risk to do any change which impacts the beneifts of seniors, which is why I said it takes a certain amount of courage. I have always considered this an unjustified benefit and its continued existance is solely a testament to the lobbying and voting power of the seniors.

Agreed, but it is also not an unknown practice for politicians to attend the opening of a significant religious edifice or even greet its visiting leaders. Sure they do. Christian Heritage Party of Canada. Could it be that very few of the Christian majority actually supprt them? You've got it backwards. The reason the Cons and Libs are so close on the political spectrum is because they adopt policies supported by the majority of voters. If they didn't then voters would abandon them just like they have abandoned other parties in the past. The popularity of the Cons and Libs over the CHP is proof that the majority has a choice and has chosen. I beleive I distinctly said that most people aren't racist. Some people are. To deny it would show how blind you truly are. It is interesting to me that you don't deny holding racist and intolarant views. Your repeated defense is to state that nobody has a right to accuse anyone else of racism. I would submit that if you created a poll on this site and asked other posters their opinion on the views you have expressed, the overwhelming majority would judge your views as racist and intolerant. The question would be a simple Yes/No, "Do you believe the views expessed by Leafless in the various posts to be racist and intolerant?. I challenge you to do it and you will get an honest view of your positions which you yourself seem incapable of seeing.

In my view society's interest always come first (to the extent they don't violate individual rights), even if it means imposing restrctions on healthcare so that it ceases to be "universal". You are mixing two concepts. The quality of healthcare, and who it is applied to (ie universality). If money were no restriction you could buy top quality care and offer it univerally. But, money is always a restriction. Once you have squeezed the most efficiency you can, the only way to add more money is to take it from someone else.

I meant the intangible state not the people. IMV it is fair to say "Canada is a country with a majority of Christians", it is not accurate to say "Canada is a Christian country". See my further response below. No it is not like Pakistan at all. Pakistan is officially Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It as a state has made an official choice to be an Islamic state. Canada has made no such choice. If you believe it has, prove it, because I maintain that it is a secular state.

It is really quite obvious what needs to be done, yet no one has the courage to do it. Seniors benefits need to be drasticly cut. That includes OAS, Healthcare, and other benefits such as pension-splitting and tax deductions. Possibly even the retirement age should be pushed back given that people are living longer. The longer we wait to address the issue, the harder it will become, because as time goes on, the seniors become a greater and greater political lobbying force.

Er, when Paul Martin went to Pope John-Paul's funeral, was that too an irresponsible pandering toward religion? If Christanity is still the majority, why not flex their Christian voting power? Frankly if you think about what you are saying it makes no common sense. Why would a government which is pandering for votes alienate a majority which can give them the most votes to cater to a minority? So what? The percentage of Christians in Canada is only going down. Even if it wasn't should the prime minster only cater to the majority? If so he would only cater to Ontario and Que. How can you possibly make such a nonsensical claim when Canada is a capitalistic totalitarian undemocratic regime by nature with the only democratic right being the right to vote for your so called representative (MP). We are NOT all employed by the federal government, therefore government should reflect the right of the citizens of Canada to decide important decisions that affect ALL Canadians, a right we do not have. If Canadians did have that right, you could be disappointed relating to the rights now granted by our federal government in comparison to the rights that would be ratified by Canadian citizens. Until the time comes ALL Canadians are included in the decision making process of important political issues, you have no right labelling anyone racist in an undemocratic country that excludes the wishes of the citizens of Canada. You take issue with my statement that the majority of of Canadians Christians are not intolerant racists?????? Would you be more satisified with my statement if I had said that the majority of Christians are intolerant racists???

Maybe for the first time ever, we agree. No. He would leave himself open to that criticism if he showed favouritism to one or a select few religions. As far as I can see he has not done that. If a new $40 Catholic church opened in Quebec, and invited Harper, no doubt he would make an apperance if there was a chance to win vote. I agree with you that his appearance was to win votes, but isn't that what we expect politicans to do? Isn't that what every successfuly politician has done? It is no different for this temple then it would be for any other religion in a similar situation. With your rant I can't seem to tell which side of the "separation-of-church-and-state" argument you fall. Nearest I can tell, you are against such a separation so long as the defnition of church is restricted to Christian (non-Catholic) churches. I'm Christan, and I'd complain about it too. The country doesn't have a religion so it makes no sense that he is "doing the country a religious disservice". It may be majority Christian, but thankfully only a small minority are intolarant racists.

The system has been constructed so that the interest of society are essentially defined as the summation of the interest of groups of indivdiuals. Meaning if we look after the interest of enough people, we can claim to have satisified the "interest of society", and not have to give a damn about the minority. This actually runs counter to universal healthcare as it would be sufficient to provide adequate healthcare for the majority, even if it meant providing none for the minority. I don't disagree with anything you have stated. It is both practical and justifiable to define what basic health coverage is. IMV, the bar in terms of what is provided as basic coverage "for free" is way too high. For most of the "free universal healthcare" crowd it doesn't seem politically correct to discuss restrictions on what is provided as a means to contain costs. To me it seems a complete violation of personal freedom that the people who pay for the system are not allowed to purchase superior care in the name of "equality".

Agreed! I'm not convinced it is a necessary component. At least not the the way we define it today. For example, is it necessary to provide expensive care to a 90year-old with a severe illness. Sad as it is morally, it is in society's better interest to let that person perish. Bingo!! You have hit the nail on the head as to why! They don't want to provide the benefit because it would cost them money to do so. Funny though, that is the exact reason why the weathy within a country don't push for universal healthcare. It seem that the masses are happy to share wealth when sharing means sharing wih someone wealthier than themselves. They are not so happy when it means having to share their own wealth with somone much poorer than themselves.

Yes I get this. You call it a social contract, I call it a balance of power. I agree that the rich benefit from social stability, but they only benefit to the extent that they are in danger of losing their wealth. I dont' believe that the rich are in danger of losng their wealth because they don't fund universal healthcare. So is the obligation to follow our laws the differentiating criteria? It would seem to me that the argument advanced thus far has been a "moral" one. ie It is immoral to deprive anyone of healthcare. You seem to state that it is not a moral reason at all. Let me pose a hypothetical to you. If you were prime minister and the governments of the 3rd world countries came to you and said, "we'll submit to your laws, so can we please have your benefits?", would you agree?