Canadian Blue

Agreed.

Not necessarily, the United States is really grasping on to its public education system. If you look at most countries school reform has taken shape in one form or another, and the Netherlands also has a school voucher system where parents are given full freedom in terms of choosing which school their kids go to. I can to some degree see the need for funding a public school if their are no other alternatives available though.

Basically the entire corridor between Calgary and Edmonton has been growing quite abit. I know that my town has ballooned from around 5,000 people a decade ago to approximately 12,000 residents today.

Michael Ignatieff is not the "Prince of Darkness." If anything I'd call him a blue Liberal.

MH are you referring to school vouchers and the charter schools that are being touted in the United States? It seems that giving parents a choice in where they get to put their money for education actually has helped some of the poorer neighbourhoods. http://www.reason.tv/video/show/60.html

Are these entities competing for funding from the government to ensure they give the best care to patients. That's the benefit of the system I'm touting is that it will allow for more competition and innovation within the system, which is far greater improvement than the system we currently have.

Bingo, neo-conservative can mean just about anything these days. I've heard people refer to libertarians as neo-conservatives even though technically speaking libertarianism preaches non-interventionism. Both Robert Stanfield and Joe Clark were Red Tories, Brian Mulroney and Peter MacKay are considered Blue Tories. If we are to simply say that a neo-conservative is anyone that was born this generation we might as well term David Orchard a neo-conservative as well. No, they're coming back. Andre Bachand recently ran for the Tories federally, and hopefully in the next election he'll opt for a seat that's winnable. As well Red Tories traditionally are considered to be socially conservative and economically nationalist. Which is somewhat different from the current definition which seems to be anyone that is pro-choice and pro-gay rights who happens to be a member of the CPC.

The Edmonton Clinic looks promising, however it still doesn't negate the fact that individuals do not have any other choices in this system if they are unhappy with the care they received. At the very least if people are allowed to choose multiple providers including a public one, they can decide to spend their money on alternative means of getting care. Allowing competition will not endanger the Edmonton Clinic, in fact it will only encourage governments to look at those kinds of improvements to help meet patients demands.

All you have to do is make coverage compulsory. As well you put in a well regulated framework for the private sector ensuring that they meet their commitments to the patient. For medical procedures that are a requirement for the well being and livelihood of an individual you setup a certain pool covered through taxation that can meet any cost overruns. I realize that, but I think additionally if we had a vibrant private sector in Canada as well they could help train doctors and entice people to come from overseas. Just look at the success of the Mayo Clinic in the United States.

I'd allow them to lose their monopoly status.

Generally speaking most members have already lost touch with their people. When most people go to vote in an election the most important factor isn't the name on the ballot, but instead the party they represent.

Toothpaste isn't that expensive, if you're truly concerned about your teeth you can layoff the sweets and pop.

If they don't want to deal with insurance companies then they can put their money into the public system. Don't think that I'll do away with the public system entirely, all I'll do is ensure that each Canadian is given a certain amount of money for health expenditures, if they wish to opt out of the public system they can, if not they can keep that money flowing to the government. These 'avenues' have been talked about for ages and little action has been done. My view is that we should allow your average taxpayer to decide whether or not they would rather keep funding the public system, or if they wish opt out and go the private route. As I've stated many times before my preference is for a system similar to Singapore.

My biggest concern in the end is the extra costs that come about due to additional MP's. The salary of each MP is approximately $130,000 each, add on all the benefits and pension and I'm certain you get a far larger number. If we were to keep on going the same route that we are now how much money will we be losing just for the sake of the government in power not having to deal with any PR issues if PEI or Quebec lost seats. I'd actually all be for reducing the amount of MP's in the HoC to a static number of 300.

I'm certain the only reason such a system would meet opposition is due to the rhetoric employed by groups like Friends of Medicare, and not the merits of it. People would still get the same level of funding per-person that we currently have, however the big difference would be that each individual can decide on their own which doctor or form of health insurance they would want, whether it's public or private. I recall in the lat 90's politicians were talking about how to reduce waiting times, a decade later the same discussion is going on. We won't evolve as long as the government assumes that the best answer to all of our problems is to simply throw around money in a drunken orgy hoping all our problems will go away.

TD, if you're argument against making any kind of reform is that the evil libertarians want to destroy the system and nothing else, then you've already admitted that you aren't open to any suggestions for reform, no matter how valid they might be. Problem is that even if we saw reforms that we wanted, we'd have to wait while the politicians dragged their feet when it came to healthcare. At the very least if we had a system where the patient is given the choice between a number of healthcare alternatives including public insurance, the system would have to remain competitive and meet the changing demands of patients. In the current system nobody is really accountable for the problems in healthcare, the current system is open to abuse and is unable to meet the demands which it has been given. Think for a second if you were to run a general store, how would you operate your store if you were the only business in town and the government essentially granted you a monopoly. Chances are that it would likely become inefficient, corrupt, and not produce the best product for the people. If on the other hand you had to compete with several other businesses you'd try to make your business more competitive. The same should be true of healthcare whereby funding instead follows the patient.

I generally agree with you. But I wish we had a mechanism in place where if a province were to lose a certain percentage of it's population it would also lose the equivalent number of seats. So if Quebec loses 100,000 people and Alberta gains 100,000, then Alberta would gain one seat from Quebec.

This is just another example of how that rabid and sociopathic Stephen Harper is attempting to take power by destroying the Liberals. 21 seats for Ontario, the death penalty tommorrow. He's alot like Dexter Morgan.... and Adolf Hitler's dog.

So we should simply become content with having a mediocre system because the private sector is more open to innovation and efficiency than the public system?

We're not talking about the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!! We're talking about making reforms to the Canadian healthcare system. Like I stated before just once I'd like to see an argument against any reform that didn't include a reference to the United States, even though myself and every other proponent of some reforms have stated that's the last system we want. Jesus Christ. That's what our current system basically does if you're on a waiting list, the only difference is that their are no alternatives for you in Canada. Once again, that depends on which system she's with. If theirs more competition then she could very well get better care due to the fact some physicians would like to see your dollars spent in the private sector instead of the public system. Problem is that you haven't even bothered to read anything posted, nor can you show how people are dying in droves in countries with some private healthcare involvement. So your argument is based on pure emotion and nothing else, no?

The Littlest Hobo and The Raccoons.

It's their choice. I think we can allow adults to make decisions over what they want in their careers. As well the administrators of public hospitals will need to learn how to become more efficient, which isn't a bad thing. Competition breeds innovation. Depends on which system he's working in. Right now you're just grasping at straws giving us a bunch of situational questions. People don't die by the thousands in any of the countries I cited, and allowing private insurance in Canada likely won't mean we'll need mass graves. Yes, I was. I've already cited which system I prefer, now you're just going on with BS situational questions since you can't defend your own position.

Yeah, I can't help but wonder how much progress has been halted due to a few shrill individuals who like to invoke fear anytime theirs talk of making changes to our ailing system.

I wouldn't worry too much about it, if theirs more of a profit to be made from doing medicine I'm sure we'll get more doctors. However I'm certain triage would still be the name of the game on the public side. That you're belief that any form of competition or private insurance will result in massive deathtolls because we allowed some doctors to work for profit. You can't really make any arguments against allowing private healthcare, or for that matter show how any nation with both universal healthcare and private healthcare have resulted in more deaths so I can safely assume that allowing some competition in our system will not result in the anarchy you're describing.

If you want to know which system I'd prefer then read on my dear friend. http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/bus/storie...n2.21730ee.html http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/23...ld-switzerland/ http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/01/14...th-care-system/ http://www.singaporeexpats.com/guides-for-...n-singapore.htm