Michael Hardner

It doesn't seem that this is exactly so. It's a system that includes private components. Likewise, in Canada, banking is controlled by the big 5. Of course, large corporations controlling banking may be a concern. For the record, large corporations also control food production, health, education and pretty much every sector of the economy to a degree. Duty #1. Conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

Tom Clossom, President and CEO of the Ontario Hospital Association (btw - yet another "association" to add to the overhead, clutter and confusion as to how healthcare is managed and reported on in Ontario) was on CBC Radio 1 this morning, and estimated that 30% of doctors are using electronic filing. This, in 2010 ! That's 25 years after the arrival of the PC. Our medical system is in the dark ages, and it needs a jolt. I not only opposed Harris and privatization, I marched against him. But a full 15 years after Harris landed in the Premier's office, we're still arguing these things as 'public vs. private' and not 'how do we improve the system'. I have proposed ways that the public system could be improved, but it's like the old story about the mice putting a bell on the cat - who will do it ? There is no incentive for any of the parties to move forward.

I'm convinced that there simply is not enough knowledge about the system to say that it's definitely true. The byzantine arrangement of associations, private and public organizations that are engaged to do this appear to be organized somewhat like wildlife in the forest. As for doctors doing well, isn't this a question of labour supply ? It seems straightforward enough, and yet we still hear about shortages. That would be a good point, except that we have been talking about this for years now and the system has not improved, nor risen to the challenge. I believe that private ventures would reduce government expenditures by deploying labour more efficiently. If this assertion is incorrect, then the private ventures will fail, or will not even enter the market.

How is that ? Oh, you're an atheist. Sorry, I had no idea you were religious. You're not following me. I'm giving examples of how religious or other concerns are adopted by institutions when they can. In no case do those institutions come out and say "we will not accommodate other views". The possible exception would be St. Michael's hospital not allowing abortion, and that's a religious exception that goes the other way - i.e. the institution is religious. Nobody is talking about banning the face covering, but requiring women to show their faces to men if called upon to do so for identification. It's ridiculous, as it would be simple to accommodate them in a small way but as I pointed out there Jean Charest, aka Harpo, needs to toot his horn.

Speaking of which, the McGuinty Liberal budget was launched last week, and I didn't hear the word 'eHealth' mentioned once.

Bush's extreme unpopularity after Katrina forced him to demand a re-think of Iraq, and an approach that was more realistic. As a result of that plan, coalition fatalities started falling, and civilian ones too after that. This went largely unreported in the press, and was ignored by people who appeared to be simply bored of the story. As much as I despised Bush, and felt he was unqualified for the role, this was one area where he turned things around, and was simply ignored for it. Another area was in aid for Africa. My philosophy is that if you complain about the Bush of the world, then it's your job to pay attention and to change your tune on those occasions when they do listen.

Should be: Sure, but that right is NOT guaranteed to her any more than I have the right to take off Yom Kippur.

There are lots of examples - both reasonable and unreasonable. If authorities demand a strip search, then you can request an officer of your gender - that's an example of the government respecting individual preferences for modesty, irregardless of religion. Universities don't schedule exams on religious holy days. Hospitals negotiate around issues of religion, as well as gender, orientation and what have you in the best ways they can. None of these institutions slams the gauntlet down on any group just because they can - that action is in the exclusive (or exclusif) domain of politicians who want to flaunt their patriotic colours like the red-and-white Beaver-peacocks they are.

But I expect that this does happen now. There are sects of the other two of the 'big 3' religions that declare women unclean, and do not allow contact with them.

Sure, but that right is guaranteed to her any more than I have the right to take off Yom Kippur.

How is discrimination against men happening here ? This isn't clear at all.

And yet my contribution to this thread is as court jester only. Maybe I'm finally learning.

I have never seen an estimate that says the population will reach 40 billion. Population growth is slowing. We can't assume things about the future, but if that's true why do you post anything about Global Warming. And agricultural productivity is, similarly, a line that keeps going up. The same types of scientists who make temperature models make population and economic models. Like I said, don't wade into the pool of predicting the future, but instead urge that we plan for a reasonable worst-case.

They can't tell, they can only ask. The government tells or doesn't tell. You inferred that you can tell them how to dress when you said: Implying that gender equality means we can tell women not to dress according to their religion. The government does accommodate non-religious people on grounds of modesty so why not provide that consideration for religious people ?

In Soviet Russia, facebook group joins YOU.

Communists who take an oath to a foreign power, whom they will obey above national priorities no less.

In two hundred years we will have global population decline, I believe, by current estimates. Also, you will likely see great improvements in agricultural technology. It`s better to say that the future is unknown, and we need to plan for it than to state specifics about how many people will be around, or how difficult it will be to feed people.

Yes, here it is Afghanistan has women-only polling stations.

This is from memory, but I believe they provided a woman for that service, which is why I`m suggesting it here.

I`m learning from this discussion - thanks. If it works to have the banks only be able to guarantee some of what they lend out, why force governments to hold their entire currency in gold or precious metals ? It seems archaic, unnecessary and hard to manage.

Why don`t we ban nuns ? They have to take a vow of poverty, meaning that they own practically nothing and give everything to the church.

The corporate tax rate they proposed last time around was low too, but in true NDP fashion they neglected to push this message in case mainstream voters fear that they`re reasonable and capable of governing.

Well, if women choose to dress in that way what is your business to tell them they can`t ?

I agree 100%.

Interestingly, you base your opinion on the whining you hear. This tells me Canadians don`t whine enough. ( I know, hard to believe eh ? ) Also, you`re comparing our system with the US based on cost, rather than comparing our system with itself. Why is that ? If the measure is against the US system, we can decline quite a bit before our system is bad. Thirdly, we will never have a US-style system here yet that is entirely how the debate is framed every time it comes up. I want to point out again that I have supported one-tier when Harris took the knife to government-supplied services. I was glad when he was drummed out of office, but the Liberals have been nothing but a cynical replacement. Are they better than Harris ? In my opinion, yes. But they take advantage of the fact that most Canadians don`t complain.