Jump to content

blackbird

Senior Member
  • Posts

    7,841
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by blackbird

  1. This is bizarre. Heads of FBI and MI5 issue strong warning about threat to the West from China (nbcnews.com) Read it or don't read it. You probably won't because you are convinced there is no threat from China and you somehow won't accept any reports from anyone to the contrary. I don't have time to waste on someone who won't listen to anything. Canada is loaded with entirely brainwashed Communist sympathizers. Jagmeet is one. All he can come up with is "the greedy corporations". Sounds like a Communist/Marxist mantra.
  2. You said Russia and China are not a threat to the west. I just gave you an article with all kinds of information countering your claim. There has been many articles, books, commentaries by experts, describing how China has a history of violating human rights, how they are a threat to the U.S., how they interfere in Canadian elections. How China is working to become the main superpower in the world. But you don't seem to believe or accept any of it. You are completely out of reality. You don't seem to know what is going on in the world. What are you talking about? What ordinary people? People in China are not "free". They are free to do what the Communist Party has decreed. China has a history of violating human rights and this has been pointed out repeatedly by governments in the west. China uses their agents in the west to force Chinese people in America and Canada to do their will. They use intimidation, threats to their relatives in China. The CCP considers Americans and Canadians of Chinese descent under the authority of China. You don't think that is violation of human rights? Seriously.
  3. " The director of the FBI has said that acts of espionage and theft by China's government pose the "greatest long-term threat" to the future of the US. Speaking to the Hudson Institute in Washington, Christopher Wray described a multi-pronged disruption campaign. He said China had begun targeting Chinese nationals living abroad, coercing their return, and was working to compromise US coronavirus research. "The stakes could not be higher," Mr Wray said. "China is engaged in a whole-of-state effort to become the world's only superpower by any means necessary," he added. The spying game: China's global network Could TikTok be banned in the US? The Hong Kong crisis and the new world order In a nearly hour-long speech on Tuesday, the FBI director outlined a stark picture of Chinese interference, a far-reaching campaign of economic espionage, data and monetary theft and illegal political activities, using bribery and blackmail to influence US policy. "We've now reached a point where the FBI is now opening a new China-related counterintelligence case every 10 hours," Mr Wray said. "Of the nearly 5,000 active counterintelligence cases currently under way across the country, almost half are related to China." The FBI director mentioned a programme called "Fox Hunt", which he said President Xi Jinping had "spearheaded" and he said was geared at Chinese nationals living abroad seen as threats to the Chinese government. "We're talking about political rivals, dissidents, and critics seeking to expose China's extensive human rights violations," he said. "The Chinese government wants to force them to return to China, and China's tactics to accomplish that are shocking." FBI director: China is 'greatest threat' to US (bbc.com)
  4. What does that mean? Russia and China are still a huge threat to the west. Chairman Mao is gone but the Xi Jinping is the Chairman now and he is a dangerous leader. No less than Mao. China is very powerful now.
  5. The Governor General's position is to represent the monarchy in Canada. It is an appointed position for a five year period. The GG from what I understand is not supposed to be involved in politics. The GG has certain non-partisan functions and represents the King. Therefore it seems wrong for the present GG to be involved in promoting a proposed bill being brought forward by the Liberal government. She was not elected by Canadians. Yet holds a very influential position. Governor General Mary Simon hosts Bill C-63 supporters at Rideau Hall (msn.com)
  6. I am not sure what this has to do with the question of mixing private and public health care. The health care system is failing us in a serious way. The reason I see is because of politics, bureaucracy, powerful health care unions, and a lack of sufficient funds This is the way of Socialism. Socialism has failed wherever it has been tried. Canada is no different and can expect the same results. Public health care has been failing for years in Canada. Countries in eastern Europe have been changing slowly ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, but they have a lifespan of ten years less than western European countries. The average person dies at 73 in Romania and in western Europe the average lifespan is 83 years.
  7. Before Quebec holds the referendum, I hope they know they are not going to take all the land that the province encompasses now. Removing certain areas could negatively affect the rest of Canada and are not likely to be given up. Before they actually separate, there will have to be negotiations. They do not have the right to unilaterally declare a sovereign state of Quebec. They are part of a confederation and the Federal government represents all of Canada under the authority of His Majesty the King. That means, separation requires negotiation. Quebec is not a sovereign country yet and doesn't have the power by simply holding a referendum to declare themselves a sovereign state.
  8. Lock them up until they are ready to be rehabilitated. Then keep them in a secure rehab centre until they are clean. Why inflict drug addicts on society? NDP are brainless. NDP have no conscience and don't even try to protect society from criminals and drug addicts. Addicts are unpredictable and some are dangerous. The primary job of government is to protect law-abiding citizens, not criminals.
  9. CTV news just reported half of Canadians are living from pay cheque to pay cheque. Many are facing difficult decisions because they can't make the rent payments or mortgage payments. The health care system is in a crisis and needs major changes to vastly improve the service. One way to do that is to increase private participation because a large enough private contribution and participation would bring in a lot money. Medical insurance for people who could afford it could make a major contribution to improving the health care system. We need to remember the people with more money would be contributing to the overall health care by taking the burden off the public system. Lots of people are listening to the leftists who are driven by failed Socialist ideology and for that reason they oppose allowing private health care to join in. They don't realize a private system would be contributing a lot of money to provide health for Canadians who could afford it. This would make far more sense than watching people with a lot of money fly off to other countries to obtain urgent health care. The money would be better spend in Canada and would contribute to the overall improvement of private and public health care by taking the pressure off the public system. It would speed up the provision of urgent care for people and hopefully reduce or completely eliminate waiting times and lists. That should be one of the goals. This could also lengthen the average lifespan of Canadians. We need to kick Jagmeet Singh's butt down the road. He is obsessed with Socialist ideology and that is all he cares about. He has no practical or real ideas to improve the health care system. He is also beholden to the big unions that make it very difficult to improve the health care system.
  10. I believe employees or professionals who are not up to the job, after a reasonable period under supervision, should be fired and not protected by their unions or associations. That is one of the problems. These are essential services that the public depend on. Organizations such as the police or health care. The public and patients should always come first.
  11. 1. No, I did not change the question. You just introduced a new subject, restructuring. I am simply replying that I don't see how that will make a difference. The subject is will a mixture of public and private health care make a difference, not, will restructuring make a difference. Restructuring is just tinkering with a failed system. Yes, thank you for your time. It would be nice if you were able to see my point of view sometimes. But I think you are biased somewhat. You sound like you are a knowledgeable person. But the question is why do you trust a Socialist, public system that has proven a failure? Surely you understand private systems, without the powerful unions ruling the workplace, would run much more efficiently. Private systems can hire professionals and should be able to fire people who are not doing the job adequately. Do you think people should be fired who are not really up to the job? Public systems are bureaucratic and protect the workers first, not the people they are supposed to be serving.
  12. 1. The government and health authorities have had years to re-structure the system and don't appear to have done so. So why would they change now? The failing system will continue to fail. 2. You have not answered the point I made that unions and associations have too much power. I went into great detail. The associations protect and keep unqualified people in critical positions. The system is set up to protect the workers and professionals, not the patients. The government allows this. "nothing to see here folks" would be the standard answer. You like to answer with number and often a curt, meaningless reply as in your number 1. yes. So you basically just write off the failed health care system and have no solutions that anybody will take seriously. Restructure is not solution. There is no proof it will change anything. A bureaucracy with inherent flaws is still bureaucracy with inherent flaws after you restructure it, whatever that is supposed to mean.
  13. God has laid out the ten commandments and guidance for mankind in his written word, in English, the King James Bible. The western world developed it's belief in human rights from Judeo-Christian civilization down through the centuries. Rights are not a human invention. Humans are fallible and sinful. Some humans did over time recognize the value of the individual and they respected that everyone has certain rights. But that is more a result of the human conscience that God gave man. Then later God taught man through his Holy Scripture right from wrong. Man on his own has always proven a failure. Without God there is no hope.
  14. Why do you always parrot Satan? God is omnipotent. No matter what you say, you will one day find out you are dead wrong. You are as a speck of dust in the universe and your life is as a vapour that will come and go. You need to get down on your knees and ask God to be merciful to you. Read the New Testament and be born again. That is your ONLY hope. Jesus is Lord.
  15. Do you seriously think just restructuring a failing health care system would fix the problems? Eastern Europe had a Socialist health care system and after the USSR collapsed beginning about 1989, they have been struggling for decades to try to repair the health care system. One website reports the lifespan of people in Romania is about 73 while western Europe, which has varying degrees of private health care and public health care combined, has an average lifespan of about 83 years. That is the average person in western Europe is living ten years longer than people in Romania. Likely the same scenario in other eastern European countries that are struggling to break free of government controlled everything. My own personal experience with care in the ER when I had a heart attack tells me our system is a disaster in some cases. It may have taken many years off my life. It has left a huge negative impact on my life. Sometimes supposedly medical professionals are in critical positions that should not be there. We the public are paying the price. In a private health care system, I believe people are expected to produce good results and the bad apples may be more easily removed or kept out of the critical positions. I think you should consider that and don't stick with Socialist ideology just for the sake of ideology. We should have a system that produces the best results for the people, not the best for the bureaucracy or staff as far as shielding poor performance. In public systems, I believe staff and people in critical positions have less scrutiny and have too much job protection no matter if they are not qualified for the job. I suspect private systems have more freedom to move people out of jobs they are not suited for. I see unions and associations as a serious threat to health care in public systems if they call the shots for everything and cannot be controlled. Perhaps private systems with no union or very limited power for associations would be much better for the patients or public. Unions and professional associations have their place, but when they essentially control the system, then we should realize they are not there for the best interests of the patients, but are putting their own members first in every way.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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. quote 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.
  19. 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. quote 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 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)
  20. 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.
  21. 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 quote 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] World RankEU RankCountryLife expectancy at birth (years) 5.1.Spain83.4 6.2.Italy83.4 11.3.Sweden82.7 12.4.France82.5 13.5.Malta82.4 16.6.Ireland82.1 17.7.Netherlands82.1 19.8.Luxembourg82.1 20.9.Greece82.1 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]
  22. 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.
  23. 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
  24. "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?
×
×
  • Create New...