Black Dog

So you think your unicorns can run faster than the curent crop of horses and mules? If we want to talk about things that are irellevant to the debate, let's talk about an economic philosophy that does not reflect reality, and will not reflect reality. It's great that you have firm convictions and I respect your views, but if you want to start talking about how the free market will save health care, you should first explain how you propose to pull down the current political/economic system and rebuild the new one in its place. The fact that there's only 4 million people in a tiny landmass doesn't hurt either. That's the problem with free market thinking: it tends to assume the market is the only factor to consider.

Okay, let's disregard hard data showing for-profit health care is actually more costly in favour of economic theories! Awesome! Of course, you could try arguing for solutions within the parameters of the current system which, by all indications, isn't going anywhere. Hugo, you know bloody well that, under the curent system of state sponsored capitalism, there's no free market, and the state picks the winners in business. Arguing for an incerased free market prescence in the health care system is like arguing for an increase in the number of unicorns. Singapore

Except for the fact that the Pope's funeral is also the lead story on ctv.ca, canada.com and the globeandmail.com. Boo yah.

Wasn't the original Pope a 12 foot tall lizard anyway?

Name me some left-wing pundits who command audiences as big as Rush's and O'Reilly's or who's apperances on talking head programs are as plentiful as Ann Coulter's. There simply aren't that many genuine, prominet progressive voices out there. Maybe that's because, with the exception of people like Michael Moore, progressives depend on facts and reason over the wild accusations, overblown rhetoric, out-there hyperbole and perjoratives used by the right wing pundits I named. Lefty eggheads just don't make as good TV. Did I say that? Nope. You assumed. I made a general comment about opinion versus "real" news and cited right-wing pundits because they are simply more abundant. Maybe you should try responding to the substance of the discussion instead of the suppositions you create in your moderate brain. Oh that stings. I'll be crying myself to sleep tonight over that one. Word of advice: spend more time composing arguments and less time casting aspersions on other posters' credibility.

So criticism of Israel is criticsm of Jews?

Huh? The Cons' platform is a mirror image of the Liberals'. That doesn't speak to an earnest desire to mess with the status quo. The alternative vuiew is that the bland platitudes they spew are merely a sop to the electorate, a inoffensive Trojan Horse that will allow them access to the levers of power in order to implement their true agendas. Which raises the question of what that agenda is and why they feel the need to hide it behind a Liberal-lite platform. Again, why the bland BS? If they are so convinced (as you seem to be) that their real beliefs will resonate with Canadians, why are they afraid to show their true colours?

Bingo. I expect people here on MLW tend to be a tab more media savvy than most. Trot out terms like "convergence" to the average Joe Lunchpail and tehy won't have a clue what you're talking about. I'm sure that many people treat the content they see on FoxNews and CNN as unvarnished reporting by virtue of it being on a news channel. The distinction between news and opinion is lost on people, especially when the line is so often blurred by editorializing within straight news and the format in which opinions are presented. Look at someone like Rush Limbaugh, a man prone to making factually challened pronouncements about the world. These are his opinions, but they are couched in such away as to appear factual. I think programs such as Crossfire or the O'reilly factor should come with warning labels that run across the bottom of the screen and state something along the lines of "the views presented here are soley the views of theparticipants and do not reflect the opinions of this station. X is not responsible for any factual innaccuracies, half truths or wingnuttery expressed by the participants of this program. Especially Ann Coulter. That chick is nutso."

I guess the question I have to ask is: where will this new breed of private health care service providers come from if we alllow a greater for-profit component to our system? Will they spring whole from the earth, or will they cross the border, bringing with them the same business pratcices that have resultd in the U.S.'s health care system becoming such a gawdawful mess. Something to consider, anyway. Frankly I have no desire to see public dollars eaten up by private sector inefficienceis any more than what is already occurring. private health, while wholesal like the U.S. or two-tiered as in some European countires, has failed. No matter where you look the private system costs more and, as a result of the higher costs and limited competition (it's hard to argue that a few select service providers, operating inder tight government restriction can truly be considered a free market environment), the public system ends up subsidizing the private one. I'd be happy allowing to spend your money on going elsewhere for care. But in a situation where expanding the role of for-rofit health care providers leads to an inevitable decline in public services for the rest of us, I don't see why those who can afford to seek extra services should be alowed to ruin it for everyone else.

I'm not clear on what you mean. Possibly. But I question whether the political will exists to do so (ensure parralelle, competitive systems). We've already seen that centre-right politicians are perfectly willing to cut health care. Now, I believe that the ruling elites (the same people who took the axe to the public system in the first place, as well as folks like Stephen Harper who would, if given the chance, chop even further) did so in a deliberate effort to weaken the public system and pave the way for an expanded for-profit prescence. In short, I don't trust the people who benefit most from chopping the system (people who don't really depend on public health care anyway) to be trustworthy guardians of the public system. Foxes and henhouses, don't you know.

Continued from here. Let's start with the claim that increased private sector involvement in health service provision would be cheaper. Not so says this 2004 study. Other claims: Hmm. let's see. We have people claiming that private health care doesn't take anything away from the public system and, in fact, it would relieve pressure on the public system as a whole. Theoretically, that's possible...assuming the public system continues to be well-funded. But that's a big assumption to make. propionents of private health like to cite examples of private facilities having shorter waiting lists, better facilities, yadda yadda. But this is never reconciled with the parrallel idea that the public system is going to hell. If the private system is so good at correcting these problems, why aren't we seeing the results in the public system? For example, look at Alberta, where (we're told) private providers of services such as MRI's have shorter wait lists and faster times than the public system. That's super for the people who choose that system (if they can afford it), yet the waiting times for the same services in the public system are still significant. Why is that?

It also introduces increased costs: capital costs, marketing, administrative costs etc. But hey, let's take this elsewhere.

Funny: I read the article posted, but didn't see any mention of Jews. Why, if i didn't know better, I'd think some of you were taking this information and using it to reaffirm your own prejudices. Could that be....?

No, it's actually very true. They pretty much say as much: Can you give us some examples? In any case, I've got some examples of how the Fraser Institute has used data very selectively to prove their preordained conclusion that mor eprivate health care is better. Unfortunately I don't have it at my figertips, but will try to get it within the week. Yes, very odd, given the expanded role of private health care service providers in the system. It's weird: as the public system was slashed over the past two decades, the private componen of the system grew. Yet waiting times and costs have proliferated. Now if an increased for-profit prescence was the magic bullet, wouldn't waiting times decrease? Interestingly enough, mixed private/public systems like the UK don't have any appreciable impact on waiting lists.

So when you say there's no fundamental difference between the Cons and Liberals, it's gospel, yet when I say the exact same thing, it's "utter drivel". In other words, you're earlier comment was just about you being a snarky d**k. May I remind you that you yourself, in the previous thread and your reply above, have intimated that he Cons don't want to change anything. Again: Why, that doesn't seem like you earnestly believe they want change, does it? See, unlike my peers, I don't beleive the Cons will make any dramatic changes should they get power. They'll be too intoxicated by the rarified air of government to do anything that would seriously jeapordixe their position. Sure, they'll chip away at things like health care, education, Canadian sovereignty, just like the Liberals and PCs before them. But sweeping change is not in the cards. The only real changes will come in who'se pockets are being lined and who's pals get appointed to prominent posts. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Care to back that up? For-profit healh care is not only less effective and more costly on its own, but also increases the overall costs to the system. The High Cost of For-Profit Care The evidence from all of the OECD countries shows that publicly funded and administered medical care is cheaper than a mixed public-private system, provided the former is sufficiently funded.

BWAHAHAHA! Stop. My sides. Klein's budgets are smoke and mirrors. His regime could teach Enron a thing or two about creative accounting. A slush fund here, a lowballed revenue estimate there.... But you are. Let's see what you said: So then you're more lik ethe people who grudginly support the Liberals becaus ethey don't like the alternatives. Same difference.

Notwithstanding the troublesome tidbit that public spending in Alberta (save for private sector subsidies) had been declining for several years and was even below the Canadian average when the Klein government came along. So it's not as though Ralph started out great and got corrupted. He was corrupt from day one. Patronage, corporate welfare: these are cherished traditions in Alberta's political establishment. So in that respect you are identical to an ardent federal Liberal supporter: "Sure, I'll take corruption, greed and lies anyday, so long as the greedy liars are my kind of people." Me? I'm just riffing...

Very good observation IMR. Now, can you tell us why the Kleinsters are so self-serving?

Here's the thing: there's plenty of examples of Conservative style governments that have promised to shrink government, increrases services, put a chicken in every pot blah blah blah. And in every case, they've failed. Conservative governments on the balance tend to be the most fiscally irresponisble. But that';s a debate for another day. Except the current archaic FPTP voting system guarantees a distorted election outcome. I don't think the Cons will win, at least not a majority. they'll be shut out of Quebec, that much is certain. Well this is a ludicrous statement. For one thing, casting a vote for one party does not necessarily reflect a deep-seated belief in whatever that party stands for. There's many reasons why that is, but, quite frankly, I'm not interested in having this discussion. Utter drivel. Gee, Argie baby, you sure flip-flopped in a hurry. What happened to, and I quote: ?Did you have a epihany? Or is it just crass opportunism on your part that has you leaping back on the Con bandwagon?

Which kinda make sone wonder why anyone who doesn't like the Liberals would vote Con. I mean, the Cons have no vision, no desire to change anything. Their constant bleating reminds me of the runt pigs who are stuck behind the big sow at the through. They don't want to change the world, they just want a chance to stuff their faces.

When something's quality is degraded over time, what is the end result of that process? But I guess its better to wait until the situation is dire before acting. The god of growth demands absolute fealty, after all.

Oh and you brought so much to the table! Aside from blowing smoke up Coulter's colon and pontificating about the subject of Canada (a subject you clearly know FA about) you slink away. You're out of your element. Uh look at the numbers again: are you seriously positing that a quarter of the population is committing half the crimes? Oh well, if you think so. That changes everything. But if one wanted to prove the deterrent value of the death penalty , one would simply have to look at the crime rate for capital crimes in juridtictions death penalty versus those that don't have the death penalty. And guess what? Homicide rate in U.S. states with capital punishment have been 48% to 101% higher than those without the death penalty (New York Times). As well, the five countries with the highest homicide rates that do not impose the death penalty average 21.6 murders per 100,000 people. The five countries with the highest homicide rate that do impose the death penalty average 41.6 murders for every 100,000 people. And that has what to do with this discussion?

Earth's Health in Sharp Decline, Massive Study Finds

Agreed.