Michael Hardner

That is the public debate, yes, but there isn't much debate on that in the literature from what I have read. Only a few scientists remain that doubt that CO2 is the major driver.

If there are problems then let's discuss them the way that we do - with reason, curiosity and to advance our knowledge of things. I don't like to prop up his lousy threads by adding a good argument after a bad one.

jdobbin M.Dancer bush_cheney2OO4 Argus August1991 jbg Smallc Oleg Bach geoffrey Riverwind Black Dog Michael Hardner Wilber Dog On Porch eyeball guyser kimmy American Woman Leafless GhostHacked Oleg - you would be the toast of the town.

Temporarily.. permanent ?

No - you could keep them open. The big costs, though, are for medical professionals which we could outsource.

Why not import foreign doctors here on special visas and build temporary facilities to handle overflows from time to time ?

So as to count grains of sand through the hourglass until you get banned, is my guess.

From Lictor ? My advice is this: if you're enjoying the time it takes you (not much) to reduce his posts to the proper pile of illogic and obscure references that they are, then good for you. But do not invest any time in posting to Lictor, if you expect a reasonable reply or proper evidence for his beliefs. The real reasons he thinks those dark thoughts are deep within him, and the links he provides are just a false costume of reason.

Moderately... In McGuinty's first budget, they spent money to reduce waiting times for cancer treatment: http://wapedia.mobi/en/Dalton_McGuinty

Yes, it's made up. Agreements are only in the open as far as they want you to know. Even the UK coalition likely has some secret aspects. But do you think our system is like China's ? There's no reason to think that this change will result in significant change to how people vote, i.e. which party they choose. And saying "we have no way of knowing until we try" isn't valid. We should know a little more about what changes will produce before we embark on them. No, the result is the kind of society that is produced by government. You're more interested in the process. Our result is a fair and stable society, which you are willing to put at risk because of your own interpretation of fairness. The system that translates individual freedom of choice and expression into policy is always subject to reducing individual power, unless we're talking about direct democracy. More on that below, Yes, in Ontario they were as well as other provinces and held the balance of power in a coalition government Federally as well. If you don't like that kind of power, it's called compromise and sharing and that's what you will have with endless minority governments under PR - so I'm not sure why that bothers you. For Christ's sake, you get to vote... you don't think likening yourself to a slave is hyperbole ? But we STILL have FPTP ok, and we have more parties than back then so less wasted votes. So they were more mature than us, right ? Measure it by votes. Green party gets 10%... not enough. Not for me, but for the single vision that most people select as the most capable. It's representative democracy, you vote power to someone else you don't get it for you and your buddy. ----------------------------------------- Ok, Myata - although I think you've been fair and have argued your position in good faith - as you say, we're not getting anywhere. It's like people from two different cultures arguing about which foods taste good. We have different views of 'freedom' that prevent us from coming to a basic agreement. May I suggest an exercise for us ? I respect your debate enough to try this: maybe we can argue a position of 'direct democracy' vs 'PR' and see if we learn something more about the others' point of view. I would argue for either one, but I prefer arguing DD.

Sure. I'm somewhat reassured by your assertion here. I am also getting a little impatient, when my doctor has to constantly FAX information hither and to. Hmmmm.... Well.... I still think that open reporting would be good, especially as these new best practices are adopted. Ok.... moderatedly reassured, am I.

It's a question. You said something about 50% though... It seems from your answer that you're just going to defend the system, even if it continues to decline. That's my take on it. Yes - an Act can be called an initative, I think. Modern management practices tend to result in improvements, that's why they've been adopted. Engineering management, project management, service and customer management. It's all good. I could quote you items from question period - is that what you're looking for ? And... why ? Soon you'll be able to go to Toronto, it seems. Decline needs to be reversed, though, or revolution and chaos ensues as history shows us. Incremental changes are fine, especially if they're changes that are being field tested for the long haul. You have a reasonable take and a good perspective on all of this, likely the best of anybody who has come in on this topic (still makes me think you have inside knowledge from somewhere btw, not that there is anything wrong with that) and I appreciate your posting on this thread with me. I do wish you were more upset with things though. I feel that more openness could reverse our march towards privatization and that the internet may provide for changes in market information that make Adam Smith less relevant.

That's a non-answer. If it falls to 50% you'll wait to see how you feel about it then ? That's lame. If the trend is towards declining services and increasing costs, why wait to address it ? Certainly if the latest initiative we're looking at on this thread doesn't change the direction of those lines then the time will come for radical - yes, radical - change. If you don't take control of the situation, then it will control you and privatization will be the only option. How do you feel about privatization by the way ? I was involved in politics in my early teens... and the late 70s... - wait that is 5 decades ! The enemy is us, I agree, and the solution is us. I have seen too many people put trust in government where it wasn't warranted, or maybe this long time LOC voter has been brainwashed by Pliny.

I wanted to find out if you're one of those deluded PR supporters who sees a landslide for the Greens once the system is set to its proper and fair setup. If I don't understand something, restate your case for me. Your framing of the votes as "lost" or "thrown away" is just one perspective on the mathematical realities of FPTP but my main point remains - the fairness of a society isn't in the way it divies up the votes, but in the end result. As I already explained - parties have secret agreements even today. Your example is just made up. Again, how the votes are sliced and diced aren't the point. We have built a healthy and fair society with our current system. Bad analogy. Your system won't mean choosing one entity and giving them control, but choosing a multiplicity of entities who will have to work together. In business, it's preferable to charge one supplier with a task, otherwise suppliers will point the finger at each other. They're not thrown away. They are votes cast for a candidate. Again, we have built a stable and prosperous and fair society. You want to make a substantial change for no other reason than a small minority of people don't get their party elected. It's irresponsible. You *said* that it would make the system transparent but there's no evidence for that. As I said, parties make secret deals today, why wouldn't that continue ? You're making all of this up. Most people vote Liberal, NDP and Conservative with a fair chance that their party will see power, and when they do they will have a mandate to make change. This colonial master stuff is just silly. I have seen a few coalition governments in my life. So ? What's the difference between the UK version and our version ? Hey, that seems like you actually have a reason there. How many people know about these deals today then ? How many will know about them with PR ? That's an odd term to use 'mature'. Why are we more 'mature' than the Canadians of Confederation ? That's a stretch. I have a right to have my views represented in government, no matter how much of a fringe dweller I am. You have no such right. If you had this right then everyone would have it. They were great individuals but I already said that I dont really care much about portraits. For me the government exists as extension of my choice, or rather our collective choice and only as far as it represents me rather than some abstract idea. And if we cannot make meaningful choice anymore, past glories come as empty drumming to me. So I give you a solid example of why it's good to give power to a government that has vision, and you respond with "if my vote doesn't get somebody elected than I'm not free". Your zealotry would destroy this country over a stupid abstraction. If you can't get enough people interested in your cause to get people elected, then it's likely that you're not coming up with the best ideas. You don't give everybody on the bus a steering wheel either...

Adapt and overcome the complexity ? Yes, of course. But, again, there's nothing to say that PR will help. Ok, fair enough. You don't have a number, per se. My guess would be that low numbers would go that way. I would guess that most would follow the polls, as it is suspected to happen today. It's a subjective way of looking at the mathematics of it. If you put it that way, then a 2-party system is automatically more fair because there are less wasted votes, which is your term by the way not mine. If you have 10 choices, and only one winner, then on average you have 90% wasted votes. It's an effect of the mathematics, that's all. I can't figure out how this point supports PC. Again, you're asking for a way to look into somebody's heart and find their "true self". I can't do it any more than you can, but PR doesn't give us this. That's twice now we've discussed this example, and I still don't get it. The two main parties should dominate because they have 70% or so support. That is fair. I have provided a proposal that gives the minority and fringe a stronger voice in affairs. Because that's a topic for another thread. It's not related to allocation of MPs and is a HUGE topic on its own. It's about setting up decision-making processes that are appropriate to the era. In some cases, for example, governments need to declare martial law and suspend all rights when its necessary. I believe that our government reflects institutions and practices that predate the internet era, and require a complete make over. A singular vision is better to make that happen. This is what is called a 'circular proof'. What you're saying is "corrupt governments weren't held to their promises because we didn't have PR, therefore we need PR". How can you say that PR would fix this ? Again, and again and again: you can't. Subjective as to whether the change would mean anything. The end result is the legislation that comes out of this new form of government, and it's too complex to say what would happen. It's like bowling, and trying to predict where every pin will land. Why ? How ? Just using the term 'better' doesn't make it better. Why does PR result in better visibility ? You don't, you're right, but you have to illustrate why that's better than perpetual minority governments and coalitions. Would Paul Martin have been able to cut EI in a coalition ? No. Would Barack Obama have had an easier time passing healthcare with less bargain making to do in congress ? Yes, for sure. Why does sharing with other parties mean the public will find out ? The parties share information today that doesn't leak - deal making and th elike. Why is our electorate more 'mature' than in 1867 ? Do you mean older ? Yes, so your approach is therefore a complete overhaul of the way we do government, and why ? Because you don't consider the system fair. As such, you will risk the entire country for the minority of voters who don't get their parties elected ever. This is a country that has produced an incredible balance between right and left, and a country that stands above almost all others in its balance - but because it has never elected a Green Party member it's an unfair. This is what revolutionaries do. Well, that's some compromise but ... majority governments have given us big changes in our government and positive ones. There can never be a Trudeau or Mulroney under PR.

I'm not that impressed with those numbers, the one marked as Percent of population that rates medical care received as very good or excellent (2007) is at 75%, for those who have a regular doctor. Will you answer my question next ?

Right, and in this age of increasing complexity I don't see the value in adding to the galaxy of stakeholders. I'm just asking for your guess as to how many Liberal/Conservative voters will switch teams to Green party or others as a result of this. The arguments in favour are all subjective, as in "it's more fair" as in "it's more fair to me"... and the tired arguments we've already seen. If you have a new argument that is logical, please submit it. I haven't seen one yet that convinces me that PR should be adopted beyond my proposal. People need to demand better information than is provided on television, still the medium of choice for political communication. That's the topic for a different thread, though. Knowledge - no, that's part of communication and I addressed that already. Loss of control, then sure - there is less consultation and more pushing things through. Maybe some areas could use PR, but not service delivery. Those need an overhaul, as the government bureaucracies are 20 years behind the times in delivery of services. I'll give you this - if service delivery (health, education, etc.) was in good shape, I'd be more amenable to the suggestions of PR. If any government that didn't keep its promises was trounced in the following election, then they would keep their promises. But such governments actually get re-elected. Who is to blame ? I'm not sure but PR or not-PR can't really change the propensity for voters to look past such things. I don't know - I was responding to your point that I 'didn't trust voters' or somesuch. You're just restating buzzwords 'give us more visibility and control'. There's no evidence of this. Ask one person to do something, and it's their job to do it. Ask two or three people, and they point fingers at each other if it isn't done. Now, my example isn't proof that PR won't work... it's just a supposition. But it's not on me to disprove PR will work, it's on you to prove it will. And the buzz-words you use 'unrestricted choice' 'better visibility and control' seem to be backed up only by a hunch that things will be better with more political operators on the scene. Some of whom "may not be willing"... again, it's a guess. Maybe they will be willing to do so. You then reach the conclusion from there that this means transparency, conjured out of thin air. You aren't providing any evidence here, just supposition and it's tiresome. I have very little to criticize because there's no hard evidence. My vision is to improve communication, and to use a system the way it was successfully used for a long time. The original system wasn't designed for mass communication, universal sufferage and needs to address that. It's just a number. Numbers allow for reasonable people to discuss and compromise. Do you have a number or is it all or nothing with you ? What is xPC, I don't get that reference ?

I'm speaking to the general question about whether people have the right to program their children as tiny hate-robots. I'm not interested in any specific case that Lictor brings up, as I know that he ignores the lessons we have taught him in the past, and repeats the same logic mistakes over and over. I'm not throwing good time after bad...

I think the legal definitions of hate messaging are enough to answer your question. Religious thinking is far from illegal, in fact is protected specifically in the constitution.

Hate messaging is illegal, and for the precisely the same reasons that we don't want that kind of person transmitting deceptive and persuasive messages, it makes no sense to allow someone to instill them in children who haven't yet developed their critical faculties.

Please believe me, I'm not interested in misstating or fabricating. Most of the time my posts on this topic are ignored. If I were intending to deceive, then I wouldn't have quoted the original paragraph so close to my misquote would I ? I was intending on highlighting areas for concern. I really think we should get past this. If you think I'm being deceptive then we should just stop discussing, anyway. And as to which section this belongs in... not that intersting a discussion either. I'm underwhelmed by your response. I will ask again, more to the point: why are you not upset ? No one is suggesting stopping it. It shouldn't consist of modifications, tweaks and course corrections. If we don't get upset about the situation, then privatization will be forced upon us, period. I have actually mentioned it several times: they are legislating service levels are they not ? I even called back to the analogy of the manager who mandated all phones to be answered immediately, not recognizing the problems that his staff was facing. Simply put: this just appears to be more of the same, a continuation of the non-results that the eHealth agency has given us. You are satisifed with the status quo, which is decline, obfuscation, self-reporting and increasing costs. Given that you're the most knowledgable person on the topic I've discussed it with, your opinion represents a key segment of stakeholders - and, I'm afraid, you alone are making me wonder if two-tier is the only way to go. I am somebody who marched against Harris, who signed petitions, and who not only voted for the NDP, but worked for them over 4 decades. I'm disgusted with the complacency that is pervasive in the health sector and in Canadian society in general, and you personify that complacency. Again, my questions: - Why are you not upset at the results of these reports ? - At what levels will you become upset ?

Tend to...

We've already explained to you people countless times why these incidents don't prove anything. There's nothing more to be said about it, really.

Shwa, unlike others who have posted on this topic, you have a lot of knowledge about management and apparently about healthcare although you've been more coy about that. I am enjoying this discussion, but several posts replying will become tiresome. I think you get the gist of my argument. I'm still mystified as to why you're satisfied with the way things are, especially because you seem to understand engineering management practices. What is your take on this, then ? How would you improve things ? I would spend a billion, give billion, or more to make these things better but I can't trust the government to make change happen. They have already tried, and failed and I don't see why the same people will do better a second time.

It's the same thing, though. It's the delivery of services. The stakeholders are more numerous, and the importance of these things is higher, IMO. That's why we need to do it, and not be satisfied with Rogers Cable type service. Furthermore, if we do this properly - if we empower some smart people to make some major changes and explain their goals clearly then we will be able to fix healthcare. I'm convinced of that.