Renegade

If what you are suggesting is that as a policy, a private clinic don't provide any medical care (despite having qualified individuals) but instead dispatch someone in need of emergency treatment to a hospital, then you are suggesting a standard even lower than "treat and street". With a "treat and street" policy, they are obliged to stabilze an individual before sending him off to a hospital. If you agree that a private clinic can stabize an individual prior to sending him for emergency care at a hospital, why can a private hospital not do the same?

Yes, I agree much can be done to improve loan collection among juristictions. This is not specific just to student loans, but applies to everything from traffic tickets to unpaid credit card bills. It serves the interest of all governments not to let individuals escape debts by moving to a different juristicition.

What exactly is the philosophical difference between a private clinic and a private hospital? If I walked into a private clinic specalized in hip-replacement, with a gunshot wound and couldn't pay, do you not think they too would "treat and street". Personally I don't have any issue with "treat and street". The phrase is created by opponents to the concept, but the idea is that emergency care is provided for and the patient is dispatched to the medical institution which can best accomodate their financial ability.

Unfortunately, a lot of doctors who head south promptly renege on their student loans in Canada. I have no idea what the stats are at the moment though. Some states in the U.S. are not very helpful to creditors in Canada who try to garnish wages for non-payment of student loans. They are trying to come up with incentives to keep doctors in Canada through loan forgiveness for years of service and residency and research opportunities. They also try to encourage worthwhile applications from people who show intent to make their practice in rural places. Still, there are unscrupulous individuals who intend to leave and figure that no one can get them for student loan payments once they are in the U.S. Do you want that person for your doctor? The problem is not that mechanisms don't exist to recoup those loans, it is the lack of will on the part of government to go after and collect. There is no issue if people leave but still assume responsibility for their loan. If the govenment was as diligent in chasing deadbeat students as it does its own taxpayers, this would not be an issue at all.

We have created an artifical situaion in Canada in order to provide "universal" healthcare. We are far from the most efficient healthcare system, but we are far more efficient than the US. Cost are contained in Canada in a number of ways: 1) Having a single-payer system. This pretty much eliminates the overhead of the HMO approach which adds a lot of adminstative cost. 2) Regulating the costs that healthcare providers can charge. 3) Limiting access to certain high-cost procedures and drugs. Points 2 and 3 above have a number of consequences. Regulating the cost of procedures, has in impact on the wages of professionals in the healthcare industry, resulting in many of them leaving ot more lucrative environments. Limiting access means that certain procedures or drugs are either not available at all or have prohibitive wait times. Here are some of the things which can be done to improve our healthcare system: 1) Improve the supply of healthcare workers. It seems obvious in market economics the greater the supply the lower the price given stable demand. We can increase supply in a number of ways including fast-tracking foreign doctors and nurses for immigration and practice, greatly increasing the number of spaces in medical schools. The caveat is if the government invest in educating doctors, they would be obliged to commit to serve in Canada. 2) Restrict the "free" healthcare to basic healthcare. Individuals should have to buy an insurance plan to cover all procedures and drugs over what is considered "basic" 3) Remove the restrictions on private health care, allowing those who want to purchase better care to do so.

It absolutely does serve a purpose. As with any investor the government takes a RISK in the funds it puts up. There are many things which could prevent that indivudual from actually translating that subsidy into earnings (They may never finish the program, the may not find employment, they may lose interest in the occupation, etc). In essence if you truly mean "investment" then what the govenment provides is ENABLEMENT to do something they could otherwise not do. Without the recoupment of the subsidy, it is not an investment at all, it is simply a grant. I'm not sure if we are on the same page. I simply mean that any education subsidy is contingent upon entering a trade or program which have job prospects which result in higher earnings than they would otherwise get. For example if someone already has the skills to be a plumber, why should the government subisidze him to train as a teacher when he is likely to earn more as a plumber? As with any investor, the government should have a say in where those investment funds are used.

Virtually every essential (food, shelter, clothing, etc) is rationed on the basis of cost. For better or worse, money is the way society measures the worth of each individual's contribution to that society. It is a fact of life that the more the worth of an individual's contribution, the more he gets to partake in the rewards of society. Personally I don't see why medical care should be any different. There is much to be said for the system we have in Canada, but there is also much to fault in it. One fault is that we refuse to allow people who can improve their personal medical care, to do so by buying better care, on the grounds that it would be unfair to others. We seem to be blind to our own hypocracy in that we allow people with money to buy better food, shelter, and education than those who don't have it. We see nothing wrong with that, but yet have an emotional and irrational response when it comes to healthcare.

If your argument is that subsidizing people's education is an investment by the government, then it should be treated as such. Then: 1) Individuals who's education has been subsidized should be on the hook to contribute more in the years when the start earning (perhaps by a higher marginal tax rate) until such time that investment is paid off. It doesn't seem right that those who have not recieved such an investment should have to pay the same amount as those who have. 2) If people want to leave the country they would be requred to repay the investment plus more. 3) The level of educational subsidy should be reflective of the propensity for that education to deliver higher paying employment. So perhaps someone studing to be a lawyer should get a subsidy, and someone studying to be a librarian, none. IMV, the extent of government involvement in higher education should be to provide enablement in the form of loan guarantees open to appropriately qualified students. Any other subsidy unnaturally distorts what people would choose as a course of study, and the incentive is already there for students to invest in their own higher education via higher wages.

Hardly, divorce laws ensure that any man who marries a woman without a career is taking on a huge financial risk. I think the advice in the article is dumb for that reason - men need to marry a woman with a career so they won't be on the hook supporting her in the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed for the rest of her life if she leaves. You are quite correct that divorce laws financially disadvantage the main breadwinner, however there are a couple of considerations: 1. No matter how you split the earnings pie after divorce, the cost of maintaining two households will be more than with just one. Both households will likely suffer a decline in standard of living. In many one-earner household, both parties are likely to be economically trapped in the marriage. 2. Many (maybe most) spouses are unaware of the financial split which will take place upon divorce. That ignorance, which prevelant in both the earning and non-earning spouse, is likely to cause more anxiety to the one without an independant source of income.

In order for him to actually get the cheque, he either needs to be receiveing the Child Tax Benefit, or would have to apply independantly for the Child Care benefit. Has he been getting the Child Tax Benefit for the last 3 years? If so he should not be entitled to that either. It also may be that he never informed Revenue Canada that he moved to Australia as a permanant resident (which I guess he now has done). Yes, he and his wife are to be commended for his honesty. His mother, however, is less commendable, in that she would encourage him to commit fraud.

This only applys to Pensions and OAS. This doesn't apply to Universal Child Care Benefit.

I guess if you want a subservient woman who will be financially trapped in a relationship because they lack the economic power to leave, then by all means follow his advice. Afterall, those damm career women can be so independent and uppity.

It would seem that in society we are very selective in who's rights we trample in the name of serving the child's best interest. For example, if the child was better off in an adpotive home, would we remove the child from the care of the mother and force an adoption? Apparently not. It is apparently fine however to disregard the father's rights if it is for the cause of "the child's best interest".

Yes, definitely. But that is a separate issue. A mother should be required to inform the father as soon as she is pregnant and give the father an opportunity to request that she have a abortion. If she refuses for whatever reason then the father should be freed of all support obligations. The father is also freed of support obligations if a woman waits until it is too late to get an abortion before informing the father.If a woman wants to have a child without the consent of the father then she should be prepared to raise that child on her own. Sheesh I am not evena feminist and I want to cut yer bawls off for being so silly! Get real dude. The moment you or me or any guy sticks his magic wand where it can make babies we assume a responsibility that we could get a woman pregnant. Man you got it figured out huh. Hit and run. Impregnante them and then demand they abort or you don't pay. Man what rock did you crawl out of. Following your arguement women are simply servants for our magic wands and have no rights unless predicated by what we men need or do not want to be responsible for? GET REAL. Either wear a safe or if you shoot off your wazoo be prepared for the consequences and responsibilities that come with being a man. Sounds like you need to grow up emotionally before you ejaculate further. RW is entirely consistent in his position. Assuming that fornication was mutually consentual, do you think the woman should be "prepared for the consequences and responsibilities that come" with it, or can she opt out via an abortion? If she can opt out, why would you deny a man the same option?

Sure. And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass hopping. Even if such a procedure were ever to become viable, it would probably apply in about 0.00000000001% of such cases, so why even consider it? The question isn't as invalid as you would suggest. Substitute "surrogate mother" in lieu of father and such a procedure becomes viable. So if we can remove an embryo from a mother and implant it in someone else, does that elimintate the justification for abortion? In my view no, for the reasons I've stated previously.

The mother has the right to have the embryo removed from her body. As long as the mother consents, she can assign the embryo to the father or anyone else for gestation. If she doesn't consent then I would say the father is out of luck despite his wishes.

You are quite right. This is one (but not the only) problem with healthcare. The solution to this particular problem is to ration "free" healthcare. It is absurd to spend an unlimited amount of money saving a life or curing an ailment, even if it was technically possible.

You provided no reference to the story, so it is impossible for me to have any context on the issue. Can you please provide a link to the story?

What you do ignore in your argument it the rights of the woman. By what justification do you propose that society should force her to host a fetus, against her will (btw, risking her life and health in the process)?

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/benefits/uccb/faq-e.html#q2 You can be physically residing anywhere in the world, but still be consider a resident of Canada if you have "sufficient residential ties in Canada". It seems only fair that if the CCRA considers you a resident enough so that you need to pay taxes in Canada, then you should also collect the Childcare Benefit.

While the program may be interesting, it is unlikely to reveal any new insights on abortion. It is more about human nature in how humans with opposite views will be able to get along.

I take it that this is only your opinion. If you have more than just your opinion on this, please cite it. I dispute that this is the role of government, and in my view government should play no part in wealth redistribution.

Yes it is true that your religious view will shape your view of abortion but it is not the only factor. Religious factors aside, abortion is also about conflicting rights. The fetus right to life (or even if it has rights at all) vs the woman's right to control her body. So the issue transcends a religious view, in the same what that you may have a religious view of robbery or murder, but yet expect the state to enforce laws around robbery or murder.

RW, I agree with most of your argument, however I would take issue with the line being drawn at 8 months. While I agree that when concieved the fetus is nothing but a mass of tissue, at some point before birth that fetus evolves into a human being. I would say that point is well before 8 months, regardless of the fact of if it could survive or not without the mother. The mother should have self-determination in deciding whether she wants to host a pregnancy or not, however she does not need 8 months to make that decision. In my view 3-4 months are sufficient time. If she decides not to terminate the pregnancy within the first 4 months, she should be deemed to be implicitly entering a "contract" to host the pregnancy and carry it to term. After that cutoff she should not be allowed to terminate the pregnancy. One question, if a mother, after 8 months, decided she wanted to cease hosting the pregnancy and induce immediate delivery, would you permit it, despite the fact that it may lead to serious complications in the child's health?

When the parents are together I am not aware of any laws in our society which obligate the parent to anything toward adult children. In fact the law seems to be vague about responsiblities toward minor children as well. Of course no adult can neglect a child in their care or abuse them, but what are their obligations beyond that? Do they have an obligation to educate them religiously? Is there a minimium level of lifestyle they must provide their kids? Until the parents split, I think the obligations, while they may exist morally, do not exist in law. Another interesting question is what are the obligations of kids toward parents? I know at one point Singapore was consdering a “Parents Maintenance Bill”, which gave aged parents the ability to sue adult children for financial support. I would seem that we have decided that these are society's obligations but not the childs.