Jump to content


Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by blackbird

  1. Why should these separatists think they should have more than their share of the seats in a federal system.  It is just an excuse to demand more or separate.

      Seems to me they have more powers than the other nine provinces in many areas plus they have received a lot of money in equalization payments over the years.  Yet some are still griping.  I don't think the separatists speak for the majority in Quebec.  But we will see what happens.  I think they are far better off in Canada than they would be on their own.

  2. A book has been written:  Welfare, Choice, and Solidarity in Transition: Reforming the Health Sector in Eastern Europe 
 by Janos Kornai and Karen Eggleston
 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 365 pp., $69.95 (cloth), $24.95 (paper)

    There are probably lots of lesson we can learn from studying material like this and various other articles.

    The book says in part:

    "The book advocates the establishment of supplementary insurance markets. The authors wonder why such a market has not yet taken hold in most of Eastern Europe. The answer appears to have both a demand- and a supply-side dimension: Private insurers want a piece of the entire health insurance pie and are lobbying policymakers to introduce a lucrative private health insurance market. On the other hand, there is little consumer demand for supplementary insurance (requiring regular premium payments) in an environment where a reasonable under-the-table payment gets you the same level of service in case you need it (without monthly premiums)."

    In Canada, if politicians want to reform the health care system, they probably realize they would be entering a political minefield.  Half of Canada are Socialist-minded and expect government to be their paternal father and take care of them from cradle to grave.  Surprisingly or not so surprisingly, these same people oppose paying anything more for health care and likely oppose supplementary insurance that would require regular payments.  Unfortunately there is no such thing as a free lunch and that clearly applies to health care.

  3. 7 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

    The Iron Curtain came down in 1989, and with it, every Eastern European nation got rid of Socialism.

    Romania is a case in point.  Like other former Communist countries Romania is struggling to improve their health care system.  Changes to health care cannot be done overnight because of the complexity and other factors.  It takes many years for things to change.


    Nevertheless, the system remains in a state of transition. Out-of-pocket payment levels remain significant (for services beyond the statutory minimum package) and taxes continue to account for about one-sixth of health spending, principally capital spending by hospitals.

    The overall health status in the country also remains below the European average, with life expectancy of 73 years as against 79, and – in spite of reductions - a persisting high rate of both infant and maternal mortality (about 14 and 15.5 per 100,000 births, respectively).  unquote

    Healthcare in Eastern Europe (healthmanagement.org)

    According to this website and the other one I quoted, the life expectancy in Romania is ten years less than western Europe.


  4. 6 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

    Have you been in a coma for 35 years? The Iron Curtain came down in 1989, and with it, every Eastern European nation got rid of Socialism. 

    That did not change the health care systems in eastern European countries overnight.  It has been an ongoing struggle.  There are a number of factors that affect the health care systems.

    The article I quoted above says their life expectancy rates are getting shorter.   I have no reason to disbelieve that.  There may be a correlation of general improving health care in countries with greater or increasing private care and lessening of public health care.  Public health care systems may not be providing the best outcome for the countries where they are the only system or nearly the only systems.  We are witnessing major failures in the public system in Canada.


    Though generally behind their counterparts in central Europe (the Country Focus in our previous issue), significant developments are also underway in the healthcare systems in eastern Europe (Bulgaria, Lithuania, Romania, Serbia and Ukraine). As in central Europe, a major driver is the impact of transition from the Communistera systems inherited by each country and the priority given to health care by national governments.

    In principle, most countries in the region have transited from an era of ‘free’ care to one modelled on the mixed, social insurance systems of their counterparts in western Europe. Membership in the European Union by Bulgaria, Lithuania and Romania has clearly helped, and is likely to stretch the gap vis-à-vis the other two, Serbia and Ukraine.

    Nevertheless, many challenges remain to be overcome by all five countries – not least that of access to financing resources from a relatively weak economic base.

    The growth of private hospitals and practices is relatively slow (and in Ukraine’s case, non-existent). This, in turn, has impacted downstream on engendering efficiency in healthcare financing – although many countries have begun assessing DRG-like schemes. Ironically, partial transformation of the healthcare delivery system has, in some cases, led to a spike in in-patient admissions.

    Given below is an overview of the healthcare system in each of the five eastern European countries.


    Bulgaria witnessed dramatic changes to its health care system over a very brief period of time in the late 1990s, and then followup efforts to fine tune the first burst to later realities.

    Like other transitional countries in the region, the passage of a new Health Insurance Act in 1998 set the legal basis for both compulsory and voluntary health insurance in Bulgaria.

    The new system was financed by payroll contributions (6% of monthly wages, shared in a 1-4 ratio between the employee and employer – with a target 50-50 split by 2009). Meanwhile, the role of the State (at both federal and local government levels) was circumscribed to coverage of retired citizens and lower-income groups.

    In tandem, a National Framework Contract laid down a basic benefits package.

    Structurally, the key goal of the reforms has been to separate healthcare financing from provision. 28 regional insurance funds currently reimburse both public and private facilities on a contractual basis.

    Seven years before the Health Insurance Act, the government had already moved to legalize private practice in the healthcare area (labs, clinics, surgeries and pharmacies), and begun to reorganize government health facilities.   unquote

    For the whole article:

    Healthcare in Eastern Europe (healthmanagement.org)


  5. Former USSR countries in eastern Europe, which presumably still have Socialist or completely public health care systems are experiencing statistical shorter life spans than western European countries which have mixed public, private systems.  This would seem to indicate that countries must be capable of adaptation and change to maintain good health care for its people.

    • Downvote 1
  6. 45 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

    there is no excuse not to have universal health care in the US. 

    I just noticed on wikipedia that there is a major difference between eastern Europe's health care systems and western Europe's systems.  It says western Europe's life expectancy is increasing while in eastern Europe's former Soviet Socialist countries life expectancy is getting shorter.  To me this indicates that Socialist countries health care systems are failing and causing life expectancy to become shorter.  Be careful what you wish for.  Do we want to keep a universal health care system that is failing and possibly shortening life expectancy for many people?  That seems to be the consequence of a Socialist system in eastern Europe.

    Healthcare in Europe - Wikipedia


    Healthcare in Europe is provided through a wide range of different systems run at individual national levels. Most European countries have a system of tightly regulated, competing private health insurance companies, with government subsidies available for citizens who cannot afford coverage.[1][2] Many European countries (and all European Union countries) offer their citizens a European Health Insurance Card which, on a reciprocal basis, provides insurance for emergency medical treatment insurance when visiting other participating European countries.[3]

    European health[edit]

    EU countries with the highest life expectancy (2019)[4]

    RankCountryLife expectancy
    at birth (years)










    The World Health Organization has listed 53 countries as comprising the European region. Health outcomes vary greatly by country. Countries in western Europe have had a significant increase in life expectancy since World War II, while most of eastern Europe and the former Soviet countries have experienced a decrease in life expectancy.[5]

  7. quote

    This article presents an analysis of recent changes in the public-private mix in health care in eight European countries. The leading question is to what extent a process of privatization in health care can be observed. The framework for the analysis of privatization draws on the idea that there are multiple public/private boundaries in health care. The overall picture that emerges from our analysis is diverse, but there is evidence that health care in Europe has become somewhat more private. The growth of the public fraction in health care spending has come to an end since the 1980s, and in a few countries the private fraction even increased substantially. We also found some evidence for a shift from public to private in health care provision. Furthermore, there are signs of privatization in health care management and operations, as well as investments. Specific attention is spent on the identification of factors that push privatization forward and factors that work as a barrier to privatization.    unquote

    The privatization of health care in Europe: an eight-country analysis - PubMed (nih.gov)

    The health care system in the U.S. is unique in the world and has its own problems.

    Just because the Canadian health care system is failing, doesn't mean Canada needs to adopt the U.S. system.  That is not what I am suggesting.  But it certainly doesn't mean we have to maintain a failing system in this country.  There are many different countries in the world with their own health care systems.  The goal of a country should be to provide the best health care it can for its people.  The question is how can that best be achieved.  The present system in Canada is failing and harming a lot of people.  Canada must find solutions to fix the system.  I don't really see any hope for the existing system as it is.  Canada has had years to improve it but it is just getting worse.  I see the problem as rooted in Socialism and it being run by politicians.

  8. Drug addicts and crime are often closely connected.


    Drug Addiction and Crime

    It’s no coincidence that drug-related crime has become a growing concern of government agencies at the local, state, and federal levels. According to a survey of the nation’s prison population by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 33% of inmates in state prisons and 22% of inmates in federal prisons were using drugs at the time they committed crimes. Even more disturbing is the number of prisoners who had ever used drugs: 83% of inmates in state prisons and 73% of those in federal prisons. In other words, the overwhelming majority of persons incarcerated in the United States at the time the survey was taken had misused drugs in the past.5  "

    Dangers of Drug Addiction and Misuse | Rehabs.com

  9. 1 hour ago, herbie said:

    If they're injecting, no safer space to do that than in a hospital.

    "Using drugs can increase paranoid and irrational thoughts, mood swings, and irritability, amongst many other side effects."

    These are not the kind of people nurses, doctors, and patients should have to put up with in hospitals.  As Aristides said, who is going to enforce where they take drugs.  What is going to stop them from taking drugs in hallways, waiting rooms, washrooms, or wherever?  Do you really think drug addicts will follow rules?

    Do drug addicts ever rob to get the money for their next fix?

    There is some danger in having irrational or irritable people in the hospital with other patients.  There is no way these kind of people should be permitted to be taking illicit drugs in a hospital.  I see this as putting other people at risk.  What is become of society?


    • Like 1
  10. 37 minutes ago, herbie said:

    If you can. fly somewhere else and pay all you want, let some drug addict or welfare Mom use your bed. Feel all the anger you wish.

    If the system is not changed, you will be stuck with a failing health care system.  You are living under an  illusion if you think it is fair to make people who need urgent care to not get it in a timely fashion.  Many people suffer serious consequences for not being treated in a timely manner.  People getting proper timely treatment is hit and miss now in the public health care system.

    It is a Socialist lie to claim everyone is being treated equally under the present system.  That is not how it is working.  The system is failing.  Millions don't even have a family doctor.  If you have one, it is just by accident.  Many do not.  That is not equitable health care.  So clinging to the present failing system is not sensible.  

    Do you have a better solution on how to fix the failing health care system?

  11. 3 hours ago, herbie said:

    That's what it boils down to: the money. Let's legitimize the idea that having money deserves you more than the next person.

    The problem is the government is not willing and may not be able to put more money into the public health care system to make if function properly.  Politics determines how much money is spent on various government services.  Health care is just of many services.  It is becoming a disaster for millions of Canadians.

    I never said anybody who can't afford it should go to the end of the queue.  You misinterpreted what I said.

    I said if we had a private system as well as the public system, the people with lots of money could get the care they need in a timely manner.  Not like now, where many people are being denied treatment for long periods of time.  If a good private system existed, then that would accomplish several things:

    1.  It would enable people to get treatment rapidly instead of sitting on a waiting list or flying to another country.

    2.  It would increase the availability of health care options for people who could afford the extra health care insurance and possible deductions to pay for rapid treatment.  Therefore it would reduce the burden on the public health care system.  That should speed up service for everyone who uses the public system.  The goal would be to eliminate the long waiting periods for everyone for urgent treatments and surgeries.

    3.  It should provide faster and better care for poor people and everyone with the public system. 

    I never said the system should make things worse or put low income or poor people on a longer queue.  That is a total misinterpretation of what I said.  You haven't thought about the fact a private system must reduce the burden on the public system and enable everyone to get faster health care.  That would be the basic idea of adding a private system.  The government is not willing to add the billions needed to fix the public system.  But a private system would essentially be adding billions of more dollars to health care by people who can afford to spend it.

    4.  The public system cannot afford to pay to provide an efficient, fast health care for the population and politicians don't want to put enough money into the public system because they are under pressure for many other demands.  The private system would help to alleviate that pressure and provide much more money for health care overall.  That is one of the important advantages of adding a private system alongside the public system.

    5.  The public system may be overburdened with bureaucracy and administration.  That may be one of it's major problems.  Adding a private health care system alongside it might also help to provide health care with less bureaucracy and overhead costs.

    6.  Holding to Socialist ideology and claiming its not fair to let some people pay for their health care will not fix the failing public health system.  It will only prolong and add suffering to millions of people unnecessarily.

  12. 46 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

    Those theories are the best explanation we have based on the observable evidence.  They are called theories because science is about probability of truth.  People just didn't make this stuff up out of thin air, like in the Bible.  Every single person who believes in Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark over the theory of evolution is a gullible fool.

    That's your opinion.  The theory of evolution is in fact not observable evidence.  Some people might feel strongly that it is plausible, but that doesn't make it a fact.

    You are blinded by the Satanic world system, which is what secular humanism is.  

    The Bible has lots of evidence that it is true.  The miracles that Jesus performed including raising Lazarus from the dead and observed by eye witnesses are strong evidence.  The eye witness accounts of Jesus Christ being raised from the dead one of the most important facts.

    People do make things up out of thin air.  That is what Charles Darwin did when he came up with the theory of evolution.  What evidence or proof did he have back in 1859?  None really.   The biological sciences have advanced incredibly since Darwin came up with his theory.  Today they realize the complexity of the most basic cell is immense.  The amount of information stored in DNA in cells is vast.  Random chance processes do not add information.  The complexity of everything is too great to claim it all happened by chance.  That is where the real foolishness comes in with Darwinists.

    Even if you think the theory of evolution is true, you are still far short of explaining the universe.  What about the existence of atoms, molecules, the laws of physics which govern how how the particles operate.  Where did energy and gravity come from?  What about the earth following a path around the sun which gives us the four seasons.  Did this all just happen by accident?   That is another area foolishness comes in when some people say it just happened by some by some kind of cosmic accident.

  13. Today in Canada many people with lots of money, politicians, and the elite can get on a plane and fly down to the U.S. and get immediate medical care.  If they stayed in Canada and waited on the long waiting periods, they might wait a year or two for serious surgery or other procedures.  Some of these delays could be endangering or shortening people's life.  This is against human rights.

    Because of politics, Canada's politicians are denying the human rights of Canadians by refusing to allow private health care that people who are willing to pay extra for medical insurance and obtain care in Canada.   However, they can't block people with the money from flying outside Canada to some other country for treatment.  So the Canadians solution of denying private care to exist within Canada is only giving an illusion of equity.  It is not really equal medical care of all.  The failing health care system is affecting lower income and poor people more negatively.

    If Canada allowed and encourage private care, the government would have less pressure on the public system and could speed up and improve the public health care system.  That should be the objective.  Give Canadians better health care whatever way it can be done.

    There is just not enough money to provide an efficient, and effective public health care system for everyone.  It is time to look at this and do something concrete to fix the system.  I would expect the government to act to fix the public system at the same time as a private system is allowed.  A private system would enable people with money to pay for extra medical insurance and thereby overall contribute much more money to the health care system and reduce the pressure on the public system.


  14. 3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

    No women have been used in armies around the globe all through out history...That's what they were expected to do, in a lot of cultures stay home in the kitchen...Russians used women to great effect, in all kinds of combat roles, they made very effective snipers as well. 

    In Afghanistan, there was no front lines, every soldier was exposed to the enemy, regardless of job or task...when you left the camp it wasn't a matter of IF you were going to get hit, it was when...Taliban did not care if you were Infantry or not male or female...they would kill both all the same...and still we went out every hour of every day....

    Sure there is, everyone is a soldier first...if females can make the standard then they should have the opportunity to serve, and few have....which means that the women that did serve in Canadian infantry or combat roles did exceptional well. You do know that there are small light wieght men with small frames in the Infantry as well, in Afghanistan ruck sacks started at 100 lbs and would climb to 150/160 depending on the mission ...try that in the mountains, and plus 55 degrees heat... 

    While that was not the norm, it was for the PPCLI during the open phase of Afghanistan, during routine patrols my pack weighed in at maybe 50 to 60 lbs..mostly ammo and water...lots of water...

    I seen a female medic run down a narrow ally way, under heavy machine gun fire pick up a wounded soldier throw him on her back and she ran back to safety more than 100 meters...both ways...he was about 220 lbs with all his kit and weapon. sure she was motivated by gun fire, that day she had a set of balls the size of a C-130....Hero's come in all shapes and sizes...and sexs as well.

    That's interesting.  Well, I don't claim to be an expert on it.

    I suppose there may be some women that would fit into the that kind of job.  They should be carefully screened when they are hired to be sure they are suitable. 

    Wonder why there were so many reports of sexual abuse in the CAF in the last number of years.

  15. A lot of people have the money to pay for extra private health care services in Canada.

    Perhaps that is the solution to the failing health system we have.  Perhaps it is something Canadians should seriously look at.  Something must be done about the terrible situation with health care.

     Right now the health care system is in a crisis and around a million people in B.C. alone don't have a family doctor.

    Emergency rooms close sometimes in some places.  There are not enough beds in some hospitals and not enough necessary services.

    Long waiting lists for some surgeries.   People sometimes wait a year for a procedure.

    That is not health care.

    If we had a mixture of private and public, then those with money could use private for some things if they so choose.  That would take the pressure off the public system and reduce waiting times, etc.  I am sure lots of people would be willing to pay for their own health insurance for certain procedures when they need it.   Why deny people the choice if they have the money for insurance and maybe a deductible for a procedure?

    That is a possible solution to the failing health care system. 

    Government is under pressure to fund all kinds of services in society and just can't seem to fix the broken health care system. 

    Does anyone have a solution that is better?

    • Haha 1
  16. On 4/12/2024 at 1:03 PM, ExFlyer said:

    Sure, private health care with and insurance....like the US???

    Perhaps we need a mixture of public and private.  Right now the health care system is in a crisis and around a million people in B.C. alone don't have a family doctor.

    Emergency rooms close sometimes in some place.

    Long waiting lists for some surgeries.   People sometimes wait a year for a procedure.

    That is not health care.

    But we know you don't care about anybody else.

    If we had a mixture of private and public, then those with money could use private for some things if they so choose.  That would take the pressure off the public system and reduce waiting times, etc.  I am sure lots of people would be willing to pay for their own health insurance for certain procedures when they need it.   Why deny people the choice if they have the money for insurance and maybe a deductible for a procedure?

    That is a possible solution to the failing health care system.  

    Do you have a solution that is better?


  17. 10 minutes ago, Aristides said:

    I was paying attention. All you do is quote gospels. Name one woman who had anything to do with writing any of them.

    Who or what says a woman should be involved in writing them?  Do we need a man to give birth to babies?  Men and women have different roles.  You are how old and don't know that yet?

  18. 49 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

    Frack...don't preach to me you AHole!!!!

    You need to shut up with your bible shit, especially if addressing me!



    Stay on topic!


    1  Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. {ungodly: or, wicked} 2  But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. 3  And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. {wither: Heb. fade} 

    4  The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away. 5  Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. 6  For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish. "

    Psalm 1:1-6

    7 minutes ago, Aristides said:

    Around a million women served in rhe Red Army during WW2 doing every job from sniper to fighter pilots. Some of their most celebrated snipers were women. Many more women fought as partisans in occupied countries.

    Women warriors have been part of many cultures over history in Africa, the Vikings, Mongols and others.

    All heathen.

  19. 18 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

    So, is the bibel liberal or conservative or just a misogynistic story book? LOL

    "16  Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. 17  And I will wait upon the LORD, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him. 18  Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion. 19  And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 20  To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. {no…: Heb. no morning} 21  And they shall pass through it, hardly bestead and hungry: and it shall come to pass, that when they shall be hungry, they shall fret themselves, and curse their king and their God, and look upward. 22  And they shall look unto the earth; and behold trouble and darkness, dimness of anguish; and they shall be driven to darkness. "  Isaiah 8:20 KJV

    You need to study this closely and learn if you do not believe the Bible, study it, and be born again, you are in darkness and won't know the truth.

    Seeking unto wizards that peep (liberal, left political leaders and pundits) will not lead you into truth, but further into darkness.  I met a man in McDs that seemed near madness from seeking unto wizards.  He believed money was a bad thing and all his ideas were bizarre.  That is where the world system can lead one.

  20. 45 minutes ago, eyeball said:

    Theists lose because they're not even on the playing field.


    That's because it's not science.

    That is a simpleton view.  The subject is far more complex than that.  Creation scientists look at things from a scientific point of view as well as a Biblical view.  The two actually fit together if you understand what real science is.

    I assume you have not been raised from a Christian family or background and perhaps have been evolutionized in school.  So it is understandable why you would be skeptical of the creationist viewpoint.  You need to read a few things in the Bible and learn there is a spiritual realm outside the material universe.  The universe did not create itself.  Everything that exists had a cause.  The universe is an effect.  Every effect (the universe) had a cause.  That cause was an intelligent creator we call God.

    I assume you are familiar with evolutionist's claims of the earth being hundreds of millions or billions of years old.  Perhaps you could read some articles from the Creationist's point of view and at least understand where they are coming from.


    3) Many fossils indicate that they must have formed quickly, and could not have taken long time-spans.

    a) Common fossils.

    There are billions of fossil fish in rock layers around the world which are incredibly well-preserved. They frequently show intact fins and often scales, indicating that they were buried rapidly and the rock hardened quickly. In the real world, dead fish are scavenged within 24 hours. Even in some idealized cold, sterile, predator-free and oxygen-free water, they will become soggy and fall apart within weeks.3 A fish buried quickly in sediment that does not harden within a few weeks at the most will still be subject to decay by oxygen and bacteria, such that the delicate features like fins, scales, etc. would not preserve their form. Rapid burial in the many underwater landslides (turbidity currents) and other sedimentary processes accompanying Noah’s Flood would explain not only their excellent preservation, but their existence in huge deposits, often covering thousands of square kilometres."

    The earth: how old does it look? (creation.com)

    This article was written by

    Dr Carl Wieland M.B., B.S.


  21. 2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

    What I read into your post is you are a misogynist and think women still should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen LOL

    It is not misogynist to believe in men and women as God created them.  They are each unique and each have their own roles.  It is you who want to ignore that reality and treat them as if there is no difference.  I didn't say they need to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.  That is a worn out phrase used by liberals and woke.  It shows your true colours.

    There is nothing dishonourable about having children, raising a family and looking after them in the home.  Marriage is honourable.  It is foolishness to mock the most important role of women in raising a family.  They should be honoured and respected for that role as should men for loving and taking care of their family.

  • Create New...